Motion to adjourn while items on adopted agenda still pending

[Guest Parliamentarian SLAC]

Our organization in its bylaws has a set form for the agenda with various categories and the last item being adjournment. Suppose a member makes a motion to adjourn before every item has been addressed. (In our case, before we have gotten to announcements, and the presiding officer knows we have announcements.) I believe such a motion is out of order, according to 21:3. Thoughts?

[Weldon Merritt]

No, the motion is not out of order. 21:3 simply means that the motion is not privileged. I.e., it must be made as an incidental main motion when no other business is immediately pending.  As such, it is subject to all of the rules relating to main motions. Also, note that even after a motion to adjourn has been adopted, the chair may make important announcements befo9re actually adjourning the meeting. And there are several more parliamentary steps that would be in order. See 21:10.

[Guest OP, Parliamentarian]

Thank you for your reply, Weldon. This is helpful, especially 21:10. Follow up points:

• It could be argued that when 21:3 speaks of a time for adjournment having been set, it literally means time, not place in the agenda. Our agenda doesn't say anything like "Adjournment at 5pm." It just lists adjournment last in the agenda. 
• It seems 21.3 does say, in the middle of its second paragraph, that if a time to adjourn has been set in the agenda, then a motion to adjourn is out of order. 

I would welcome any further thoughts anyone has. Thanks!

[Richard Brown]

On 4/12/2023 at 11:28 AM, Guest OP, Parliamentarian said:

It seems 21.3 does say, in the middle of its second paragraph, that if a time to adjourn has been set in the agenda, then a motion to adjourn is out of order. 

No, that is not correct.  The motion to adjourn is always in order, but it loses its character as a privileged motion if a time to adjourn has previously been set, whether by motion or by rule.  If your agenda simply lists "Adjourn" as the last item on the agenda and there is no set time to adjourn, then that in and of itself does not cause the motion to adjourn to lose its character as a privileged motion. 

Therefore, in your case, a motion to adjourn is in order.  Since no time to adjourn has previously been set, it will be a privileged motion if it is a simple motion to adjourn.   it will not be debatable or amendable, and it will require a majority vote for passage.

You might study 21:2 regarding the motion to adjourn, especially the first full sentence.  You might also look at motions 2 and 3 in table II on tinted page t6.

 

Edited April 12, 2023 at 05:37 PM by Richard Brown
Edited second paragraph and added last sentence in third paragraph

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:03 AM, Guest Parliamentarian SLAC said:

Our organization in its bylaws has a set form for the agenda with various categories and the last item being adjournment. Suppose a member makes a motion to adjourn before every item has been addressed. (In our case, before we have gotten to announcements, and the presiding officer knows we have announcements.) I believe such a motion is out of order, according to 21:3. Thoughts?

Could you quote, exactly, this agenda which is set forth in your bylaws?

[Josh Martin]

On 4/12/2023 at 8:03 AM, Guest Parliamentarian SLAC said:

Our organization in its bylaws has a set form for the agenda with various categories and the last item being adjournment. Suppose a member makes a motion to adjourn before every item has been addressed. (In our case, before we have gotten to announcements, and the presiding officer knows we have announcements.) I believe such a motion is out of order, according to 21:3. Thoughts?

I think it would be helpful to know exactly what is in your bylaws on this matter. 

On 4/12/2023 at 11:28 AM, Guest OP, Parliamentarian said:

Thank you for your reply, Weldon. This is helpful, especially 21:10. Follow up points:

• It could be argued that when 21:3 speaks of a time for adjournment having been set, it literally means time, not place in the agenda. Our agenda doesn't say anything like "Adjournment at 5pm." It just lists adjournment last in the agenda. 
• It seems 21.3 does say, in the middle of its second paragraph, that if a time to adjourn has been set in the agenda, then a motion to adjourn is out of order. 

To clarify, this is precisely what 21:3 says on this matter.

"A motion to adjourn is always a privileged motion except in the following cases:

1) When the motion is qualified in any way, as in the case of a motion to adjourn at, or to, a future time.

2) When a time for adjourning is already established, either because the assembly has adopted a motion or a program setting such a time, or because the order of business, the bylaws, or other governing rules prescribe it.

3) When the effect of the motion to adjourn, if adopted, would be to dissolve the assembly with no provision for another meeting, as is usually the case in a mass meeting or the last meeting of a convention.

Under any of conditions (1) through (3) above, a motion to adjourn is not privileged and is treated just as any other incidental main motion. Consequently, a motion to adjourn at or to a future time is always out of order while business is pending in any assembly; and any motion to adjourn at all is out of order while business is pending under either of conditions (2) or (3)—which, however, do not commonly apply to meetings of ordinary societies." RONR (12th ed.) 21:3, emphasis added

So 21:3 does not provide that if a time to adjourn has been set, then it is out of order to adjourn, period. Rather, it provides that a motion to adjourn is out of order while business is pending in such circumstances. A motion to adjourn could still be made while no business is pending. Under such circumstances, the motion to adjourn is treated as any other main motion - it is debatable, amendable, and requires a majority vote for its adoption.

As you note, there is also perhaps some question as to whether Adjournment being listed as the last item in an order of business or agenda is in fact the same thing as specifically providing a time for adjournment for purposes of this rule.

Edited April 12, 2023 at 09:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Wright Stuff]

On 4/12/2023 at 5:37 PM, Josh Martin said:

As you note, there is also perhaps some question as to whether Adjournment being listed as the last item in an order of business or agenda is in fact the same thing as specifically providing a time for adjournment for purposes of this rule.

Assume that the adopted agenda lists Adjournment as the last item. If you were parliamentarian for such a meeting, and this issue arose, what would your recommended ruling be? 

[Josh Martin]

On 8/2/2023 at 7:52 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Assume that the adopted agenda lists Adjournment as the last item. If you were parliamentarian for such a meeting, and this issue arose, what would your recommended ruling be? 

Generally, my recommendation would be that this does not constitute establishing a "time" for adjournment in the meaning of RONR (12th ed.) 21:3. My own experience has generally been that inclusion of this item on the agenda is simply a custom based on members' understanding of how agendas are supposed to look, and is not intended to mean much of anything.

It may be, however, that in a particular assembly the inclusion of this item on the agenda is intentional, and if that were the established custom, my advice may well be different in those circumstances.

Edited August 2, 2023 at 01:48 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 8/2/2023 at 9:47 AM, Josh Martin said:

 

It may be, however, that in a particular assembly the inclusion of this item on the agenda is intentional, and if that were the established custom, my advice may well be different in those circumstances.

I will disagree on this point.  I would say that a time for adjournment would need to be established by something adopted for 21:3 2) to apply.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/2/2023 at 10:26 AM, J. J. said:

I will disagree on this point.  I would say that a time for adjournment would need to be established by something adopted for 21:3 2) to apply.

We are told that the time for adjournment is fixed in the agenda prescribed by the bylaws (but this bylaw provision has not yet been provided for us to review).

 

On 8/2/2023 at 9:47 AM, Josh Martin said:

Generally, my recommendation would be that this does not constitute establishing a "time" for adjournment in the meaning of RONR (12th ed.) 21:3. My own experience has generally been that inclusion of this item on the agenda is simply a custom based on members' understanding of how agendas are supposed to look, and is not intended to mean much of anything.

You find some ambiguity here?

[J. J.]

On 8/2/2023 at 11:01 AM, Dan Honemann said:

We are told that the time for adjournment is fixed in the agenda prescribed by the bylaws (but this bylaw provision has not yet been provided for us to review).

 

You find some ambiguity here?

First, a bylaw would be something adopted; we do not know if it specifies a time.

Second, that not the statement with the statement with which I expressed disagreement.  I do not agree that, under any circumstances, except for expressing a time for adjournment, 21:3 2) would apply.  I do not see the potential exception Mr. Martin does.

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/2/2023 at 11:53 AM, J. J. said:

First, a bylaw would be something adopted; we do not know if it specifies a time.

We are told that "Our organization in its bylaws has a set form for the agenda with various categories and the last item being adjournment."  By my standards, this specifies the time for adjournment.

[J. J.]

On 8/2/2023 at 12:06 PM, Dan Honemann said:

We are told that "Our organization in its bylaws has a set form for the agenda with various categories and the last item being adjournment."  By my standards, this specifies the time for adjournment.

It would not in mine, unless it specified an actual time. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/2/2023 at 2:49 PM, J. J. said:

It would not in mine, unless it specified an actual time. 

21:3 says "time", not "actual time". 

[J. J.]

On 8/2/2023 at 3:18 PM, Dan Honemann said:

21:3 says "time", not "actual time". 

However, time does not refer to "order." 

As per you example for using "time," an assembly operating under standard order of business could consider "new business" as the "time."

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/2/2023 at 11:06 AM, Dan Honemann said:

By my standards, this specifies the time for adjournment.

By my standards, this specifies the event at which to adjourn.  The event occurs when the previous item of business has been transacted.  What the assembly has decided, in effect, is that new business cannot ever be considered without adoption of a motion by a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules or set aside the order to adjourn.  To my mind, this seems rather foolish, but this is seemingly what the society decided was advisable to do (hopefully after a lot of wise, enlightening, and persuasive deliberation).  It may be that further information about the relevant bylaws might change my opinion, but I am not hopeful.

I'll go one further.  Once again, what we see is an assembly that is tripped up by this whole agenda thing.  If the society would 1) ensure that the society has adopted Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as its parliamentary authority, and 2) amend the bylaws to remove everything about this agenda, it would find that RONR (12th ed.) §41 has everything it needs to govern the order of business.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/2/2023 at 4:09 PM, Rob Elsman said:

By my standards, this specifies the event at which to adjourn.  The event occurs when the previous item of business has been transacted.  What the assembly has decided, in effect, is that new business cannot ever be considered without adoption of a motion by a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules or set aside the order to adjourn. 

I see no reason to assume that provision has not been made for consideration of new business prior to the time fixed to adjourn. It would appear that this time is set to follow announcements.  The important point here is that a time to adjourn has been fixed.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/2/2023 at 11:06 AM, Dan Honemann said:

We are told that "Our organization in its bylaws has a set form for the agenda with various categories and the last item being adjournment."  By my standards, this specifies the time for adjournment.

While I don't take quite as strong a position on this as J.J., and I have stated that I may be persuaded otherwise by the assembly's custom, I follow the same reasoning for my response. I interpret "time" as referring to a "time" such as "12 PM." I do not view the item being listed last on the agenda, in itself, to constitute a "time" for purposes of this rule.

On 8/2/2023 at 3:09 PM, Rob Elsman said:

By my standards, this specifies the event at which to adjourn.  The event occurs when the previous item of business has been transacted.  What the assembly has decided, in effect, is that new business cannot ever be considered without adoption of a motion by a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules or set aside the order to adjourn.  To my mind, this seems rather foolish, but this is seemingly what the society decided was advisable to do (hopefully after a lot of wise, enlightening, and persuasive deliberation).  It may be that further information about the relevant bylaws might change my opinion, but I am not hopeful.

Well, that's interesting, but that's the opposite scenario of the question we are being asked here.

Rather, the question asked by the OP is whether (and how) the assembly may adjourn the meeting before completing all business on its agenda.

Edited August 2, 2023 at 09:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.  You're quite right--I was off the track, struck by the apparent foolishness of this bylaw.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/2/2023 at 5:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

While I don't take quite as strong a position on this as J.J., and I have stated that I may be persuaded otherwise by the assembly's custom, I follow the same reasoning for my response. I interpret "time" as referring to a "time" such as "12 PM." I do not view the item being listed last on the agenda, in itself, to constitute a "time" for purposes of this rule.

Well, I suppose we may have stumbled from "time" to "time", but in 21:3 I think "time" means "time".  

[Gary Novosielski]

I think the test should be: is the time for adjournment identified with sufficient specificity that one is able to state, at some point in the meeting, "The time for adjournment has arrived," even if not all business has been completed.

If not, then the Adjournment item is simply confirming that there is no business scheduled beyond that point, akin to typing -30- or # # # at the end of a news article.

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/3/2023 at 9:38 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think the test should be: is the time for adjournment identified with sufficient specificity that one is able to state, at some point in the meeting, "The time for adjournment has arrived," even if not all business has been completed.

If not, then the Adjournment item is simply confirming that there is no business scheduled beyond that point, akin to typing -30- or # # # at the end of a news article.

 

This is an interesting take, but not particularly helpful.

If an assembly wishes to adopt an agenda for its meeting which lists various categories of business to be considered and wants to provide that all such business is to be considered and either temporarily or finally disposed of prior to adjournment, the way to do it is to list "adjournment" as the last item on the agenda. This, of course, will not preclude earlier adjournment by a two-thirds vote (or in the event of fire, riot, or other extreme emergency), but it does establish the time for adjourning.

 

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/4/2023 at 7:08 AM, Dan Honemann said:

...by a two-thirds vote...

I was under the impression that an adjournment in advance of the time already set only required a majority vote.  I think I got that impression from RONR (12th ed.) t6, motion 3.  Am I wrong (again)?

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/4/2023 at 8:58 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I was under the impression that an adjournment in advance of the time already set only required a majority vote.  I think I got that impression from RONR (12th ed.) t6, motion 3.  Am I wrong (again)?

No, you are not wrong.  I'm afraid that Table II, Item 3 is misleading in this respect.  I think it is based on what is said in 21:14 which, in my opinion, relates only to a motion to adjourn when another meeting has been scheduled for the same session.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you.  I now seem to recall that we've been around the mulberry bush before on this.