Binding Future Bodies

[Mike Phillips]

A very strange thing happened tonight. A member made a motion that the agenda for a meeting be submitted to the Executive Committee at least seven days prior to the meeting. That is, a matter not listed on the agenda could not be taken up at the meeting. The chair (still learning RONR) eventually said that the parliamentarian had left the meeting, and that he was unable to rule on the motion. 

My thought is that this body cannot bind a future body in this manner. The body needs to be free to transact whatever business is necessary for the operation of the organization. What's the answer, and where is the authority for the answer?

We had a lot of people interrupting the meeting with Points of Order and Points of Information. It was not a pretty sight. 

[Atul Kapur]

This sounds like a Special Rule of Order. See RONR (12th ed.) 2:14-2:22

[Josh Martin]

On 5/24/2022 at 11:09 PM, Mike Phillips said:

A very strange thing happened tonight. A member made a motion that the agenda for a meeting be submitted to the Executive Committee at least seven days prior to the meeting. That is, a matter not listed on the agenda could not be taken up at the meeting. The chair (still learning RONR) eventually said that the parliamentarian had left the meeting, and that he was unable to rule on the motion. 

My thought is that this body cannot bind a future body in this manner. The body needs to be free to transact whatever business is necessary for the operation of the organization. What's the answer, and where is the authority for the answer?

You have the right idea, but to say as an absolute that this cannot be done goes too far. The assembly may adopt a rule of this nature, however, it would require a special rule of order to do so. To adopt a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

"As a general rule, one session cannot place a question beyond the reach of a majority at a later session except through the process of adopting a special rule of order or an amendment to the bylaws (either of which requires more than a majority vote; see immediately below)." RONR (12th ed.) 8:12

If members believe that the "body needs to be free to transact whatever business is necessary for the operation of the organization," they are free to vote against the proposed rule or to propose amendments, such as provisions for the rule's suspension.

Aside from the advisability of the rule, it would seem to me that the rule's wording leaves much to be desired. You say that the rule means that "a matter not listed on the agenda could not be taken up at the meeting," but this is not at all clear to me from the wording of the rule. Nothing in RONR requires an item to be listed on an agenda in order to be considered, so a rule requiring submission of an agenda in advance, in and of itself, will not prevent the introduction of motions not listed on the agenda.

The rule also simply says that the agenda "be submitted," so it is not clear who prepares the agenda, how items are added, etc. If the assembly wishes to adopt a rule of this nature, it would be desirable to clarify such details, either in the rule itself or in other rules.

 

[Mike Phillips]

On 5/25/2022 at 8:09 AM, Josh Martin said:

The rule also simply says that the agenda "be submitted," so it is not clear who prepares the agenda, how items are added, etc. If the assembly wishes to adopt a rule of this nature, it would be desirable to clarify such details, either in the rule itself or in other rules.

If this problem surfaces again, these questions will be helpful to shoot down the proposal, which, in my opinion, is unnecessary. It this case, the controversial matter was circulated to the Executive Committee by First Class Mail. This person, of course, claimed he did not receive it. 

[Mike Phillips]

On 5/25/2022 at 8:09 AM, Josh Martin said:

You have the right idea, but to say as an absolute that this cannot be done goes too far. The assembly may adopt a rule of this nature, however, it would require a special rule of order to do so. To adopt a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

And now almost a year later, the rule was not designated as a special rule of order when it passed. While I don't know if there was a majority of the membership voting in the affirmative, there definitely was no notice. Since no objection was made to passage of the rule at that time (such as not being properly proffered as a special rule of order), I assume the rule is binding. Alternatively, is there a way to attack the rule? We can only amend the by-laws once per year at the annual convention.

On 5/25/2022 at 8:09 AM, Josh Martin said:

they are free to ... propose amendments, such as provisions for the rule's suspension.

@Josh Martin Are you saying that it might be a good idea to amend the rule by adding, "This rule may be suspended by a majority vote of the Executive Committee?" If so, that makes a lot of sense to me. 

On 5/25/2022 at 8:09 AM, Josh Martin said:

Nothing in RONR requires an item to be listed on an agenda in order to be considered, so a rule requiring submission of an agenda in advance, in and of itself, will not prevent the introduction of motions not listed on the agenda.

I don't have access to the minutes at the moment, but as I recall, the rule states that items not listed on the advance agenda cannot be taken up at the meeting. (That language is not verbatim.) That provision seems dangerous in that it can paralyze the Executive Committee's ability to take necessary action on a matter that occurs less than seven days before the next meeting. 

The best solution would be to get rid of the rule. Leadership doesn't have a problem with providing information in advance, but they do have a problem with their hands being tied in dealing with matters that benefit the body.

Edited April 3, 2023 at 03:04 AM by Mike Phillips

[Josh Martin]

On 4/2/2023 at 10:03 PM, Mike Phillips said:

And now almost a year later, the rule was not designated as a special rule of order when it passed. While I don't know if there was a majority of the membership voting in the affirmative, there definitely was no notice. Since no objection was made to passage of the rule at that time (such as not being properly proffered as a special rule of order), I assume the rule is binding. Alternatively, is there a way to attack the rule? We can only amend the by-laws once per year at the annual convention.

No, I don't think the failure to use the exact words "special rule of order" is sufficient to invalidate the motion. It seems clear from the discussion that the intent of the motion was to adopt a rule for future meetings.

If there was less than a majority of the entire membership present at the meeting, a Point of Order could be raised regarding the lack of notice, but I imagine a year later no one has any idea what the attendance was at this meeting.

The fact that the bylaws can only be amended once per year at the annual convention is irrelevant, since this was not an amendment to the bylaws.

On 4/2/2023 at 10:03 PM, Mike Phillips said:

Are you saying that it might be a good idea to amend the rule by adding, "This rule may be suspended by a majority vote of the Executive Committee?" If so, that makes a lot of sense to me. 

I think a number of amendments to this rule would be desirable. This includes, but is not limited to, some sort of provision for the rule's suspension, in the event that unforeseen and urgent matters arise. Whether the desired threshold for suspension is a majority, 2/3, or whatever is a question for the assembly to decide.

[Mike Phillips]

@Josh Martin Thanks to your discussion, I think I finally figured out a succinct way to ask my question. Is it possible to prohibit the introduction of New Business that is not communicated to the body at least x days before the next meeting?

[Josh Martin]

On 4/3/2023 at 12:44 PM, Mike Phillips said:

@Josh Martin Thanks to your discussion, I think I finally figured out a succinct way to ask my question. Is it possible to prohibit the introduction of New Business that is not communicated to the body at least x days before the next meeting?

Yes. Such a rule may be adopted by means of a special rule of order or a rule in the bylaws. Such rules are not unusual.

[Atul Kapur]

On 4/3/2023 at 1:44 PM, Mike Phillips said:

Is it possible to prohibit the introduction of New Business that is not communicated to the body at least x days before the next meeting?

 

On 4/3/2023 at 4:22 PM, Josh Martin said:

Yes. Such a rule may be adopted by means of a special rule of order or a rule in the bylaws. Such rules are not unusual.

Just note that such a rule, normally, can be suspended.