Amend Agenda or New Business?

[Larry R.]

SCENARIO: An assembly always uses an agenda with an established order of business and always approves/adopts the agenda at the start of the session. A member may move to amend the agenda before it is adopted by adding a matter they wish to have considered. If the proposed amendment to the agenda is not adopted, other members take note and think: "instead of trying to add my issue to the agenda through the agenda amendment process, I'll just wait until we reach the New Business part of the agenda and then make a motion regarding the matter I want to have considered." I recognize that the amendment and the motion that will be made during the New Business part of the meeting both require a second in order to be considered. If there is a general sense and pattern that the assembly does not usually like to add items to an already busy agenda, isnt' it more advantgeous then for members to simply wait until New Business is arrived at and then bring their matters forth, rather than try to add them to the agenda at the start? 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/13/2022 at 10:12 AM, Larry R. said:

SCENARIO: An assembly always uses an agenda with an established order of business and always approves/adopts the agenda at the start of the session. A member may move to amend the agenda before it is adopted by adding a matter they wish to have considered. If the proposed amendment to the agenda is not adopted, other members take note and think: "instead of trying to add my issue to the agenda through the agenda amendment process, I'll just wait until we reach the New Business part of the agenda and then make a motion regarding the matter I want to have considered." I recognize that the amendment and the motion that will be made during the New Business part of the meeting both require a second in order to be considered. If there is a general sense and pattern that the assembly does not usually like to add items to an already busy agenda, isnt' it more advantgeous then for members to simply wait until New Business is arrived at and then bring their matters forth, rather than try to add them to the agenda at the start? 

Makes sense to me.

[Dan Honemann]

Makes sense to me as well. The reason a member would attempt to place an item on the agenda while the agenda is pending for adoption would be to ensure, as much as he can, that the item will come up for consideration at the time slated.

A concern that I have with what Larry R. posted, however, is with this sentence: "I recognize that the amendment and the motion that will be made during the New Business part of the meeting both require a second in order to be considered." There will be no need to amend the agenda when the time set aside for New Business has arrived. All that will be required is that the member obtain the floor and make the motion that he wants considered. 

An anomaly that one frequently encounters is an agenda which includes items of business in the portion set aside for New Business. These items are technically general orders, not new business, and they will have to be considered in the order in which they are listed before the assembly can proceed to the consideration of new business. 

 

[Richard Brown]

I think a lot depends upon the rules and the customs of the organization and on the precise language of the adopted agenda. If the agenda does include a section at the end for new business with no specific items of new business listed, which items would technically be special orders, then it seems perfectly appropriate to just introduce new items of business at that time.

However, If the “new business“ portion of the agenda does list specific items of new business, those items are technically special orders. If the agenda actually calls for adjournment immediately following that list of items, the chair might well declare the meeting adjourned before any member can make any motions introducing new business. 

I think the answer here depends at least partly on the exact nature of the agenda and on the rules and customs of the assembly.
 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/14/2022 at 12:33 PM, Richard Brown said:

I think a lot depends upon the rules and the customs of the organization and on the precise language of the adopted agenda. If the agenda does include a section at the end for new business with no specific items of new business listed, which items would technically be special orders, then it seems perfectly appropriate to just introduce new items of business at that time.

However, If the “new business“ portion of the agenda does list specific items of new business, those items are technically special orders. If the agenda actually calls for adjournment immediately following that list of items, the chair might well declare the meeting adjourned before any member can make any motions introducing new business. 

I think the answer here depends at least partly on the exact nature of the agenda and on the rules and customs of the assembly.
 

Assuming that the rules in RONR are controlling (which is what this forum is for), this is pretty much all wrong.

If an agenda includes a heading of New Business, and an item of business is listed under this heading, it will be a general order, not a special order, unless an hour has been assigned to it which, in these instances, would be highly unusual.

[Richard Brown]

On 2/14/2022 at 11:52 AM, Dan Honemann said:

If an agenda includes a heading of New Business, and an item of business is listed under this heading, it will be a general order, not a special order, unless an hour has been assigned to it which, in these instances, would be highly unusual.

You are correct. That was my mistake. I know they would be general orders if no time is specified and I don’t really know why I said special orders.

The point I was trying to make is that if those general orders are listed on the agenda, and then the very next item on the agenda is adjournment, the chair could declare the meeting adjourned before any member has an opportunity to make a motion introducing a new item of business.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/14/2022 at 12:59 PM, Richard Brown said:

The point I was trying to make is that if those general orders are listed on the agenda, and then the very next item on the agenda is adjournment, the chair could declare the meeting adjourned before any member has an opportunity to make a motion introducing a new item of business.

But we are talking about items of business that are listed in an agenda under a heading of New Business.  In this case, I think that genuine items of new business may be introduced after the incorrectly listed items have been disposed of, even if "Adjournment" is listed on the agenda following "New Business".

[Dan Honemann]

I'm going to "walk back" somewhat (as they say these days) my last response.  We are considering a situation (perhaps modified a bit from that originally posted) in which an assembly has incorrectly included one or more items of business under the heading of "New Business" in its adopted agenda, with "Adjournment" being the next item on the agenda.  What an assembly should do after having already departed from following its adopted rules may well, as Mr. Brown has observed, depend at least partly upon the customs of the assembly. 

[Rob Elsman]

As to what the original poster asked, I concur with Mr. Martin's response.

[J. J.]

In answer to the OP, "Yes."

I would note, again, that if the assembly meets at least as frequently as quarterly, an agenda is not normally used.  The standard order of business is used, which includes the heading of "New Business."

[Rob Elsman]

If J.J. would be amenable to striking out "standard order of business" and inserting "established order of business" in the same place, he and I would be singing in perfect harmony from the same page.

[J. J.]

On 2/16/2022 at 9:13 AM, Rob Elsman said:

If J.J. would be amenable to striking out "standard order of business" and inserting "established order of business" in the same place, he and I would be singing in perfect harmony from the same page.

45:5 says "customary or 'standard."