Is A Motion From The Floor Considered A New Agenda Item?

[click755blue]

Hi everyone, 

Things in our org are fairly gray (in my opinion). Recently when a motion was brought up from the floor (during "Other Business"), members of the group said we had to adhere to a policy that says, "Additional items to the agenda may be submitted by members to the Director in advance of the time set for the agenda meeting, and added at the discretion of the Agenda Committee, or by a two thirds vote of the members." So before we could debate the motion, we had to vote on whether we even wanted to be talking about the motion by two thirds of our members, because it was being treated as a new agenda item. Is this normal? Can't motions come from the floor when ever? I know the org doesn't want a trillion motions flying around the room from a thousand members at all times, but it doesn't seem very nimble to treat a motion like a new agenda item. Thanks!

[Gary Novosielski]

If the rules in RONR apply, there is no need for any of those requirements. 

So if there is such a rule in your organization, it must be something in your bylaws or special rules of order.  But I have seen many cases where someone claimed that some rule was in effect when there was no evidence of any kind that this was true.

[click755blue]

Thanks Gary! When I asked the Chair about it afterward, the only rule he referred me to is that policy requiring two thirds for approval of a new agenda item. So I guess the debate is that he thinks a motion is a new agenda item and I don't. Hmm.

[Rob Elsman]

If Robert's Rules is your organization's parliamentary authority, the standard order of business should be used.  There is no need for an agenda, and, as you are experiencing, these agendas cause all kinds of difficulties.  Your organization should drop the agenda and the "policy" (?).

The reason things are "fairly gray" in your organization is that no one is reading the book.  The current edition has an entire section dedicated to the order of business in ordinary societies that have regular meetings at least quarterly.  Read RONR (11th ed.), §41, p. 351ff.

Here are some general recommendations for curing the "gray", posed as questions:

1. Does the chair have at hand at every meeting a copy of the current edition of RONR?  Does he have a basic familiarity with the book?  Does he know how to use the index and the tinted pages in  the back of the book to find answers to situations that arise during meetings?  Does he have the proper comportment for the presiding officer and observe the "patterns of formality" that are necessary for smooth meetings?  Does he maintain the appearance of impartiality during meetings?

2. Are there copies of RONR in Brief  in the organization's library available for members' reading? 

3. Does the organization have a standing committee dedicated to the promotion of good parliamentary procedure through "bootcamps" for new members and constant re-education for veteran members?

4. Does the chair have at hand a copy of the organization's bylaws and special rules of order at every meeting?  Are members given a copy when they join the organization?

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, click755blue said:

Things in our org are fairly gray (in my opinion). Recently when a motion was brought up from the floor (during "Other Business"), members of the group said we had to adhere to a policy that says, "Additional items to the agenda may be submitted by members to the Director in advance of the time set for the agenda meeting, and added at the discretion of the Agenda Committee, or by a two thirds vote of the members." So before we could debate the motion, we had to vote on whether we even wanted to be talking about the motion by two thirds of our members, because it was being treated as a new agenda item. Is this normal? Can't motions come from the floor when ever? I know the org doesn't want a trillion motions flying around the room from a thousand members at all times, but it doesn't seem very nimble to treat a motion like a new agenda item. Thanks!

 

9 hours ago, click755blue said:

Thanks Gary! When I asked the Chair about it afterward, the only rule he referred me to is that policy requiring two thirds for approval of a new agenda item. So I guess the debate is that he thinks a motion is a new agenda item and I don't. Hmm.

While I concur with Mr. Novosielski and Mr. Elsman regarding the rules in RONR on this matter, I would note that it is not unusual for an organization to adopt a special rule of order or rule in the bylaws of the nature the Director describes.

It will ultimately be up to the organization to interpret its own rule on this matter. I agree that the rule as written is vague, and it doesn't help that the organization's agenda includes a heading for "Other Business," which would seem to suggest that items of "Other Business" may be raised at that time regardless of whether they are listed on the agenda. That seems to further complicate the meaning of the rule in question.

I concur with Mr. Elsman that the simplest solution would be to rescind this policy altogether and follow the rules in RONR regarding the standard order of business. Failing that, it would be desirable to at least clarify the policy so that everyone knows what it means.

Edited August 16, 2020 at 01:57 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

9 hours ago, click755blue said:

Thanks Gary! When I asked the Chair about it afterward, the only rule he referred me to is that policy requiring two thirds for approval of a new agenda item. So I guess the debate is that he thinks a motion is a new agenda item and I don't. Hmm.

What your organization calls a "policy" is being treated as, in RONR terminology, a Special Rule of Order as Mr. Novosielski has said and which supersedes RONR. 

If you are unclear on the chair's thinking or think you are in a "gray" area, you can raise a Parliamentary Inquiry to try to clarify the situation. If you disagree with the chair's decision, then you can raise a Point of Order and an Appeal if necessary.

[Dan Honemann]

27 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

What your organization calls a "policy" is being treated as, in RONR terminology, a Special Rule of Order as Mr. Novosielski has said and which supersedes RONR. 

If you are unclear on the chair's thinking or think you are in a "gray" area, you can raise a Parliamentary Inquiry to try to clarify the situation. If you disagree with the chair's decision, then you can raise a Point of Order and an Appeal if necessary.

"The chair's reply to a parliamentary inquiry is not subject to an appeal, since it is an opinion, not a ruling. A member has the right to act contrary to this opinion, however, and if ruled out of order, to appeal such a ruling."   (RONR, 11th ed., p. 294)

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, click755blue said:

Thanks Gary! When I asked the Chair about it afterward, the only rule he referred me to is that policy requiring two thirds for approval of a new agenda item. S o I guess the debate is that he thinks a motion is a new agenda item and I don't. Hmm.

Well, assuming the agenda is approved by the assembly at the start of the meeting, then RONR says that adding an item to it would be a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which would require a 2/3 vote.  If you do have such a policy, it's merely redundant.

But you're still correct.  It is usual for an agenda to contain a heading for New Business which has no individual items listed, as there is no way to know what they will be.  So by moving new business, you are not actually adding anything to the agenda.  In the cases where an agenda contains no such heading, new business is in order when other items on the agenda have been disposed of, unless your rules specifically say that it is not.

What is even more usual is to have no agenda at all, but merely follow the Standard Order of Business (see §41):

Quote

 

   1)  Reading and Approval of Minutes
   2)  Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees
   3)  Reports of Special (Select or Ad Hoc) Committees
   4)  Special Orders
   5)  Unfinished Business and General Orders
   6)  New Business

In organizations that have adopted this book [RONR] as parliamentary authority and that have not adopted a special order of business, this series of headings is the prescribed order of business for regular meetings....

It might be good to dig up this "Policy" and see what it really says.

[Atul Kapur]

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

"The chair's reply to a parliamentary inquiry is not subject to an appeal, since it is an opinion, not a ruling. A member has the right to act contrary to this opinion, however, and if ruled out of order, to appeal such a ruling."   (RONR, 11th ed., p. 294)

Thanks for the clarification. I was getting late for work so didn't make it explicit that a reply to a Parliamentary Inquiry isn't a ruling. I had faith someone would step in with the details.

[click755blue]

Thank you for all the replies, everyone! I am probably in need of some sort of Robert's Rules course to get up to speed because I feel like half the time the rules are used in such a way to make inconvenient things more convenient. So it sounds like our special rule of order is being used to make it challenging for members to make a motion from the floor when it should be an easy thing to stand up when the topic is at hand and say, "I move that..." And if it's done under "Other Business" it should be even easier to make a motion.

[Rob Elsman]

25 minutes ago, click755blue said:

Thank you for all the replies, everyone! I am probably in need of some sort of Robert's Rules course to get up to speed because I feel like half the time the rules are used in such a way to make inconvenient things more convenient. So it sounds like our special rule of order is being used to make it challenging for members to make a motion from the floor when it should be an easy thing to stand up when the topic is at hand and say, "I move that..." And if it's done under "Other Business" it should be even easier to make a motion.

Amen.