Agenda musings

[Rob Elsman]

It is worth noting that an agenda that conflicts with the established order of business requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.  If RONR has been adopted as the society's parliamentary authority, the standard order of business is binding for this board, unless the society has adopted its own order of business.  Therefore, if the proposed agenda has the effect of rearranging the categories of business or interfering with the taking up of any item of business out of its assigned order, then the adoption of the agenda requires a two-thirds vote, since the applicable rules are suspended.

It is a common misunderstanding that the adoption of an agenda at the beginning of a regular meeting prohibits the introduction of further new business not listed.  However, in the common parliamentary law, any new business can be transacted at a regular meeting after the listed items of business have been gone through, provided that previous notice is not required.

The ordinary way to shut off the introduction of further new business is to adopt a motion to Adjourn.  It is also possible to end a meeting at a certain hour (remember the old saying, "Nothing good happens after 9 p.m.") "up front", so to speak, by including in the agenda an order to adjourn at an assigned hour.  Because such an agenda has the effect of suspending the rules, it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption; however, it also requires a two-thirds vote to set aside the order when the assigned hour has arrived.

For most boards of ordinary societies, the standard order of business is sufficient.  There is little to be gained by adopting any kind of agenda at the beginning of the meeting.  Because of common misunderstandings, though, these kinds of agendas are often causes for confusion and friction.

Edited June 25, 2020 at 12:00 AM by Rob Elsman

[Shmuel Gerber]

28 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

The ordinary way to shut off the introduction of further new business is to adopt a motion to Adjourn.  It is also possible to end a meeting at a certain hour (remember the old saying, "Nothing good happens after 9 p.m.") "up front", so to speak, by including in the agenda an order to adjourn at an assigned hour.  Because such an agenda has the effect of suspending the rules, it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption; however, it also requires a two-thirds vote to set aside the order when the assigned hour has arrived.

What rule is suspended by setting the time of adjournment?

[Rob Elsman]

Like a special order assigned to a certain hour, the chair interrupts the business being transacted when the assigned hour arrives.

[Shmuel Gerber]

17 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

Like a special order assigned to a certain hour, the chair interrupts the business being transacted when the assigned hour arrives.

That's true. But do you think that any main motion setting the time of adjournment therefore requires a two-thirds vote?

[Rob Elsman]

if the intent of the main motion is that the chair interrupts the transaction of an item of business in order to adjourn, it is a special order assigned to a certain hour and requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

[Rob Elsman]

Reflecting on the matter, I am less certain of my previous remark with respect to conventions and mass meetings. At the time I wrote, I had in mind the particular facts of this thread.

[Shmuel Gerber]

9 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

if the intent of the main motion is that the chair interrupts the transaction of an item of business in order to adjourn, it is a special order assigned to a certain hour and requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

I disagree. Item #3 on tinted pp. 6–7, RONR (11th ed.) says that a motion to adjourn at a future time requires a majority vote.

[Rob Elsman]

I knew you would reply as you have, and that's why I carefully qualified my remarks. 🙂

The motion you speak of is a main motion that sets a future time for adjournment without an interruption of the pending item of business. It is like a general order assigned to a certain hour. Unlike what I said above, such a motion can be adopted by majority vote.

However, I stick to my guns, so to speak, when it comes to an order requiring the interruption of pending business. Such an order is like a special order assigned to a certain hour, and it's adoption requires a two-thirds vote.

[Shmuel Gerber]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

The motion you speak of is a main motion that sets a future time for adjournment without an interruption of the pending item of business. It is like a general order assigned to a certain hour. Unlike what I said above, such a motion can be adopted by majority vote.

I see no evidence of the existence of any such motion in RONR. Whenever a motion is adopted to adjourn at a certain time, the adjournment is treated like an order of the day for that time, but having higher priority even than a special order.

[Rob Elsman]

Since a motion setting the future hour at which to adjourn is never a privileged motion, it does not enjoy the high rank nor the immediate effects of its privileged brother, because it does not express the right of the assembly to immediately stop sitting.  It merely creates a special order or a general order, depending on the form of the motion; as such, a motion containing the intent to interrupt the transaction of the current item of business and adjourn requires a special order adopted by a two-thirds vote, because such an interruption violates the general principle that the current item of business must be disposed of before the assembly proceeds to something else.  This general principle is expressed most clearly in the subsidiary motions, Postpone to a Certain Time and Lay on the Table.

[Atul Kapur]

While Mr. Gerber needs absolutely no assistance in this argument, I can't help but notice that Mr. Elsman is using arguments about the privilege and rank of the motion to adjourn versus the main motion to adjourn at a future time; but the discussion is about the priority of the order to adjourn at a set time. These are two separate things in my mind and Mr. Gerber has already explained, "the adjournment is treated like an order of the day for that time, but having higher priority even than a special order."

[Shmuel Gerber]

13 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Mr. Gerber needs absolutely no assistance in this argument

Well, judging by Mr. Elsman's responses, apparently I do. 

I disagree with his novel opinion about this for several reasons.

First, it's debatable whether a scheduled adjournment or recess technically constitutes a special order at all. In my opinion it's clear from numerous passages that it doesn't, but rather is treated to even greater priority than a special order.

Second, numerous rules are given relating to scheduled recesses and adjournments, and nowhere does RONR make any reference at all to treating them differently depending on whether they were adopted as a "general order" or a "special order". 

Third, the ability to schedule an adjournment that would not interrupt pending at the scheduled time would leave the assembly in a somewhat absurd situation: The privileged motion to adjourn, made while business is pending, at or before that time would not be in order, because "When a time for adjourning is already established, either because the assembly has adopted a motion or a program setting such a time, or because the order of business, the bylaws, or other governing rules prescribe it. …  a motion to adjourn is not privileged and is treated just as any other main motion." (RONR 11th ed., ll. 14–25). Yet, according to Mr. Elsman's rule, the scheduled adjournment would also not take place before the pending business is disposed of. Thus, according to this theory, a majority could prevent an assembly from adjourning at a particular time — even when no member has the floor, and until the pending business is disposed of — by adopting a motion to adjourn at that time.

[Rob Elsman]

When a member notices that the order setting the time at which to adjourn is not being adhered to by the chair, what does he do? He Calls for the Orders of the Day.  What does the assembly do if it wants the meeting to continue beyond the set hour at which to adjourn?  It sets aside the Orders of the Day.  Whether by adoption of a main motion corresponding to the subsidiary motion, Postpone to a Certain Time, or by the adoption of an agenda or program, the order to adjourn at a certain hour is just another Order of the Day.  There are exactly two types of Orders of the Day: special orders and general orders.  I know of no other type of Order of the Day that has a higher priority than a special order--or, more specifically, the special order of the day.  There is no need to have recourse to a "higher priority".  All this stuff is already complex enough as it is.  😊

[Shmuel Gerber]

46 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

I know of no other type of Order of the Day that has a higher priority than a special order--or, more specifically, the special order of the day.

"With the exception of the special order for a meeting, when special orders that have been made at different times come into conflict, the one that was made first takes precedence over all special orders made afterward, which rank in the order in which they were made. This rule holds even when special orders made later have been set for consideration at earlier hours. No special order can interfere with one that was made earlier than itself." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 369, ll. 22–29)

"It should be noted that a special order does not interfere with a recess or adjournment that is scheduled for a particular hour. When such an hour arrives, the chair announces it and declares the assembly in recess or adjourned, even if a special order is pending that was made before the hour of recess or adjournment was fixed." (p. 370, ll. 26–31)

So it seems quite evident to me that a scheduled recess or adjournment is treated like an order of the day that has higher priority than a special order, or at the very least that it is a special type of special order that has a higher priority than other types of special orders. There is no indication that a scheduled recess or adjournment can be set as a general order.

[Rob Elsman]

I thank you very much, Mr. Gerber, for your patience with me.  I am going to "hit the books", as they say.  Your insights have helped a lot.

[Dan Honemann]

16 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

There is no indication that a scheduled recess or adjournment can be set as a general order.

"By a single vote, a series of special orders or general orders—or a mixture of both—can be made; such a series is called an agenda. When an hour is assigned to a particular subject in an agenda, that subject is thereby made a special order unless, by footnote or other means, it is stated that the time is intended merely for guidance, in which case the subject is only a general order. Subjects for which no hour is specified in an agenda are general orders.'   (RONR, 11th ed., p. 371, ll. 17-24)

It seems to me that a recess or an adjournment can be included in an agenda as immediately following another item, without any hour being assigned to it.  

[Shmuel Gerber]

15 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It seems to me that a recess or an adjournment can be included in an agenda as immediately following another item, without any hour being assigned to it.  

I agree that a recess or adjournment can be set as part of an agenda without a particular time assigned to it. (However, I'm not convinced it would count as one that is scheduled for a future time; in my opinion it would not preclude a privileged motion to adjourn being made before that item is reached.)

[Dan Honemann]

7 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I agree that a recess or adjournment can be set as part of an agenda without a particular time assigned to it. 

Well, if a recess or adjournment is scheduled in an adopted agenda to follow immediately upon the disposition of another item in that agenda, the time for that recess or adjournment has been established. Although no hour has been assigned to it, a particular time has been.