An Item on the Agenda

[Guest Candace Lynch]

We have an academic senate consisting of our full time faculty and adjunct faculty representation at our small school, and an issue came up yesterday at our meeting about an item that was agendized. The item was a revision to a formerly approved document. The argument was that, according to Robert's Rules of Order, we could only discuss the proposed revisions on the document and not anything else. Some senators wanted to discuss language on the document that did not have proposed revisions and our former senate president told us we could not do that. I have not been able to find anything in Robert's Rules of Order to substantiate this nor have I ever seen this "rule" in action. Can anyone help with this?

[Dan Honemann]

The basic rule is rather simple - debate must be confined to the merits of the question being debated (RONR, 12th ed., 4:30). 

[Rob Elsman]

I think a fuller reply than Mr. Honemann has provided might be helpful.

Debate on a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted may extend fully into the merits of the document it is proposed to modify.  If I understand the post correctly, it seems the president is incorrect.  See RONR (12th ed.) 35:2, Standard Descriptive Characteristic 6.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/6/2021 at 1:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I think a fuller reply than Mr. Honemann has provided might be helpful.

Debate on a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted may extend fully into the merits of the document it is proposed to modify.  If I understand the post correctly, it seems the president is incorrect.  See RONR (12th ed.) 35:2, Standard Descriptive Characteristic 6.

But I'm sure you would agree that if, for example, a motion is made to amend a certain section of the bylaws, it would not be in order to debate the merits of a different, unrelated section of the bylaws.

[Rob Elsman]

I would agree, but this is relevant only when previous notice of the motion is required.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/6/2021 at 1:46 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I would agree, but this is relevant only when previous notice of the motion is required.

No, I don't think so. 

[Rob Elsman]

Can I have a little more?

[Dan Honemann]

Well, let's say the bylaws require no notice of proposed amendments. If a motion is made to amend a certain section of the bylaws, it would not be in order to debate the merits of a different, unrelated section of the bylaws.

[Rob Elsman]

i think I am missing something, but I don't know what.  Can you push me toward a paragraph in RONR?

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/6/2021 at 2:27 PM, Rob Elsman said:

i think I am missing something, but I don't know what.  Can you push me toward a paragraph in RONR?

"4:30    Debate must be confined to the merits of the pending question."

See also 43:20 and 61:10.

Edited October 6, 2021 at 07:15 PM by Dan Honemann
Added the last sentence

[Atul Kapur]

In the hopes that it is helpful (and that my analysis is correct), the restriction cited, and the reply to the OP is regarding debate.

On 10/6/2021 at 10:26 AM, Guest Candace Lynch said:

we could only discuss the proposed revisions on the document and not anything else. Some senators wanted to discuss language on the document that did not have proposed revisions and our former senate president told us we could not do that. [emphasis added]

Assuming notice is not a requirement, an amendment to the pending motion could properly cover "language on the document that did not have proposed revisions" and that language would then be germane to the amendment.
In fact, an amendment to the pending motion could change it to a motion to rescind the entire document (see 35:11). Debate on the amendment could then go into the merits of any part of the document.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/6/2021 at 4:44 PM, Atul Kapur said:

In the hopes that it is helpful (and that my analysis is correct), the restriction cited, and the reply to the OP is regarding debate.

Assuming notice is not a requirement, an amendment to the pending motion could properly cover "language on the document that did not have proposed revisions" and that language would then be germane to the amendment.
In fact, an amendment to the pending motion could change it to a motion to rescind the entire document (see 35:11). Debate on the amendment could then go into the merits of any part of the document.

I think you are reading far too much into what is said in 35:11-12 then is there.

First of all, nowhere is there any mention of amending or rescinding a "document" in either 35:11-12 or in 35:2(5). Secondly, it must always be kept in mind that a proposed amendment to a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted must be germane to be in order (12:16-21).

[Guest Candace Lynch]

Thank you. This is all helpful. The agenda item was the document name itself, not any particular revisions to it. I don't know if that clarifies the issue. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/6/2021 at 10:26 AM, Guest Candace Lynch said:

We have an academic senate consisting of our full time faculty and adjunct faculty representation at our small school, and an issue came up yesterday at our meeting about an item that was agendized. The item was a revision to a formerly approved document. The argument was that, according to Robert's Rules of Order, we could only discuss the proposed revisions on the document and not anything else. Some senators wanted to discuss language on the document that did not have proposed revisions and our former senate president told us we could not do that. I have not been able to find anything in Robert's Rules of Order to substantiate this nor have I ever seen this "rule" in action. Can anyone help with this?

 

On 10/6/2021 at 8:03 PM, Guest Candace Lynch said:

The agenda item was the document name itself, not any particular revisions to it. I don't know if that clarifies the issue. 

Now I'm somewhat at a loss.

If by this you mean that the proposed "revision" was simply to make a change in the name or title of a document, and no change whatsoever to anything else within it, then I think it is very likely that your former senate president is correct, although I suppose it is possible that by making a change in the title of this document the meaning of some of the provisions within it may be affected. If so, this would be a permissible subject of debate on the motion to revise the title.

[Guest Candace Lynch]

What I mean is that the item on the agenda was listed as the title of the original document; we were not changing the title of the document. We were discussing a previously approved document that was now coming forward with revisions. We were told later by a previous senate president that we should have only discussed the revised sections of the document at the meeting according to Robert's Rules of Order. In other words, we should not have had any discussion about non-revised portions of the document. That, we were told, was a violation of Robert's Rules. I was confused because I have never experienced this strictness in terms of what can be discussed. My experience has been that if a document comes up for revision, we have been able to discuss the entire document at our meeting, not just the proposed revisions.

[Guest Zev]

I find it a little bit strange that if the argument that only revisions can be changed is true then I am mystified as to how any amendment can be made to the original proposal if it has no previous amendments made to it, after all this would be the first time it was being considered. Perhaps this organization has a custom rule regarding amendments.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/12/2021 at 4:02 PM, Guest Candace Lynch said:

What I mean is that the item on the agenda was listed as the title of the original document; we were not changing the title of the document. We were discussing a previously approved document that was now coming forward with revisions. We were told later by a previous senate president that we should have only discussed the revised sections of the document at the meeting according to Robert's Rules of Order. In other words, we should not have had any discussion about non-revised portions of the document. That, we were told, was a violation of Robert's Rules. I was confused because I have never experienced this strictness in terms of what can be discussed. My experience has been that if a document comes up for revision, we have been able to discuss the entire document at our meeting, not just the proposed revisions.

I am now convinced that the trouble I have been having all along is that I have not known, and still do not know, exactly what has occurred here, and I have been assuming a number of facts that simply aren't correct. So perhaps a number of additional facts would be helpful:

1.  Can you provide us with at least some idea as to the nature of the "document" referred to? If you are referring to your bylaws, or some other comparable document, the answer to your questions would most likely be easily found in Section 57 of RONR (12th ed.).

2. Is there anything at all in your bylaws concerning this document?

3.  Was any previous notice given concerning the substance of the proposed amendments to this document? Obviously none was provided in the proposed agenda. Was this proposed agenda adopted? If notice was given, what sort of information did it provide?

4.  When you say that "senators wanted to discuss language on the document that did not have proposed revisions and our former senate president told us we could not do that", did you mean that these senators attempted to propose amendments to this language or simply wanted to discuss it?

If you can provide this information, it may help me somewhat in understanding what has occurred. Or not.  🙂

 

[Guest Candace Lynch]

1. The document is a distance education addendum that accompanies the curriculum of a course and specifies how this course can be taught online. It was originally approved by our Senate in spring 2020. It was being brought forward for the purpose of revising some language to reflect changes in California education code.

2. There is nothing in our by-laws concerning this document.

3. There was no "previous notice" given, but the document was sent out prior to the meeting as an attachment to the agenda. The proposed agenda was adopted at the beginning of the meeting.

4. There was one section related to accessibility of content that was not part of the revision, but several of our disability support services counselors wanted to add about five words to clarify what needs to be done to make some online content accessible to students (with or without disabilities). During the meeting, we discussed this language, but the discussion was stopped because time ran out; then the originators of the document motioned to call the question and vote on the revised document. The motion failed. At the next Senate meeting, our former president who was not in attendance at the September meeting admonished the body for discussing parts of the document that were not proposed revisions (meaning this section on accessibility since it was not part of the proposed revisions). That is when we were told we were not in compliance with Robert's Rules for having that discussion. This whole thing has led to my probe into what Robert's Rules indeed states in terms of what can be discussed at a meeting. By the way, the title of the original document is what was on the agenda; the word "revised" wasn't even added. This has made me feel like we were justified in discussing anything related to the document, not just the proposed revisions, but I want to confirm that hunch.

I apologize for my lack of clarity previously. I appreciate the expertise you have provided thus far.

Much respect, 

Candace Lynch

Community college professor, Southern California

[Dan Honemann]

Thank you very much for providing this additional information. It does seem to be substantially what I previously supposed to be the case.

I gather that a motion was made at your September meeting to amend the document you describe (which had been adopted in 2020) by making certain changes in some of its provisions to reflect changes in California's education code.  During debate on this motion, members brought up and discussed the advisability of making certain other amendments to another section or sections of this document that have nothing at all to do with the provisions proposed to be amended. As I previously indicated, I agree with your former president that this was not in order. 

Debate on a motion must be confined to the merits of the pending question (RONR, 12th ed., 4:30, 43:20, and 61;10), and any proposed amendment to a motion must be germane, that is to say, it must in some way involve the same question raised by the motion that it proposes to amend (12:6, 12:16, 12:22(1)).  It seems to be rather clear that these requirements were not met.

The motion which was introduced at your September meeting was a motion to amend a portion of the document which was adopted in 2020. This sort of motion is discussed at length in Section 35 of RONR. Since no previous notice was given of the substance of the proposed amendment, a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership would have been required for its adoption. In any event, I understand that it was not adopted. Under these circumstances, it can be moved again at any later session.