Overzealous adjourner

[Osmigo]

I'm new here, and this looks like a great educational forum.  My RRO use consists mainly as a member (and probably future board member) in an HOA setting.  

One thing I've often wondered about is how a president can deal with overzealous adjourners.  Say we have some discussion, motions, votes, etc. and the president, realizing the end is near, asks, "well, is there anything else anyone would like to bring up?"  Almost immediately, Johnny Rocket says "I move to adjourn," and half a second later his buddy seconds.  Meanwhile, you might have somebody in the back, possibly a less outspoken person (but of equal importance to everyone else) saying "uh....uh... w..wait, I wanted to talk about the front gate...."  

Can the president sort of side-step the adjournment so she can be heard?  Or even if she doesn't speak up, if the president feels Mr. Rocket jumped up too fast,  could he say something like, "hey, uh, can we hold off on adjourning just a second? I want to be sure everybody's had a chance to speak."  It's especially a question if the motion has been seconded, because as I understand it, motions to adjourn aren't debatable.    

I've been in numerous meetings where the president asks if there's anything else to bring up, and after a moment of silence, says something to the effect of "ok folks, looks like we're ready to adjourn" and then somebody moves to adjourn.  

So in general I'm looking at how and to what extent the president can "control" adjournment.

Thanks again for a great forum!

Edited August 18, 2020 at 01:08 AM by Osmigo

[Josh Martin]

38 minutes ago, Osmigo said:

Can the president sort of side-step the adjournment so she can be heard?

The President can and should recognize the member for the purpose of briefly describing the motion she wishes to make. After doing so, the member who made the motion to adjourn might choose to withdraw it. If not, a vote would still be taken on the motion to adjourn (assuming that it is seconded).

"Although the privileged motion to Adjourn is undebatable, the following parliamentary steps are in order while it is pending:

• to inform the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment;

• to make important announcements;

• to make (but not to take up) a motion to reconsider a previous vote;

• to make a motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes (pp. 332–35);

• to give notice of a motion to be made at the next meeting (or on the next day, in a session consisting of daily meetings) where the motion requires previous notice (see pp. 121–24); and

• to move to set a time for an adjourned meeting (9, 22) if there is no meeting scheduled for later within the same session.

Any of the above steps that are desired should be taken care of earlier, if possible; but there may sometimes be no such opportunity, particularly in a convention or a session of several meetings that is following an adopted agenda or program (41), or in cases where a meeting of an ordinary society adjourns before completing its regular order of business. If any matters of the types listed above arise after it has been moved to adjourn, the chair should state the facts briefly, or a member who rises and addresses the chair for the purpose should be allowed to do so—or to make the necessary motion or give the desired notice—before the vote is taken on the motion to Adjourn. If something requires action before adjournment, the member who moved to adjourn can be requested to withdraw his motion." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 238-239)

38 minutes ago, Osmigo said:

Or even if she doesn't speak up, if the president feels Mr. Rocket jumped up too fast,  could he say something like, "hey, uh, can we hold off on adjourning just a second? I want to be sure everybody's had a chance to speak."

No, I don't think this would be appropriate.

I suppose what the President could do is state "A motion to adjourn has been made. The chair notes that there are a limited number of actions in order while a motion to adjourn is pending, including informing the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment."

This would inform members of their rights while not expressing an opinion on whether the assembly should or should not adjourn. Presumably, this would only be necessary a few times, and after that members would be aware of their rights in this regard.

38 minutes ago, Osmigo said:

It's especially a question if the motion has been seconded, because as I understand it, motions to adjourn aren't debatable.    

It is correct that the privileged motion to adjourn is not debatable, however, there are a limited number of steps which may be taken while the motion to adjourn is pending, one of which is to inform the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment.

38 minutes ago, Osmigo said:

So in general I'm looking at how and to what extent the president can "control" adjournment.

The President has very little authority to control adjournment. The President may declare a meeting adjourned without a vote in three very specific circumstances:

• The assembly has completed its entire order of business and when the President asks if there is any further business, no one responds.
• The assembly has previously scheduled a time for adjournment and that time has arrived.
• There is an emergency, such as a fire, and it would endanger the members' safety to take the time to vote on adjournment.

In other cases, the assembly determines whether to adjourn. The privileged motion to adjourn is not debatable or amendable and requires a majority vote for adoption. The President has no authority to prevent the assembly from adjourning.

Edited August 18, 2020 at 01:44 AM by Josh Martin

[Alex Meed]

I'll defer to the folks who actually know what they're talking about, such as Mr. Martin, but one thing in your post caught my eye:

45 minutes ago, Osmigo said:

I've been in numerous meetings where the president asks if there's anything else to bring up, and after a moment of silence, says something to the effect of "ok folks, looks like we're ready to adjourn" and then somebody moves to adjourn.

As Mr. Martin mentioned, when the assembly has completed its entire order of business and nobody wants to raise any further business, the chair can simply declare the meeting adjourned. I did this when I was president of a student organization; at the end of each board meeting I would simply say "Is there any further business? ... If there is no further business, this meeting is adjourned." My colleagues quickly got used to that, and then we didn't have issues with people prematurely making motions to adjourn, because they knew that I would simply adjourn the meeting once we were finished instead of them having to move to adjourn.

Whether this technique will work in your assembly depends on the culture of your organization and, in particular, on whether you reach the end of your order of business at each meeting (if you don't, then this procedure doesn't apply to you).

[Osmigo]

11 hours ago, Alex Meed said:

 

As Mr. Martin mentioned, when the assembly has completed its entire order of business and nobody wants to raise any further business, the chair can simply declare the meeting adjourned.

Yes, that's true, but as far as I know there's nothing to prevent somebody from jumping up and moving to adjourn anyway, correct?  I don't think RRO allows for a rule that ONLY the chair can adjourn.  

[Josh Martin]

43 minutes ago, Osmigo said:

Yes, that's true, but as far as I know there's nothing to prevent somebody from jumping up and moving to adjourn anyway, correct?

Correct.

As I have explained above, however, there are tools available for the member to at least briefly explain the motion they wish to make. If a majority nonetheless still wishes to adjourn, however, there's nothing the chair can do to stop it.

[Rob Elsman]

1 hour ago, Osmigo said:

jumping up and moving to adjourn anyway

It is never, ever, proper for a member to "jump[ ] up and mov[e] to adjourn".  The member must rise and wait until the chair has recognized him (assigning the floor) before making his motion.

[J. J.]

If the motion to Adjourn was used, repeatedly and unsuccessfully, in succession, it might be dilatory. 

[Osmigo]

THANKS for the informative replies to my question.  I feel like I now have a good understanding of the issue. 

[Richard Brown]

@Osmigo I was going to make the same comment that Mr. Elsman made:  A member does not have the right to simply rise and shout out "I move we adjourn".  He is supposed first be recognized by the chair just as a member making any other motion would have to be recognized.  If this member does jump up and shout "I  move we adjourn", and the chair sees that there are others seeking recognition, he can recognize  someone else first.  If Johnny Rockett then shouts "Mr. Chairman, I moved that we adjourn", the chair should respond with, "Mr. Rockett, you have not been recognized.  The chair has recognized Mr. Detail and he has the floor.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Osmigo said:

Yes, that's true, but as far as I know there's nothing to prevent somebody from jumping up and moving to adjourn anyway, correct?  I don't think RRO allows for a rule that ONLY the chair can adjourn.  

Ah, but there is something to prevent anyone from jumping up and shouting out a motion.  It is the rule that a member must be recognized before making a motion.

It might go something like this:

 

Chair:  Is there any further business before we adjourn?

Mr. B:  I move to adjourn!

Mr. S:  Second!

Chair: (addressing Mr. B ) For what purpose does the member seek recognition?

Mr. B: I move to adjourn!

Chair: The member is not recognized; the chair is awaiting a response. Is there any further business before we adjourn?

• if no response:

Chair:  As there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.

• or, alternatively:

Chair:  Nothing heard, Mr. B is recognized.

Mr. B: I move to adjourn.

Mr. S: Second!

Chair: The question is on adjournment. Those in favor of adjourning say aye; those opposed no; the ayes have it and the meeting is adjourned.

 

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Ah, but there is something to prevent anyone from jumping up and shouting out a motion.  It is the rule that a member must be recognized before making a motion.

While I concur with those who say that the President should indeed enforce the rules relating to gaining recognition, I don't know that this really helps matters much in the long run. Presumably, the member will learn to correct his actions after the first few times he is called to order, and he will jump up and say "Mr. Chairman!" rather than jumping up and saying "I move to adjourn!" and then we're back where we started.

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

While I concur with those who say that the President should indeed enforce the rules relating to gaining recognition, I don't know that this really helps matters much in the long run. Presumably, the member will learn to correct his actions after the first few times he is called to order, and he will jump up and say "Mr. Chairman!" rather than jumping up and saying "I move to adjourn!" and then we're back where we started.

Well, in the example I suggested, that would not change anything, as long as the chairman was able to get out his question about further business.  When the member jumped up and said "Mr. Chairman!", the chair would still say "For what purpose..." and we're back in the sequence. 

The hope is that Mr. B will first learn not to shout out motions, and ultimately learn that it is bad form to attempt to adjourn before other members have a fair shot at introducing new business under New Business.

[Dan Honemann]

8 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

The hope is that Mr. B will first learn not to shout out motions, and ultimately learn that it is bad form to attempt to adjourn before other members have a fair shot at introducing new business under New Business.

But just to be clear, nothing in RONR requires that a member wait until all other members have had a fair shot at introducing new business before making a motion to adjourn. 

Although It is certainly wrong to move to adjourn again and again when nothing has happened to justify renewal of such a motion (RONR, 11th ed., p. 342), it is entirely in order for a member to move to adjourn, often even if business is pending, when he senses that this is the wish of the assembly. A majority is under no obligation to continue in session longer than it desires (RONR, 11th ed., p. 233).

[Osmigo]

On 8/18/2020 at 9:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Ah, but there is something to prevent anyone from jumping up and shouting out a motion.  It is the rule that a member must be recognized before making a motion.

 

Yes, but it's something of a trap that really doesn't change anything.  When Andy Adjourner raises his hand to be recognized (so he can move to adjourn), the chair, at that point, doesn't know what he's going to do.  Then, with that little formality out of the way.... "I move to adjourn!"   "Second!"

At that point, what, if anything, can the chair do to delay or suspend the adjournment to ensure there's nothing else to discuss, given that a motion to adjourn is not debatable?  Could he ask if there is any other business before calling for a vote?    Could someone move to briefly table or suspend the adjournment (not sure about the language there - what kind of motion that would be....)? 

Edited August 21, 2020 at 10:48 PM by Osmigo

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Osmigo said:

At that point, what, if anything, can the chair do to delay or suspend the adjournment to ensure there's nothing else to discuss, given that a motion to adjourn is not debatable? 

As I have noted previously, these are the things the chair could do:

If a member seeks recognition in order "to inform the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment," the chair can and should recognize the member for the purpose of briefly describing the motion she wishes to make. After doing so, the member who made the motion to adjourn might choose to withdraw it. If not, a vote would still be taken on the motion to adjourn (assuming that it is seconded).

If no member has sought recognition for this purpose, but the chair wishes to make clear that it is in order for members to do so, the chair could state "A motion to adjourn has been made. The chair notes that there are a limited number of actions in order while a motion to adjourn is pending, including informing the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment." Presumably, members will be aware of this option after the chair has done this a few times.

1 hour ago, Osmigo said:

Could he ask if there is any other business before calling for a vote?

No.

1 hour ago, Osmigo said:

Could someone move to briefly table or suspend the adjournment (not sure about the language there - what kind of motion that would be....)?

No, but as noted above, a member could "inform the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment." The member who moved to adjourn might then withdraw the motion to adjourn. Alternately, members can vote against the motion to adjourn in order to allow the other business to be considered.

It might also be good to talk to members about these issues outside of a meeting.

Edited August 21, 2020 at 11:55 PM by Josh Martin

[Osmigo]

On 8/21/2020 at 6:51 PM, Josh Martin said:

If no member has sought recognition for this purpose, but the chair wishes to make clear that it is in order for members to do so, the chair could state "A motion to adjourn has been made. The chair notes that there are a limited number of actions in order while a motion to adjourn is pending, including informing the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment." Presumably, members will be aware of this option after the chair has done this a few times.

No.

No, but as noted above, a member could "inform the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment." The member who moved to adjourn might then withdraw the motion to adjourn. Alternately, members can vote against the motion to adjourn in order to allow the other business to be considered.

 

So you're saying, then: 

If a member has moved to adjourn and that move was seconded, but not yet voted on, the chair can not directly ask if there is any more business before the vote. However, he CAN inform the members that THEY can bring up said business.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/19/2020 at 1:20 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But just to be clear, nothing in RONR requires that a member wait until all other members have had a fair shot at introducing new business before making a motion to adjourn. 

Although It is certainly wrong to move to adjourn again and again when nothing has happened to justify renewal of such a motion (RONR, 11th ed., p. 342), it is entirely in order for a member to move to adjourn, often even if business is pending, when he senses that this is the wish of the assembly. A majority is under no obligation to continue in session longer than it desires (RONR, 11th ed., p. 233).

Quite right. 

My take on this situation as presented was that there was one member who loved to be the one who moved to adjourn (I know one like this, although he seldom moved anything else) and that this often interfered with members who wished to introduce new business.

There's no question that when a majority wishes to adjourn, that's that.  But in this situation I can imagine that the assembly would vote Aye as a matter of habit, without considering an alternative.  I did not mean to suggest that the chair should string things out in the face of a real desire to go home, just to provide a quick way to check, and to gently guide the member who is too quick on the trigger.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, Osmigo said:

If a member has moved to adjourn and that move was seconded, but not yet voted on, the chair can not directly ask if there is any more business before the vote. However, he CAN inform the members that THEY can bring up said business.

Yes, I think so. Additionally, to be clear, what is meant by members "bringing up" business in this context is simply for members to inform the assembly of the business which the member feels should be addressed prior to adjournment. A member cannot, in fact, actually make a main motion while a motion to adjourn is pending. The assembly itself will then ultimately decide whether to adjourn the meeting. If the motion to adjourn is withdrawn or defeated, then the member could actually make the motion he wishes to make.

I would note that I think there is an important difference between the chair "directly ask[ing] if there is any more business" and the chair "inform[ing] the members that THEY can bring up said business."

If the chair were to simply ask "Is there any further business?" when a motion to adjourn is made, I think this is problematic. The main issue I have with it is that it is simply confusing to the assembly. It seems to imply that business may simply be introduced at this time, since this is the same language the chair uses before a motion to adjourn has been made.

"When it appears that there is no further business in a meeting of an ordinary local society that normally goes through a complete order of business (41) at each regular meeting (9), the chair, instead of waiting or calling for a motion to adjourn, can ask, "Is there any further business?" If there is no response, the chair can then say, "Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned."" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 241)

In addition, for the chair to essentially "set aside" the motion to adjourn while asking members if there is any other business seems to undermine the chair's appearance of impartiality (and his duty in processing a properly made in seconded motion) with respect to the motion to adjourn. This is especially the case if the chair says something like "hey, uh, can we hold off on adjourning just a second? I want to be sure everybody's had a chance to speak," as was suggested in the original post. In this case, the chair seems very clearly to be expressing an opinion that, if not all members have "had a chance to speak," the assembly should not adjourn.

If the chair is to instead say, however, "A motion to adjourn has been made. The chair notes that there are a limited number of actions in order while a motion to adjourn is pending, including informing the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment," I think this does a better job of 1) clearly explaining to the assembly exactly what they may do at this time, and 2) maintaining a neutral posture on the motion to adjourn and not interfering with his duties in processing this motion. While it is the chairman's duty to promptly process motions which have been properly made and seconded, it is also the chair's duty to ensure members are aware of what the current parliamentary situation is and their rights in this regard, and I think this statement walks that tightrope better.

I would again reiterate that it may be desirable to talk to members about these issues outside of a meeting. That is likely the best solution to this problem, as outside of a meeting the chair will have more flexibility (and more time) to explain and discuss these matters than when an undebatable motion is pending.

Edited August 23, 2020 at 02:13 PM by Josh Martin