Can the agenda be used to limit members ability to amend the agenda or adjourn a meeting?

[Big George]

I’m back with more horror stories from my organization’s ongoing internecine conflict.  I appreciate the thoughtful and helpful insights from the members of this forum.

The latest matter is attempts by both factions in our organization to limit members from exercising rights they would otherwise have with statements on the agenda itself.

Our organization is required to have a regular meeting each quarter.  One of the factions is afraid of what might happen in such a meeting, so when they send out the notice of the regular quarterly meeting, the proposed agenda that accompanies the notice states that it cannot be amended.  They then claim that since our rules require a supermajority to amend the agenda, that it what is required to change it.  They remove the step of adopting the agenda that is normally on our agenda (though not necessarily required by any of our rules other than the reference to RONR).

The other faction is concerned that business never gets completed because members (understandably) grow weary of the constant bickering and eventually have had enough and a motion is made and adopted to adjourn the meeting.  So they put on the agenda (either the proposed agenda for a meeting, or, as an amendment to the agenda before it is adopted) a provision that the meeting cannot be adjourned until the entire agenda has been completed.   They then maintain that since this is part of the adopted agenda, to adjourn the meeting before all of the business on the agenda has been addressed, a supermajority vote to amend the agenda is required to remove the requirement that adjournment can only occur after all of the items on the agenda have been addressed by the members.

My gut says that neither of these approaches is permissible because they interfere with the members basic rights, but I haven’t been able to put my finger on the chapter and verse in RONR that address it.

I welcome your thoughts and insights.

Edited February 8, 2023 at 11:13 PM by Big George

[Richard Brown]

On 2/8/2023 at 5:12 PM, Big George said:

My gut says that neither of these approaches is permissible because they interfere with the members basic rights, but I haven’t been able to put my finger on the chapter and verse in RONR that address it.

You are right.  Neither approach is correct.  Perhaps someone else can go into more detail, but for openers I would suggest that you read Chapter 41 (Order of Business; Orders of The Day; Agenda or Program) in RONR (12th ed.) or at least Sections 41:58-70 (Agenda or Program) for information on how to properly handle an agenda.  I'm not able to go into more detail at the moment.

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/8/2023 at 6:12 PM, Big George said:

They then maintain that since this is part of the adopted agenda, to adjourn the meeting before all of the business on the agenda has been addressed, a supermajority vote to amend the agenda is required to remove the requirement that adjournment can only occur after all of the items on the agenda have been addressed by the members.

See motion #3 on Table II (tinted page 6) which shows in the first and second-last columns that a motion to "Adjourn ... in advance of a time already set" requires a majority vote for adoption. This applies as long as the motion is to adjourn immediately.

[J. J.]

On 2/8/2023 at 8:01 PM, Atul Kapur said:

See motion #3 on Table II (tinted page 6) which shows in the first and second-last columns that a motion to "Adjourn ... in advance of a time already set" requires a majority vote for adoption. This applies as long as the motion is to adjourn immediately.

Not disagreeing, but the motion to adjourn in this instance is a main motion and is fully debatable.  It is not in order while another main motion is pending. 

See also 41:61, especially the last sentence.   

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/8/2023 at 6:12 PM, Big George said:

...so when they send out the notice of the regular quarterly meeting, the proposed agenda that accompanies the notice states that it cannot be amended. 

Just by way of illustration, what would happen if I were to show up at one of your meetings, and handed out a paper saying that everyone there had to pay me fifty bucks?  I'm going to guess that someone (at least) would point out to me that in the first place, I was not authorized even to be there, much less hand out papers, and in the second place, just because it said something on it doesn't make it true.

Its fine if someone passes out a draft agenda that claims it can't be amended, but unless and until the assembly votes to approve the agenda, it doesn't matter what it says.  And by eliminating the vote to approve the agenda, all they have done is ensure that the draft agenda remains irrelevant for the entire meeting.

The previous answers have provided you with citations, but bear in mind that the burden of proof is not on you.  The individuals who are claiming the power to change the rules in this way are the people who have to show you the rule that gives them this magical new authority.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/8/2023 at 5:12 PM, Big George said:

Our organization is required to have a regular meeting each quarter.  One of the factions is afraid of what might happen in such a meeting, so when they send out the notice of the regular quarterly meeting, the proposed agenda that accompanies the notice states that it cannot be amended.  They then claim that since our rules require a supermajority to amend the agenda, that it what is required to change it.  They remove the step of adopting the agenda that is normally on our agenda (though not necessarily required by any of our rules other than the reference to RONR).

The other faction is concerned that business never gets completed because members (understandably) grow weary of the constant bickering and eventually have had enough and a motion is made and adopted to adjourn the meeting.  So they put on the agenda (either the proposed agenda for a meeting, or, as an amendment to the agenda before it is adopted) a provision that the meeting cannot be adjourned until the entire agenda has been completed.   They then maintain that since this is part of the adopted agenda, to adjourn the meeting before all of the business on the agenda has been addressed, a supermajority vote to amend the agenda is required to remove the requirement that adjournment can only occur after all of the items on the agenda have been addressed by the members.

My gut says that neither of these approaches is permissible because they interfere with the members basic rights, but I haven’t been able to put my finger on the chapter and verse in RONR that address it.

I am in agreement that neither approach is permissible. Simply putting something on an agenda which has not been adopted is meaningless. And the agenda cannot include rules of order.

"By a single vote, a series of special orders or general orders—or a mixture of both—can be made; such a series is called an agenda." RONR (12th ed.) 41:58

"In some organizations, it is customary to send each member, in advance of a meeting, an order of business or agenda, with some indication of the matters to be considered under each heading. Such an agenda is often provided for information only, with no intention or practice of submitting it for adoption. 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 (41:40ff.) or conforms to the standard order of business (3:16, 41:5ff.) or an order of business prescribed by the rules of the organization (2:16, 3:16)." RONR (12th ed.) 41:62, emphasis added

I do agree with J.J., however, that placing a set time for adjournment on the agenda does make it more difficult to adjourn prior to that time. The assembly may adjourn prior to that time by a majority vote, but only when no business is pending, and the motion is debatable. To adjourn while business is pending under such circumstances would require a suspension of the rules, which requires a 2/3 vote.

The appropriate method to adopt either of these rules, to the extent the assembly wishes to do so, would be through a special rule of order, which requires a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption. In the alternative, such rules could be adopted for a particular meeting by a 2/3 vote.

It is not unusual to adopt rules requiring, for example, that items of business must be submitted a certain number of days in advance so that they can be included in the notice, perhaps with a provision for this rule to be suspended by a higher vote. I have also seen organizations adopt rules providing that adjournment is not in order until certain items of business have been completed. Providing that all items listed on the agenda must be completed prior to adjournment would be rather unusual, and seems like cruel and unusual punishment in some assemblies, but the assembly may nonetheless adopt such a rule if it wishes.

Edited February 9, 2023 at 04:04 AM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/8/2023 at 11:02 PM, Josh Martin said:

And the agenda cannot include rules of order.

Nice catch.

[Big George]

Thanks everyone for sharing your wisdom.  I will review each comment and read the references and get back to you with any questions.