Vote to adopt agenda without new business

[Nathan Zook]

The organizational meeting of our central committee is coming up.  As is the custom, the notice includes an agenda, and at the bottom, in bold, is the phrase, "No other items shall be in order."  Let's just say that I am not a fan of this custom.

Of course, RONR specifies that the agenda has to be adopted by the body in order to become effective.  My question involves the vote required to adopt such an agenda.

 

What is the vote required to adopt an agenda which prevents the introduction of motions not on the agenda?

 

In the gray pages, I see Adopt an agenda or program as generally requiring a majority vote.  However, there is a reference to section 10, Main Motion.  Under the SDC (10:8), item 7b "when the adoption of the motion would have the effect of suspending ... a parliamentary right of members, in which case it requires a two-thirds vote ..."  Since such an agenda would suspend the right of members to make motions, I believe that a two-thirds vote is required.

I expect to be opposed in this at the meeting.  I would appreciate your views.

[Josh Martin]

13 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

The organizational meeting of our central committee is coming up.  As is the custom, the notice includes an agenda, and at the bottom, in bold, is the phrase, "No other items shall be in order."  Let's just say that I am not a fan of this custom.

Of course, RONR specifies that the agenda has to be adopted by the body in order to become effective.  My question involves the vote required to adopt such an agenda.

What is the vote required to adopt an agenda which prevents the introduction of motions not on the agenda?

In the gray pages, I see Adopt an agenda or program as generally requiring a majority vote.  However, there is a reference to section 10, Main Motion.  Under the SDC (10:8), item 7b "when the adoption of the motion would have the effect of suspending ... a parliamentary right of members, in which case it requires a two-thirds vote ..."  Since such an agenda would suspend the right of members to make motions, I believe that a two-thirds vote is required.

I expect to be opposed in this at the meeting.  I would appreciate your views.

No agenda may be adopted "which prevents the introduction of motions not on the agenda." An agenda is simply "a series of special orders or general orders—or a mixture of both" RONR (12th ed.) 41:58

An agenda is not the appropriate place to put rules of order.

The assembly may separately adopt a rule of order for the duration of the session which prohibits the introduction of items not listed on the agenda, and doing so would require a 2/3 vote. If the assembly instead desires to adopt such a rule on a permanent basis, this would be a special rule of order and would require a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption.

I would note, however, that another option available to the assembly would be for someone to immediately move to adjourn the meeting after all items on the agenda have been completed. This would require only a majority vote for adoption.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

The meeting is described as an "organizational meeting" of a committee. I am not aware of RONR addressing any particulars related to such a meeting; however, at a special (or "called") meeting, only items of business specified in the call may be addressed. I think this meeting could certainly be construed as a special - rather than a "regular" - meeting:

A special meeting (or called meeting) is a separate session of a society held at a time different from that of any regular meeting, and convened only to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting" RONR (12th Ed.) 9:13.

 

[Nathan Zook]

26 minutes ago, Greg Goodwiller said:

The meeting is described as an "organizational meeting" of a committee. I am not aware of RONR addressing any particulars related to such a meeting; however, at a special (or "called") meeting, only items of business specified in the call may be addressed. I think this meeting could certainly be construed as a special - rather than a "regular" - meeting:

A special meeting (or called meeting) is a separate session of a society held at a time different from that of any regular meeting, and convened only to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting" RONR (12th Ed.) 9:13.

 

The term "organizational meeting" comes from the statute creating the committee, and requires the election of a chairman, vice chairman, state committeeman and state committeewoman. (https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.80) It is also at this meeting that the committee members themselves take office.  If this is a special meeting, then on what authority do the officers of the retiring committee have the right to limit the actions of the new committee?  If one supposes that the statute sets the permitted acts of the body, then there is a huge problem because neither the offices of secretary nor treasurer are mentioned in the statutes regarding the organizational meeting.

 

[J. J.]

Since you mentioned "statute," is some type of public notice required to introduce business. 

[Nathan Zook]

There are no notice requirements of any kind in the relevant statutes.  (This is the central committee of a political party.  Let's not get into the constitutional implications.  :D)

[Richard Brown]

I think Josh Martin got it right. I think it is a regular meeting, perhaps with what amounts to special orders as called for by statute, and it would require a temporary or special rule of order to prevent the introduction of new business not on the agenda. However, such a rule, temporary or permanent, could be suspended by a 2/3 vote.

Edited December 8, 2020 at 11:44 AM by Richard Brown
Typographical corrections

[Guest Puzzling]

I think the law (and you have to stick to that) gives the rules for this meeting. 

Bylaws and RONR are not trumping the law.

RCW 29A.80.020 does give you some leeway.

Quote start

 At its organizational meeting it shall elect its chair and vice chair, and such officers as its bylaws may provide, and adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations. It may:

(1) Call conventions at such time and place and under such circumstances and for such purposes as the call to convention designates. The manner, number, and procedure for selection of state convention delegates is subject to the committee's rules and regulations duly adopted;

(2) Provide for the election of delegates to national conventions;

(3) Provide for the nomination of presidential electors; and

(4) Perform all functions inherent in such an organization.

End quote

Si as long as it falls within (4) you are fine.(like electing a treasure)

[Dan Honemann]

18 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No agenda may be adopted "which prevents the introduction of motions not on the agenda." An agenda is simply "a series of special orders or general orders—or a mixture of both" RONR (12th ed.) 41:58

An agenda is not the appropriate place to put rules of order.

The assembly may separately adopt a rule of order for the duration of the session which prohibits the introduction of items not listed on the agenda, and doing so would require a 2/3 vote. If the assembly instead desires to adopt such a rule on a permanent basis, this would be a special rule of order and would require a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption.

I would note, however, that another option available to the assembly would be for someone to immediately move to adjourn the meeting after all items on the agenda have been completed. This would require only a majority vote for adoption.

I'm essentially in agreement with most of this, but it would appear that, at the outset of its organizational meeting, the central committee could adopt, by majority vote, an agenda which effectively precludes the introduction of new business by listing "adjournment" immediately following whatever is the last item on an agenda which makes no provision for new business.

 

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I think the law (and you have to stick to that) gives the rules for this meeting. 

They quoted law does not prohibit the introduction of other business at the organizational meeting.

[Guest Puzzling]

20 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

They quoted law does not prohibit the introduction of other business at the organizational meeting.

While the law is quite broad (all functions inherent in such organization) it allows only that and no more than that. 

I agree motions that fall within this broad category are fine , but those outside (all) categories are out of order. It is probably best that tis is decided on an individual motion level, not an outright ban.

 

[Nathan Zook]

3 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I think the law (and you have to stick to that) gives the rules for this meeting. 

Bylaws and RONR are not trumping the law.

RCW 29A.80.020 does give you some leeway.

Quote start

 At its organizational meeting it shall elect its chair and vice chair, and such officers as its bylaws may provide, and adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations. It may:

(1) Call conventions at such time and place and under such circumstances and for such purposes as the call to convention designates. The manner, number, and procedure for selection of state convention delegates is subject to the committee's rules and regulations duly adopted;

(2) Provide for the election of delegates to national conventions;

(3) Provide for the nomination of presidential electors; and

(4) Perform all functions inherent in such an organization.

End quote

Si as long as it falls within (4) you are fine.(like electing a treasure)

RCW 29A.80.020 references the state central committee.  This is a meeting of a county central committee.

[Nathan Zook]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm essentially in agreement with most of this, but it would appear that, at the outset of its organizational meeting, the central committee could adopt, by majority vote, an agenda which effectively precludes the introduction of new business by listing "adjournment" immediately following whatever is the last item on an agenda which makes no provision for new business.

 

And what majority would be required to adopt such a motion?

[Dan Honemann]

24 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

And what majority would be required to adopt such a motion?

See RONR (12th ed.) 44:1.

[Guest Puzzling]

RONR (12) 41:4 seems to indicate that it is possible that there are meetings where all items of business that are in order have been specified in advance.

 

 

 

[Josh Martin]

51 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

RONR (12) 41:4 seems to indicate that it is possible that there are meetings where all items of business that are in order have been specified in advance.

Certainly. This might occur if, for example, a rule of the organization provides that only such items are in order.

[Nathan Zook]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

See RONR (12th ed.) 44:1.

What about 10:8, item 7b?  A motion to prevent the introduction of motions sounds to me like it "would have the effect of suspending ... a parliamentary right of members".

[Dan Honemann]

My responses remain the same, Mr. Zook.

A careful reading of what is said about agendas in 41:58-70 may help.

[Guest Puzzling]

17 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

RCW 29A.80.020 references the state central committee.  This is a meeting of a county central committee.

RCW 29A.80.030

County central committee—Organization meetings.

Gives you even more leeway as long as 

"At its organization meeting, the county central committee shall elect a chair and vice chair of opposite sexes."

is on the agenda you are fine

[Guest Puzzling]

16 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

What about 10:8, item 7b?  A motion to prevent the introduction of motions sounds to me like it "would have the effect of suspending ... a parliamentary right of members".

First of all, the specific section on adopting an agenda is more specific, and specifics trump generalities.

More on principle, it is about adopting something that was not there before and that (first adoption)  only require a simple majority.

(This even applies to bylaws, first adoption  only requires a majority)