Cutting off a Members motion

[Tomm]

 

It's often stated that new motions can be presented at the end of a meeting even if no New Business is offered on the Agenda. It is also stated that it must be done before the Chair gavels the meeting adjourned.

Isn't it necessary, even if the Chair is attempting, on her own, to cut-off a member from presenting a new motion at the end of a meeting, that the Chair must first ask/state "If there's no further business this meeting is adjourned" then pause and wait for a response? 

Once the gavel slams down is it too late for member to say, "Hey, wait a minute, Point of Order, I have new business" 

[Weldon Merritt]

RONR doesn't address that specific situation (at least as far as I can determine). The closest it comes is in 21:12 where, after a discussion in the two preceding paragraphs about parliamentary steps that are in order even after a motion tp adjourn has been adopted but before the chair declares the meeting adjourned, it states, "If the chair learns, immediately after declaring the assembly adjourned, that a member seeking the floor for one of these purposes had risen and addressed the chair before the adjournment was declared, then, since the adjournment was improper and this breach was promptly noted, the chair must call the meeting back to order—but only long enough for the purpose for which the member legitimately sought the floor." 

I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the same principle should apply if the chair declares the meeting adjourned without having provided an opportunity for new business. But only if a member actually was seeking the floor at the time. I don't think a member can sit quietly and wait until the chair adjourns the meeting and then raise a point of order that the chair didn't call for new business.

[Josh Martin]

On 7/7/2022 at 6:21 PM, Tomm said:

It's often stated that new motions can be presented at the end of a meeting even if no New Business is offered on the Agenda. It is also stated that it must be done before the Chair gavels the meeting adjourned.

Isn't it necessary, even if the Chair is attempting, on her own, to cut-off a member from presenting a new motion at the end of a meeting, that the Chair must first ask/state "If there's no further business this meeting is adjourned" then pause and wait for a response? 

Once the gavel slams down is it too late for member to say, "Hey, wait a minute, Point of Order, I have new business" 

Assuming the reason the chair is declaring the meeting adjourned is solely on the grounds that the full order of business has been completed, yes, it is correct that the chair must ask if there is any further business before doing so.

"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 (12th ed.) 21:15

[Tim Wynn]

On 7/7/2022 at 7:21 PM, Tomm said:

It's often stated that new motions can be presented at the end of a meeting even if no New Business is offered on the Agenda

Are you saying an agenda was adopted without the heading of New Business, or are you saying an agenda was adopted without any items listed under the heading of New Business, even though the heading of New Business was included in the agenda?

If New Business in on the agenda, then the whole purpose of that heading is to allow members an opportunity to propose new business. 

Keep in mind, though, that for an agenda to be binding, it must be adopted in the session to which it applies, and while the adoption of the agenda is pending (normally at the outset of the meeting), any member can offer an amendment to that proposed agenda, which is debatable and requires a majority vote for adoption. Members may want to insert the heading of New Business into their agenda, if it's not there, just so that it clearly reflects the will of the assembly.

 

On 7/7/2022 at 7:21 PM, Tomm said:

It is also stated that it must be done before the Chair gavels the meeting adjourned.

"So long as members are reasonably prompt in claiming the floor, the chair cannot prevent the making of legitimate motions or deprive members of the right to introduce legitimate business, by hurrying through the proceedings." - RONR (12th ed.) 41:27

The gavel has nothing to do with it. "It should be noted that, under legitimate parliamentary procedure, there is no such thing as 'gaveling through' a measure." - RONR (12th ed.) 43:6

On 7/7/2022 at 7:21 PM, Tomm said:

Once the gavel slams down is it too late for member to say, "Hey, wait a minute, Point of Order, I have new business" 

No, it's not too late. We're too focused on the gavel, here. Once a meeting has legitimately adjourned, it is too late for a point of order to be made in that meeting. However, please disavow yourself of the notion that the chair, at any time, can just prematurely say, "The meeting is adjourned," and make it so. If the chair tries such a thing, a member should immediately raise a point of order, whether this occurs in the middle of the meeting or near the end. 

Edited July 8, 2022 at 03:58 PM by Tim Wynn
Improvement

[Tim Wynn]

It is my understanding (or misunderstanding) that if an agenda is adopted with its being intended to cover the entire session (obviously adopted by a two-thirds vote in cases where it would conflict with an existing order of business), without including any mention of adjournment, such as shown below . . .

 

1. Approval of Minutes
2. President's Report
3. Treasurer's Report
4. Report of Membership Committee
5. Resolution #1
6. Resolution #2
7. Amend Rule Allowing Cell Phone Use During Meeting

 

. . . then after all of these items have been reached and dealt with, new items of business would be in order, meaning that setting the sequence for these seven items does not prevent the consideration of additional items once this sequence has been dealt with. 

 

On the other hand, if the adopted agenda contains an adjournment (whether an hour is prescribed or not), as shown below . . .

 

1. Approval of Minutes
2. President's Report
3. Treasurer's Report
4. Report of Membership Committee
5. Resolution #1
6. Resolution #2
7. Amend Rule Allowing Cell Phone Use During Meeting
8. Adjourn

 

. . . then, after the first seven items have been handled, introducing a new item of business before adjournment would not be in order, except through an amendment to the agenda or through the assembly's setting aside the orders of the day to take up another matter, since, by adopting the agenda, the assembly has set adjournment as the order of the day that follows item#7. 

[Tomm]

On 7/8/2022 at 8:54 AM, Tim Wynn said:

Are you saying an agenda was adopted without the heading of New Business, or are you saying an agenda was adopted without any items listed under the heading of New Business, even though the heading of New Business was included in the agenda?

The Agenda is not approved at the meetings, and the Agenda that is published 7 days prior to the meeting does not include New Business. It is my understanding, however, that New Business is always something permissibly included under RONR after all listed items of business have been concluded whether or not it's stated on an agenda? 

[Tim Wynn]

On 7/8/2022 at 12:14 PM, Tomm said:

The Agenda is not approved at the meetings, and the Agenda that is published 7 days prior to the meeting does not include New Business. It is my understanding, however, that New Business is always something permissibly included under RONR after all listed items of business have been concluded whether or not it's stated on an agenda? 

The standard order of business includes New Business at the very end. If RONR is your adopted parliamentary authority, and if you haven't adopted a special order of business, and if the periods intervening between your regular meetings are usually NOT more than a quarterly time interval, then this standard order of business (along with the heading New Business) applies to your meetings. Circulating an agenda before the meeting does not change this.

"Unless a precirculated agenda is formally adopted at the session to which it applies, it is not binding as to detail or order of consideration, other than as it lists preexisting orders of the day or conforms to the standard order of business or an order of business prescribed by the rules of the organization." - RONR (12th ed.) 41:62

You can find the standard order of business in RONR (12th ed.) 41:5.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/8/2022 at 12:14 PM, Tomm said:

The Agenda is not approved at the meetings, and the Agenda that is published 7 days prior to the meeting does not include New Business. It is my understanding, however, that New Business is always something permissibly included under RONR after all listed items of business have been concluded whether or not it's stated on an agenda? 

If the Agenda is never approved, then it is not truly an agenda as RONR understands the term, but merely a to-do list which does not restrict or require any particular actions.

[Rob Elsman]

If the rules in RONR (12th ed.) are controlling, any new business is allowed to be introduced after the orders of the day have been disposed of, provided that previous notice of motions requiring previous notice has been properly given, until the meeting is adjourned.

Nothing in the original post indicates that the assembly adopted an order to adjourn after the orders of the day were disposed of, and all the discussion about this seems irrelevant to me.  In fact, the fact that there might (or might not) have been an adopted agenda seems irrelevant to me.  As the facts have been presented, after the orders of the day were disposed of, the chair should have asked something like, "Is there any further business?".  As Mr. Wynn points out, it is improper for the chair to try to deprive members of a reasonable opportunity to rise and seek recognition by hurrying the proceedings too much.  So, the direct answer to the question asked is affirmative.

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 7/9/2022 at 11:33 AM, Rob Elsman said:

If the rules in RONR (12th ed.) are controlling, any new business is allowed to be introduced after the orders of the day have been disposed of, provided that previous notice of motions requiring previous notice has been properly given, until the meeting is adjourned.

 

On 7/9/2022 at 11:33 AM, Rob Elsman said:

In fact, the fact that there might (or might not) have been an adopted agenda seems irrelevant to me. 

I trust, however, that you do not disagree with the second half of Mr. Wynn's second post. This is what he said:

On 7/8/2022 at 12:01 PM, Tim Wynn said:

On the other hand, if the adopted agenda contains an adjournment (whether an hour is prescribed or not), as shown below . . .

 

1. Approval of Minutes
2. President's Report
3. Treasurer's Report
4. Report of Membership Committee
5. Resolution #1
6. Resolution #2
7. Amend Rule Allowing Cell Phone Use During Meeting
8. Adjourn

 

. . . then, after the first seven items have been handled, introducing a new item of business before adjournment would not be in order, except through an amendment to the agenda or through the assembly's setting aside the orders of the day to take up another matter, since, by adopting the agenda, the assembly has set adjournment as the order of the day that follows item#7. 

 

[Rob Elsman]

I do not disagree with Mr. Wynn's second half, but I do not see anything in the original post that makes it relevant to the question that Tomm asked.