Agenda item > Immediate motion by members

[Holly C]

I'm a member of our State Advisory Committee on the Education of Children/Students with Disabilities where our agenda topics are often worded towards open discussion -- for example:

6:00 – New Business: Subcommittees 
o Things to possibly discuss:
▪ When should subcommittees meet?
▪ How many subcommittees should there be?
▪ Should each priority have a subcommittee?

From experience, there will be one specific member who will immediately make a motion once the Chair (or Vice Chair) reads the agenda item (we have no formal secretary currently). It feels like a significant bullish move as this person will push their own agenda and has one other member who will always immediately second the motion. This is repeated over and over again and the Chairs do not take any action against this. It creates significant frustration and ensures that agenda items never move forward (the example I gave has been on three recent agenda's ... I've even emailed the Chairs directly relaying this is not "new" but "continued" business but it remains as it is noted on our January agenda).

My question: Is there somewhere in Robert's Rules that speaks to a scenario like I've mentioned above? 

Many of us on the committee are quite frustrated and can't seen to get any traction towards creating a collaborative and solutions-focused committee. Any advice would be helpful (for our committee and my blood pressure ). 

Many thanks in advance! 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/2/2023 at 12:37 PM, Holly C said:

From experience, there will be one specific member who will immediately make a motion once the Chair (or Vice Chair) reads the agenda item (we have no formal secretary currently). It feels like a significant bullish move as this person will push their own agenda and has one other member who will always immediately second the motion. This is repeated over and over again and the Chairs do not take any action against this. It creates significant frustration and ensures that agenda items never move forward

How does having a motion made and seconded prevent agenda items from moving forward?

The making of a motion is only the first step in the process of debating a motion, not the last. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 1/2/2023 at 11:37 AM, Holly C said:

My question: Is there somewhere in Robert's Rules that speaks to a scenario like I've mentioned above? 

 

I doubt it. It sounds like your procedures do not bear much resemblance to those envisioned by RONR. As RONR sees things, a motion gets things started, and the procedures ensure that at any given time (with a few exceptions) there is a binary question before the assembly.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/2/2023 at 11:37 AM, Holly C said:

It feels like a significant bullish move as this person will push their own agenda and has one other member who will always immediately second the motion.

For starters, is the motion related to the agenda item at hand?

If so, I don't think this is a "bullish" move at all, and I don't see what the problem is. This is, in fact, how parliamentary procedure is supposed to work. A motion is made which includes a concrete proposal, the motion is discussed and subject to debate and amendment, and ultimately a vote on the motion is taken.

If the assembly doesn't like this motion, it can be voted down. There are even tools to limit or end debate on the motion, if you have a 2/3 vote. Alternately, if there are particular aspects of the motion members disagree with, members can propose amendments.

On 1/2/2023 at 11:37 AM, Holly C said:

This is repeated over and over again and the Chairs do not take any action against this.

Nor should they.

On 1/2/2023 at 11:37 AM, Holly C said:

It creates significant frustration and ensures that agenda items never move forward

I am not following. Motions are how agenda items move forward.

On 1/2/2023 at 11:37 AM, Holly C said:

I've even emailed the Chairs directly relaying this is not "new" but "continued" business but it remains as it is noted on our January agenda).

The term you are looking for is "Unfinished Business."

On 1/2/2023 at 11:37 AM, Holly C said:

My question: Is there somewhere in Robert's Rules that speaks to a scenario like I've mentioned above? 

The procedures for consideration of a motion, generally, are discussed in RONR (12th ed.) Section 4.

On 1/2/2023 at 11:37 AM, Holly C said:

Many of us on the committee are quite frustrated and can't seen to get any traction towards creating a collaborative and solutions-focused committee.

Making motions is a crucial part of "creating a collaborative and solutions-focused committee."

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/2/2023 at 12:37 PM, Holly C said:

I'm a member of our State Advisory Committee on the Education of Children/Students with Disabilities where our agenda topics are often worded towards open discussion -- for example:

6:00 – New Business: Subcommittees 
o Things to possibly discuss:
▪ When should subcommittees meet?
▪ How many subcommittees should there be?
▪ Should each priority have a subcommittee?

From experience, there will be one specific member who will immediately make a motion once the Chair (or Vice Chair) reads the agenda item (we have no formal secretary currently). It feels like a significant bullish move as this person will push their own agenda and has one other member who will always immediately second the motion. This is repeated over and over again and the Chairs do not take any action against this. It creates significant frustration and ensures that agenda items never move forward (the example I gave has been on three recent agenda's ... I've even emailed the Chairs directly relaying this is not "new" but "continued" business but it remains as it is noted on our January agenda).

My question: Is there somewhere in Robert's Rules that speaks to a scenario like I've mentioned above? 

Many of us on the committee are quite frustrated and can't seen to get any traction towards creating a collaborative and solutions-focused committee. Any advice would be helpful (for our committee and my blood pressure ). 

Many thanks in advance! 

Yes, RONR does speak to such a scenario, and it is the proper way to conduct business.  A motion is made and seconded, and then (and only then) is discussion on the topic in order.  It cannot in any way be considered bullying, since no one is prevented from discussing the matter, offering amendments, and whatever else is required to get the result desired by a majority.

This would properly be New Business.  There is no such thing as "continued business".  There is such a thing as Unfinished Business, but this would not be unfinished since until there has been a motion, the business has not yet begun.

Edited January 3, 2023 at 03:29 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 1/2/2023 at 9:28 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

This would properly be New Business.  There is no such thing as "continued business".  There is such a thing as Unfinished Business, but this would not be unfinished since until there has been a motion, the business has not yet begun.

I disagree. Based upon the facts presented, it seems to me this matter would be Unfinished Business.

"The heading of Unfinished Business and General Orders includes items of business in the four categories that are listed below in the order in which they are taken up. Of these, the first three constitute “Unfinished Business,” while the fourth consists of “General Orders”:

a) The question that was pending when the previous meeting adjourned, if that meeting adjourned while a question other than a special order was pending.

b) Any questions that were unfinished business at the previous meeting but were not reached before it adjourned—taken in the order in which they were due to come up at that meeting as indicated under (a) and (c).

c) Any questions which, by postponement or otherwise, were set as general orders for the previous meeting, or for a particular hour during that meeting, but were not reached before it adjourned—taken in the order in which the general orders were made.

d) Matters that were postponed to, or otherwise made general orders for, the present meeting—taken in the order in which they were made." RONR (12th ed.) 41:23

Edited January 3, 2023 at 04:31 AM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

I tend to agree with Mr. Novosielski as to whether these agenda items constitute new business or unfinished business. I do not see how the items given to us as an example constitute unfinished business. In what way is any of it unfinished business? I don’t see that any of it meets the criteria for unfinished business. 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/3/2023 at 10:47 AM, Richard Brown said:

I tend to agree with Mr. Novosielski as to whether these agenda items constitute new business or unfinished business. I do not see how the items given to us as an example constitute unfinished business. In what way is any of it unfinished business? I don’t see that any of it meets the criteria for unfinished business. 

We are told that this item "has been on three recent agenda's." An item which is on an adopted agenda becomes either a general order or a special order, depending upon the specifics. A general order which is not reached prior to adjournment becomes Unfinished Business for the next regular meeting if that meeting is within a quarterly interval, and an item of Unfinished Business which is not reached prior to adjournment becomes Unfinished Business for the next regular meeting. A special order which has not been reached prior to adjournment becomes a special order for the next regular meeting if that meeting is within a quarterly interval.

Based upon the facts presented, it does not seem to me this motion should have been "New Business" in the first place - it should have been a general order, or perhaps a special order. Of course, many organizations are unaware of the existence of those categories of business and mistakenly place such items under New Business. Nonetheless, the item should now be placed under Unfinished Business, or possibly under Special Orders.

[Richard Brown]

Ahhh … I had forgotten that the op said that these items have been on “several recent agendas“. Assuming these agendas were actually formally adopted, I agree that any of the items not reached at a meeting would constitute unfinished business (or possibly a special order) for the next meeting. I note that we have not been told whether any of the agendas were formally adopted.

Edited January 3, 2023 at 05:29 PM by Richard Brown
Added part in parentheses

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/3/2023 at 11:56 AM, Josh Martin said:

We are told that this item "has been on three recent agenda's." An item which is on an adopted agenda becomes either a general order or a special order, depending upon the specifics.

Well, If they had truly been General Orders for prior meetings, that's one thing, but if they were just an item listed, say, under New Business as nothing more definite than  "• things to possibly discuss" as we've seen here, then maybe not so much.