Guest SAA Posted November 4, 2019 at 03:05 AM Report Share Posted November 4, 2019 at 03:05 AM Two items , with others , on a proposed agenda were : 1. A general order that the assembly take an action . This proposal had never been the subject of an earlier main motion to go forward ; and 2. A matter of Unfinished Business that was postponed to the present meeting . A motion was made after Call to Order to adopt the agenda ,as proposed . This was then followed by a motion to amend , the motion to adopt the agenda , to strike out both items 1 and 2 . The Chair allowed the motion to amend as applying to the general order but not the matter under Unfinished Business . The rationale given was that a general order ( never the subject of a main motion) can be struck out by a majority vote through amendment. But the matter of Unfinished Business had been moved at an earlier meeting , and could not be struck out - by a motion to amend . Was this correct ? Thank - you . SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 4, 2019 at 01:00 PM Report Share Posted November 4, 2019 at 01:00 PM 9 hours ago, Guest SAA said: Two items , with others , on a proposed agenda were : 1. A general order that the assembly take an action . This proposal had never been the subject of an earlier main motion to go forward ; and 2. A matter of Unfinished Business that was postponed to the present meeting . A motion was made after Call to Order to adopt the agenda ,as proposed . This was then followed by a motion to amend , the motion to adopt the agenda , to strike out both items 1 and 2 . The Chair allowed the motion to amend as applying to the general order but not the matter under Unfinished Business . The rationale given was that a general order ( never the subject of a main motion) can be struck out by a majority vote through amendment. But the matter of Unfinished Business had been moved at an earlier meeting , and could not be struck out - by a motion to amend . Was this correct ? Thank - you . SAA No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted November 4, 2019 at 05:37 PM Report Share Posted November 4, 2019 at 05:37 PM Thank you very much for the repose of " no "- Mr Honemann . I should have asked for some reasoning to go along with any answer and with respect to each point raised . Are you able to add just a bit of explanation respecting this inquiry . Thank-you . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake Savory Posted November 4, 2019 at 05:58 PM Report Share Posted November 4, 2019 at 05:58 PM I believe the rationale is that a previous session cannot force the current session to take certain actions. I'm sure other will have a much better way of explaining this but in your case the current session has the right to not consider item #2 in its meeting - even if it ends up killing the motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 4, 2019 at 06:04 PM Report Share Posted November 4, 2019 at 06:04 PM 24 minutes ago, Guest SAA said: Thank you very much for the repose of " no "- Mr Honemann . I should have asked for some reasoning to go along with any answer and with respect to each point raised . Are you able to add just a bit of explanation respecting this inquiry . Thank-you . Tell me more about your organization. How frequently does it meet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 4, 2019 at 06:13 PM Report Share Posted November 4, 2019 at 06:13 PM 14 hours ago, Guest SAA said: The Chair allowed the motion to amend as applying to the general order but not the matter under Unfinished Business . The rationale given was that a general order ( never the subject of a main motion) can be struck out by a majority vote through amendment. But the matter of Unfinished Business had been moved at an earlier meeting , and could not be struck out - by a motion to amend . Was this correct ? No, this is not correct. The assembly may strike either or both of these items if it wishes to do so, although I imagine that (as is often the case) there may be some confusion regarding the effect of striking an item from the agenda. Even if the item of Unfinished Business was struck from the agenda, it would still be an item of Unfinished Business (and should therefore be taken up automatically after Unfinished Business has been reached and all items on the agenda have been completed). On the other hand, the other item is no longer a general order, but it could still be moved under New Business. (This assumes the assembly has no rules of its own on this matter.) The purpose of an agenda is not to limit what items may be considered at the meeting, but to ensure that the most important items are considered first. It should also be noted of course, that most assemblies likely need not bother with an agenda and would be served perfectly well by the Standard Order of Business in RONR. 11 minutes ago, Drake Savory said: I believe the rationale is that a previous session cannot force the current session to take certain actions. I'm sure other will have a much better way of explaining this but in your case the current session has the right to not consider item #2 in its meeting - even if it ends up killing the motion. Okay, but unless the assembly has its own rules on this subject, striking the item from the agenda, in and of itself, will not prevent its consideration. (Although the assembly could immediately adopt a motion to adjourn after all business on the agenda was completed.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted November 4, 2019 at 07:46 PM Report Share Posted November 4, 2019 at 07:46 PM 1 hour ago, Josh Martin said: The purpose of an agenda is not to limit what items may be considered at the meeting, but to ensure that the most important items are considered first. Is there such a thing as certain types of organizations that have no standard order of business, and by statute, only items that have been served with previous notice and included in the agenda are items that can be considered to the exclusion of anything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 4, 2019 at 10:44 PM Report Share Posted November 4, 2019 at 10:44 PM 2 hours ago, Guest Zev said: Is there such a thing as certain types of organizations that have no standard order of business, and by statute, only items that have been served with previous notice and included in the agenda are items that can be considered to the exclusion of anything else? Yes, certainly such organizations exist, and if the organization is indeed subject to applicable laws governing this subject, the organization should refer to those laws to determine 1) whether it is in order to remove properly noticed items from the agenda and 2) if so, what is the effect of doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted November 5, 2019 at 01:12 AM Report Share Posted November 5, 2019 at 01:12 AM 5 hours ago, Guest Zev said: Is there such a thing as certain types of organizations that have no standard order of business Even if the organization adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority, the standard order of business only applies if it has not adopted a special order of business and not if "the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are usually more than a quarterly time interval." (RONR 11th ed., p. 353, ll. 20-22). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted November 5, 2019 at 01:42 AM Report Share Posted November 5, 2019 at 01:42 AM Mr Honemann : The general membership meets twice annually - approx 500 members . The Board meets ten times a year and the board produces the draft agenda for the two annual member meetings . Does that help to allow for some explanation on the response as to " no " ? Robert's Rules are adopted but few people in the entire assembly have a clue as to the proper use these rules .The bylaws do not discuss anything respecting the agenda - but use of agenda is a very long standing custom and practice . Mr Martin : I gather, as well, that the answer of Mr. Martin is also " no" . His answer seems to suggest that the motion to amend was applicable for both points 1 and 2 . But then Mr. Martin informs that the postponed matter ,potentially remains in play ( ? )- while not on the agenda (?) . I don't understand this as it seems that in striking a matter from the agenda - then that is finished - it's no longer part of the business of the meeting . But Mr. Martin seems to suggest it exits to the extent that it can be put back on the agenda ? But why would it ever be " taken up " , and how so , if it was struck ? This is a bit confusing and perhaps Mr. Martin could clarify this . As well I'm trying to understand if Mr. Martin and Mr. Honemann are agreed . ? If a motion to amend the agenda can strike out a postponed matter of Unfinished Business it means that the amendment process can be used to defeat a main motion. I had considered that a basic procedural rule is that one cannot defeat a main motion through the process of amendment ? Thanks a lot for all who have taken time to respond . SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 5, 2019 at 11:00 AM Report Share Posted November 5, 2019 at 11:00 AM In view of the fact that there is more than a three month interval between regular meetings of your membership, there is no such thing as a "general order" or an item of "unfinished business" that can come over from a previous meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted November 5, 2019 at 05:39 PM Report Share Posted November 5, 2019 at 05:39 PM Thank -you for the note Mr Honemann . We have it seems not been applying this three motnh rule and will now have to re-visit this as well . I will understand nevertheless that if member meetings were under three months the answer would be the same " no " that you initially offered as to the ruling of the Chair on points 1 and 2 , and that Mr. Martin provided accurate analysis . I hope that is correct as I do not wish to take up more of the Forum time with those follow up questions . Thank-you SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 5, 2019 at 07:11 PM Report Share Posted November 5, 2019 at 07:11 PM 53 minutes ago, Guest SAA said: Thank -you for the note Mr Honemann . We have it seems not been applying this three motnh rule and will now have to re-visit this as well . I will understand nevertheless that if member meetings were under three months the answer would be the same " no " that you initially offered as to the ruling of the Chair on points 1 and 2 , and that Mr. Martin provided accurate analysis . I hope that is correct as I do not wish to take up more of the Forum time with those follow up questions . Thank-you SAA The answer to your original question is "no", no matter how many months actually intervene between your meetings. The "number of months intervention" question affects proper terminology and the vote required for adoption of the proposed agenda (regardless of whether or not it has been amended). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM Report Share Posted November 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM (edited) 21 hours ago, Guest SAA said: I gather, as well, that the answer of Mr. Martin is also " no" Well, the answer is essentially “No, but everyone is probably worrying too much about what is and is not on the agenda.” 21 hours ago, Guest SAA said: ut then Mr. Martin informs that the postponed matter ,potentially remains in play ( ? )- while not on the agenda (?) . I don't understand this as it seems that in striking a matter from the agenda - then that is finished - it's no longer part of the business of the meeting . But Mr. Martin seems to suggest it exits to the extent that it can be put back on the agenda ? But why would it ever be " taken up " , and how so , if it was struck ? This is a bit confusing and perhaps Mr. Martin could clarify this . As well I'm trying to understand if Mr. Martin and Mr. Honemann are agreed . ? If a motion to amend the agenda can strike out a postponed matter of Unfinished Business it means that the amendment process can be used to defeat a main motion. I had considered that a basic procedural rule is that one cannot defeat a main motion through the process of amendment ? Well, the fact that this assembly meets less frequently than quarterly means there is no Unfinished Business, since in such assemblies, business which is not finished is not carried over to the next meeting. Additionally, in such assemblies, a general order cannot be created for a future meeting. So neither of these items was anything at the time the agenda was pending. If they had been part of the adopted agenda, they would have been general orders for the meeting. So the chair’s distinction between them was meaningless, and both items could be struck from the agenda. Unless the assembly has its own rules on this subject, however, there is no requirement that an item of business must be listed on the agenda in order to be considered. After all items on the agenda are completed, members may make motions in New Business. Edited November 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts