Ending a meeting - priority of recognizing a member who wants to move to adjourn

[Guest CLD]

Novice parliamentarian here - we had a situation when ending a meeting recently. We were debating a main motion, and the chair was keeping a list of people who wanted to speak, following the usual rules there (speak once unless everyone has spoken, etc). We came to end of our scheduled meeting time, with several people still on the list. So I think I understand what would have happened if one of those speakers had either moved to adjourn, or moved that other privileged motion whose name I cannot recall ("stick to the agenda"?). However, none of these people did that, and in fact a few more wanted to be added to the list to discuss the same motion. The Chair thought the meeting should be over, but they followed the "recognize the order of speakers" rule, and the speakers didn't adjourn.

So, what should happened? I gave the advice "keep giving members the floor until one of them moves to adjourn", but it's also possible the chair could have used their discretion and when we were over time, simply given the floor to someone who they knew wanted to adjourn the meeting (say, they announced it between speakers or something). I guess the chair could have inserted themselves into the speaker order, to obtain the floor and move to adjourn - is that possible?

Any and all advice welcome, thanks!

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/16/2023 at 4:44 PM, Guest CLD said:

We came to end of our scheduled meeting time, with several people still on the list.

How and by whom was the end time of the meeting scheduled?

[Rob Elsman]

If you check the index entry for "Adjourn, adjournment, in agenda, program, or schedule", you will find several relevant references. Since there are various paths the proceedings might take, it is not possible to give a brief but comprehensive answer.

[Richard Brown]

An answer to the question asked by Mr. Gerber will go a long way toward helping us to answer Guest CLD’s  question. 

[Guest CLD]

On 5/16/2023 at 5:40 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

How and by whom was the end time of the meeting scheduled?

Well it was on the agenda (the ending time was). The agenda was set by an executive committee, headed by the chairperson. The motion was brought by a different committee, but it was also on the agenda as the last item of the meeting.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/16/2023 at 9:50 PM, Guest CLD said:

Well it was on the agenda (the ending time was). The agenda was set by an executive committee, headed by the chairperson. The motion was brought by a different committee, but it was also on the agenda as the last item of the meeting.

If the agenda was adopted at the meeting, then the chair should announce when the time for adjournment has been reached. At that point a motion can be made to set aside the orders of the day (i.e. to not adjourn), or the chair can put the question on proceeding to adjourn, or a member can move to extend the time by a certain amount.

Any of these procedures requires a two-thirds vote in order not to adjourn. If there is no such vote, then the chair declares the meeting adjourned.

However, if the agenda was not adopted at the meeting, then it has no effect on when the meeting ends (unless your organization has a special rule giving it such force).

Also, under the rules in RONR, there is no speakers list that has to be gone through; members are recognized one at a time as they obtain the floor. Even in a large meeting where speakers may line up at a microphone, members who are lined up have no special claim when debate is closed or the meeting is set to end. 

[Guest CLD]

On 5/16/2023 at 5:42 PM, Rob Elsman said:

If you check the index entry for "Adjourn, adjournment, in agenda, program, or schedule", you will find several relevant references. Since there are various paths the proceedings might take, it is not possible to give a brief but comprehensive answer.

Yeah, I perused RR for the answer, but the focus there seems to be "once someone has the floor, they can end the meeting in several ways". But in this case, I don't know how the desire to keep the order of speakers interacts with the desire to end the meeting and continue business later. Can speakers who somehow collude to extend the meeting do so without the chairperson being able to stop them, except to violate the rules of order (say, end the meeting themselves)?

[Guest CLD]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:02 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

If the agenda was adopted at the meeting, then the chair should announce when the time for adjournment has been reached. At that point a motion can be made to set aside the orders of the day (i.e. to not adjourn), or the chair can put the question on proceeding to adjourn, or a member can move to extend the time by a certain amount.

Any of these procedures requires a two-thirds vote in order not to adjourn. If there is no such vote, then the chair declares the meeting adjourned.

However, if the agenda was not adopted at the meeting, then it has no effect on when the meeting ends (unless your organization has a special rule giving it such force).

Also, under the rules in RONR, there is no speakers list that has to be gone through; members are recognized one at a time as they obtain the floor. Even in a large meeting where speakers may line up at a microphone, members who are lined up have no special claim when debate is closed or the meeting is set to end. 

Ok, I think this basically answers my question.

Regarding the agenda, it's not formally adopted by the body in our procedures, but the adoption is certainly implied by the presentation - I guess that means we move the agenda by universal consent.

Your last statement about the speaker's list is most relevant - that's how we handle section 3, pg 27-30 in RR (obtaining and assigning the floor), and there is some other section I recall reading about not letting a member speak twice unless all others have spoken already (I think "Number of Speeches by the Same Member per Question per Day", but we have a local variation). So it's very much like your "line at the mic" example, but we just take it very seriously, when that system is not actually in RR.

I guess I just imagine chaos between speakers, some trying to end the meeting, and some trying to continue debate, but the agenda "takes precedence", and the chair can just ask for a motion to extend or adjourn the meeting. It sounds like I need to spend more time reviewing that section (41) of the text.

This has been very helpful, thank you!

[puzzling]

On 5/17/2023 at 3:28 AM, Guest CLD said:

that's how we handle section 3, pg 27-30 in RR (obtaining and assigning the floor),

That sounds like a very old version of Roberts rules of order newly revised.

The current  edition is the 12th get some of them (at least two  one for he chair and one for yourself)

On 5/17/2023 at 3:28 AM, Guest CLD said:

Regarding the agenda, it's not formally adopted by the body in our procedures, but the adoption is certainly implied by the presentation - I guess that means we move the agenda by universal consent.

The agenda is not adopted this way.  (It is only adopted if the chair had said so and had asked if hheir were no objections to the agenda. I do think you were in the situation that no agenda was adopted. (You only followed it for no good reason at all)

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:28 PM, Guest CLD said:

Regarding the agenda, it's not formally adopted by the body in our procedures, but the adoption is certainly implied by the presentation - I guess that means we move the agenda by universal consent.

It doesn't sound like you adopted the agenda at all.

RONR (12th ed.) 41:62 says "n 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." [emphasis added]

The bolded portion appears to describe your situation. 41:62 goes on to say "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"

So if you want to be able to fix the time of adjournment, you could formally adopt the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.

[Guest CLD]

On 5/17/2023 at 1:54 AM, Atul Kapur said:

It doesn't sound like you adopted the agenda at all.

RONR (12th ed.) 41:62 says "n 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." [emphasis added]

The bolded portion appears to describe your situation. 41:62 goes on to say "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"

So if you want to be able to fix the time of adjournment, you could formally adopt the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.

I understand that's what RR says, but we have a "handbook" for this organization which says "The agenda for a given [...] meeting is consider adopted when it is accepted by the Executive Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting prior to that [...] meeting." The agenda is sent to every member before the meeting begins, but since this document *has* been voted on by the body (some time ago I suppose), and is actually legally binding to our organization (details omitted, there are more things in this document besides parliamentary procedures....), I think it's hard to make the argument "the agenda was never accepted".

[Josh Martin]

On 5/16/2023 at 9:28 PM, Guest CLD said:

Regarding the agenda, it's not formally adopted by the body in our procedures, but the adoption is certainly implied by the presentation - I guess that means we move the agenda by universal consent.

On 5/17/2023 at 7:23 AM, Guest CLD said:

I understand that's what RR says, but we have a "handbook" for this organization which says "The agenda for a given [...] meeting is consider adopted when it is accepted by the Executive Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting prior to that [...] meeting."

Based on the additional facts presented, it would appear that under the organization's rules, the agenda is considered to be "adopted when it is accepted by the Executive Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting prior to that [...] meeting." As a result, it would appear that when that time is reached, the chair may then declare the meeting adjourned, unless the assembly, by a 2/3 vote, sets aside the orders of the day so that the meeting may continue.

On 5/16/2023 at 9:28 PM, Guest CLD said:

Your last statement about the speaker's list is most relevant - that's how we handle section 3, pg 27-30 in RR (obtaining and assigning the floor), and there is some other section I recall reading about not letting a member speak twice unless all others have spoken already (I think "Number of Speeches by the Same Member per Question per Day", but we have a local variation). So it's very much like your "line at the mic" example, but we just take it very seriously, when that system is not actually in RR.

I understand, but this system has no force and effect unless adopted in your organization's rules. Many organizations do use a system of a "speaker's list" instead of the system of obtaining recognition in RONR, but if your organization wishes to continue with this custom, it should adopt a rule formally providing as much.

On 5/16/2023 at 9:58 PM, puzzling said:

That sounds like a very old version of Roberts rules of order newly revised.

It may not be quite that old. The 12th edition does not use page numbers anymore, but section and paragraph numbers. Section 3 is still the correct section. I checked my copy of the 11th edition and Obtaining and Assigning the Floor is on pages 29-31 in that edition, and it looks like it starts on page 28 in the 10th edition.

The OP should still get a copy of the current edition when possible, but the rules on these particular subjects have not changed in any substantial respect in the past few decades.

Edited May 17, 2023 at 01:03 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

Thank you for providing this new information, which is different from the previous statement, "the agenda, it's not formally adopted by the body in our procedures, but the adoption is certainly implied by the presentation." That previous statement made it appear that you followed the agenda as a matter of custom, which is overridden by the parliamentary authority.

You imply that this handbook has the status of a special rule of order. If that is accurate, it would be superior to RONR. But do expect some comments that it is unusual to have the executive committee set the agenda with no opportunity for the membership to have input.

One question: does the executive committee formally adopt or accept the agenda?

[Rob Elsman]

The assembly may also suspend the interfering rules by a two-thirds vote.

[Rob Elsman]

It is unwise to the point of foolish to have a subordinate body impose an agenda on its superior. Think of it as institutionalized insubordination.

At work, try forcing your boss to follow the schedule you set for him without his approval, and see how far you get.

[Guest CLD]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:12 AM, Rob Elsman said:

It is unwise to the point of foolish to have a subordinate body impose an agenda on its superior. Think of it as institutionalized insubordination.

At work, try forcing your boss to follow the schedule you set for him without his approval, and see how far you get.

This is an academic body, we do not have bosses 😉

Of course, I take your point. However, the superior body could always amend the agenda brought by the subordinate one. And, if the role of setting the agenda is explicitly allowed by the founding documents of the superior body (say you have an "agenda committee", who's job is just to set the agenda), that seems to fit even into the letter of RONR, if not the spirit.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:02 AM, Josh Martin said:

The 12th edition does not use page numbers anymore

This is news to me. 😀

[Guest CLD]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:04 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Thank you for providing this new information, which is different from the previous statement, "the agenda, it's not formally adopted by the body in our procedures, but the adoption is certainly implied by the presentation." That previous statement made it appear that you followed the agenda as a matter of custom, which is overridden by the parliamentary authority.

You imply that this handbook has the status of a special rule of order. If that is accurate, it would be superior to RONR. But do expect some comments that it is unusual to have the executive committee set the agenda with no opportunity for the membership to have input.

One question: does the executive committee formally adopt or accept the agenda?

Yes, you are correct, this not NOT an issue of universal consent, I misspoke - which is why I am here, to explore the issues around our founding documents and how they interact with RONR.

I'll just point out that I did not mean to imply that the membership cannot have input, and that's actually explicitly in our handbook: "Items may be added to the agenda prior to its adoption in the following ways: Petition:[..], By a committee [...], By an individual [...]" And we have RONR to support changing the agenda during the meeting itself.

To answer your last question, the only relevant part of the handbook is what I wrote before, which did NOT include the word "formally", just "accepted".

[Josh Martin]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:00 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

This is news to me. 😀

Yes, I worded that rather poorly. Section and paragraph numbers are now used for citations, in order to provide for consistency between the printed edition and electronic editions. Page numbers still exist in the printed edition. Obtaining and Assigning the Floor appears on pages 26-28 in the 12th edition.

[Rob Elsman]

Without getting into the specifics of this particular body's procedures, this body most likely meets at least as frequently as quarterly, and (assuming that there are no unusual circumstances that would make it impractical) the standard order of business would be used without the adoption of an agenda specifying each order of the day. See RONR (12th ed.) §41.

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/17/2023 at 10:02 AM, Guest CLD said:

To answer your last question, the only relevant part of the handbook is what I wrote before, which did NOT include the word "formally", just "accepted".

I was asking what actually happens. How does the executive committee accept or adopt the general meeting agenda? Is there a formal motion?

The reason I ask is to clarify whether the executive committee is actually "accepting" the agenda, as per your handbook and how clear it is that this is happening.

The additional clips of your handbook raise more questions regarding when and to whom a petition is presented.

And is there an opportunity for the general meeting to amend the agenda? I'm not sure I see one if the meeting doesn't have an item of business to consider, possibly amend, and adopt it. So one question: if a member wanted to amend the agenda at the general meeting, when and how would they do so?

[Richard Brown]

On 5/17/2023 at 10:50 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I was asking what actually happens. How does the executive committee accept or adopt the general meeting agenda? Is there a formal motion?

The reason I ask is to clarify whether the executive committee is actually "accepting" the agenda, as per your handbook and how clear it is that this is happening.

The additional clips of your handbook raise more questions regarding when and to whom a petition is presented.

And is there an opportunity for the general meeting to amend the agenda? I'm not sure I see one if the meeting doesn't have an item of business to consider, possibly amend, and adopt it. So one question: if a member wanted to amend the agenda at the general meeting, when and how would they do so?

I have exactly the same concerns as those expressed above by Dr. Kapur.  I'm uneasy about this business of the executive committee "accepting" the agenda and about just how the general membership can go about amending an agenda set by an inferior body when the rules seem to give the inferior body that authority.

This all seems rather strange to me.

[Guest CLD]

On 5/17/2023 at 11:50 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I was asking what actually happens. How does the executive committee accept or adopt the general meeting agenda? Is there a formal motion?

The reason I ask is to clarify whether the executive committee is actually "accepting" the agenda, as per your handbook and how clear it is that this is happening.

The additional clips of your handbook raise more questions regarding when and to whom a petition is presented.

And is there an opportunity for the general meeting to amend the agenda? I'm not sure I see one if the meeting doesn't have an item of business to consider, possibly amend, and adopt it. So one question: if a member wanted to amend the agenda at the general meeting, when and how would they do so?

I have no idea how the executive committee accepts the agenda, as I have not served on it. My assumption is by majority vote with a formal motion, as with most parliamentary decisions.

In regards to how petitions are accepted, I left those details out (via [...]) because I think they tangential to the major issue at hand here. There *are* ways in which any member, committee, or informal group of members can petition to get items on the agenda before the meeting.

And yes, there are opportunities to amend the agenda in usual run of the meeting. For example, we often start with informal announcements before moving onto the business at hand, and at any time a member could request the floor, and add an item to the agenda (presumably after announcements, before new business, but I think generally any time allowed by RONR). It's even happened a few times since I've been a member of this body.

[Guest CLD]

On 5/17/2023 at 3:13 PM, Richard Brown said:

I have exactly the same concerns as those expressed above by Dr. Kapur.  I'm uneasy about this business of the executive committee "accepting" the agenda and about just how the general membership can go about amending an agenda set by an inferior body when the rules seem to give the inferior body that authority.

This all seems rather strange to me.

For sure I am a novice parliamentarian, but I don't understand how this can be considered "strange". My understanding about Robert's Rules is that a) the chair proposes an agenda, and b) the body votes on that agenda.

Our body has a committee (the executive committee, lead by the chair of the body), whose job it is to set the agenda. They have a series of steps in which committees and members can submit things to the agenda, for discussion and possible vote by the body. These procedures are all outlined by our handbook.

Instead of the body directly voting on the agenda, we have the opportunity to add things to it in the regular course of the meeting. It's possible this results in a different weight of voices, but since there is detail on how things are to be submitted for consideration on the agenda, I don't see how individual member's voices are being silenced - one just has to work around the process set by our founding documents.

[Atul Kapur]

If it works for your group, it's fine. So, getting back to your original post, have someone move to amend the agenda to fix a certain time to adjourn.

There might be a question whether that would take a majority vote or a  2/3 vote.