Motion to adjourn before the agenda is complete

[Guest LCWCC]

A motion to adjourn was made before the agenda was completed. How do we complete the agenda with that motion having been made?

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/21/2023 at 3:43 PM, Guest LCWCC said:

A motion to adjourn was made before the agenda was completed. How do we complete the agenda with that motion having been made?

If the motion to adjourn was in order, which seems likely although you have provided precious few facts for us to go on, the motion to adjourn will need to be voted on. Majority vote to adopt.

[Guest LCWCC]

The motion to adjourn came when the chair asked if there was any new business. A person raised their hand, was recognized by the chair, and rather than bringing up new business, instead made a motion to adjourn, even though there were other items still on the agenda. So is the motion to adjourn in order?

[Joshua Katz]

Yes, the motion to adjourn is almost always in order because of the principle that the assembly cannot be kept there against its will.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/22/2023 at 1:57 PM, Guest LCWCC said:

The motion to adjourn came when the chair asked if there was any new business. A person raised their hand, was recognized by the chair, and rather than bringing up new business, instead made a motion to adjourn, even though there were other items still on the agenda. So is the motion to adjourn in order?

Thank you for this additional information, but I am afraid that a bit more is needed (three questions this time).  You have referred several times to "the agenda". How was this agenda adopted, what sort of items remained on it after the motion to adjourn was adopted, and did this agenda make any reference at all to the time to adjourn.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/22/2023 at 12:57 PM, Guest LCWCC said:

The motion to adjourn came when the chair asked if there was any new business. A person raised their hand, was recognized by the chair, and rather than bringing up new business, instead made a motion to adjourn, even though there were other items still on the agenda. So is the motion to adjourn in order?

I am somewhat puzzled as to why there was a need for the chair to ask if there was new business when there were still items on the agenda. Where there still other things on the agenda after New Business?

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/22/2023 at 3:29 PM, Dan Honemann said:

did this agenda make any reference at all to the time to adjourn.

Maybe it's because I switched off my mind during the long weekend up here in Canada, but I'm not sure how the answer to this question affects the response to the OP's question regarding matters on the agenda that were not yet reached.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/23/2023 at 7:30 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Maybe it's because I switched off my mind during the long weekend up here in Canada, but I'm not sure how the answer to this question affects the response to the OP's question regarding matters on the agenda that were not yet reached.

Mr. Honemann is presumably referring to RONR (12th ed.) 21:3.

"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

Since in the circumstances described no business is pending, it would appear to me that in the event a time for adjournment has been scheduled, the motion to Adjourn would still be in order, however, it would be an incidental main motion. It would therefore be debatable, giving members an opportunity to argue their case for why they should complete their remaining business. It might also require a 2/3 vote since it conflicts with an order previously adopted by the assembly, although I'm not certain on that - I think we've gone back and forth on that in the past.

Edited May 23, 2023 at 01:17 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/23/2023 at 9:16 AM, Josh Martin said:

Since in the circumstances described no business is pending, it would appear to me that in the event a time for adjournment has been scheduled, the motion to Adjourn would still be in order, however, it would be an incidental main motion. It would therefore be debatable, giving members an opportunity to argue their case for why they should complete their remaining business. It might also require a 2/3 vote since it conflicts with an order previously adopted by the assembly, although I'm not certain on that - I think we've gone back and forth on that in the past.

We may have had some discussion of this in the past, but I don't recall any argument being made that a motion to adjourn will not require a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership) for its adoption if it is made before the time fixed for adjournment in an agenda has arrived. 

[Rob Elsman]

I agree that a motion to adjourn before the hour fixed for adjournment will require a two-thirds vote.  I am less inclined to agree about the vote of the majority of the entire membership.  I understand the logic for it, but I think the form of the motion to adjourn is either:

a) "I move to set aside the orders of the day and adjourn." See RONR (12th ed.) 18:8.

b) "I move to suspend the rules and immediately adjourn." See RONR (12th ed.) §25.

Neither of these motions are ever adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

I do understand that the basis otherwise comes from the motion, Amend Something Previously Adopted.  However, I do not think that it what is being done when someone moves to adjourn before the hour fixed for adjournment.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/23/2023 at 11:41 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I agree that a motion to adjourn before the hour fixed for adjournment will require a two-thirds vote.  I am less inclined to agree about the vote of the majority of the entire membership.  I understand the logic for it, but I think the form of the motion to adjourn is either:

a) "I move to set aside the orders of the day and adjourn." See RONR (12th ed.) 18:8.

b) "I move to suspend the rules and immediately adjourn." See RONR (12th ed.) §25.

Neither of these motions are ever adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

I do understand that the basis otherwise comes from the motion, Amend Something Previously Adopted.  However, I do not think that it what is being done when someone moves to adjourn before the hour fixed for adjournment.

I suppose I have been thinking more in terms of 10:8(7)(c), especially since 21:3 tells us that such a motion to adjourn is treated just as any other incidental main motion, and perhaps also 41:63 

[Shmuel Gerber]

According to Table II, No. 3, a motion to adjourn in advance of a time already set requires (only) a majority vote.

I think the book is pretty clear about the fact that the adoption of an agenda or program does not mean that adjourning earlier will require more than a majority vote:

"21:14 Cases Where the Assembly Can Adjourn Without a Motion. If an hour for adjourning a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting has been scheduled—either in an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting a time—no motion to adjourn is necessary when that hour arrives. The chair simply announces the fact and declares the meeting adjourned, as described for a recess in 20:6. If the assembly does not then wish to adjourn, the matter is handled as a case of setting aside the orders of the day, as explained in 18:8 (see also 41:56). If such a meeting wishes to adjourn earlier, it is done by a main motion, which, however, can be adopted by a majority vote (see 21:3). …"

I don't see any rule that would make the vote requirement different from a majority in a session consisting of a single meeting.

The only scenario I could think of where more than a majority vote would be required to adjourn is if it is desired to fix, in advance, a different time for adjourning than the time that has been previously set. In that case, the assembly is not attempting to adjourn immediately, which would require only a majority vote, but is instead attempting to amend something previously adopted, which in the case of an adopted agenda requires either a 2/3 vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

By the way, I think the bolded sentence in my reply above was added in the 10th edition, but I'm too lazy to check right now. 

[Bruce Lages]

On 5/23/2023 at 1:49 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

"21:14 Cases Where the Assembly Can Adjourn Without a Motion. If an hour for adjourning a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting has been scheduled—either in an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting a time—no motion to adjourn is necessary when that hour arrives. The chair simply announces the fact and declares the meeting adjourned, as described for a recess in 20:6. If the assembly does not then wish to adjourn, the matter is handled as a case of setting aside the orders of the day, as explained in 18:8 (see also 41:56). If such a meeting wishes to adjourn earlier, it is done by a main motion, which, however, can be adopted by a majority vote (see 21:3). …"

I don't see any rule that would make the vote requirement different from a majority in a session consisting of a single meeting.

 

Now I'm curious as to why, if, as you say, the vote requirement would be the same for a single meeting session, the inclusion of that lengthy conditional clause describing the type of meeting or session at the beginning of the first sentence, as well as the wording "if such a meeting..." in the bolded sentence was felt to be necessary.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/23/2023 at 3:21 PM, Bruce Lages said:

Now I'm curious as to why, if, as you say, the vote requirement would be the same for a single meeting session, the inclusion of that lengthy conditional clause describing the type of meeting or session at the beginning of the first sentence, as well as the wording "if such a meeting..." in the bolded sentence was felt to be necessary.

Because the paragraph is dealing principally with adjourning without a motion, and this case is distinguished from what is treated in the next paragraph:

"21:15 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.”"

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/23/2023 at 1:49 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

According to Table II, No. 3, a motion to adjourn in advance of a time already set requires (only) a majority vote.

I think the book is pretty clear about the fact that the adoption of an agenda or program does not mean that adjourning earlier will require more than a majority vote:

"21:14 .... If such a meeting wishes to adjourn earlier, it is done by a main motion, which, however, can be adopted by a majority vote (see 21:3). …"

Thank you! I was beginning to worry that those words only appeared in my copies.

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/23/2023 at 1:49 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

According to Table II, No. 3, a motion to adjourn in advance of a time already set requires (only) a majority vote.

I think the book is pretty clear about the fact that the adoption of an agenda or program does not mean that adjourning earlier will require more than a majority vote:

"21:14 Cases Where the Assembly Can Adjourn Without a Motion. If an hour for adjourning a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting has been scheduled—either in an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting a time—no motion to adjourn is necessary when that hour arrives. The chair simply announces the fact and declares the meeting adjourned, as described for a recess in 20:6. If the assembly does not then wish to adjourn, the matter is handled as a case of setting aside the orders of the day, as explained in 18:8 (see also 41:56). If such a meeting wishes to adjourn earlier, it is done by a main motion, which, however, can be adopted by a majority vote (see 21:3). …"

I don't see any rule that would make the vote requirement different from a majority in a session consisting of a single meeting.

 

Now that you remind me of all this I do recall that, as Mr. Martin mentioned, we have had a previous discussion here in this forum concerning this question in which, I believe, this same argument was raised based upon 21:14 and Table II, No. 3. Perhaps you or Mr. Martin can find it.

I suspect that I argued at that time that this sentence you have bolded is, indeed, limited to "a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting", and that Table II, No. 3, is incorrect with respect to the vote required to adopt a motion to adjourn in advance of a time already set in situations other than that described in 21:14. If I was convinced otherwise in that earlier discussion I can probably be convinced to confess error now.  

 

[Rob Elsman]

I was aware of 21:14 when I made my earlier reply, but I still read what is said as applying only to "...such a meeting..." "...within a convention or other session of more than one [scheduled] meeting...".  The original poster does not indicate that this is the case, and I do not believe what is said in 21:14 applies.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/23/2023 at 4:10 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Now that you remind me of all this I do recall that, as Mr. Martin mentioned, we have had a previous discussion here in this forum concerning this question in which, I believe, this same argument was raised based upon 21:14 and Table II, No. 3. Perhaps you or Mr. Martin can find it.

I don't recall that discussion (which of course doesn't prevent anyone from finding it if it exists), but I think I do recall a fairly recent disagreement over whether it takes a 2/3 vote to adopt an agenda setting a time for adjournment at a meeting with a pre-existing order of business, as would be required to adopt an agenda setting a special order. My contention is that a majority vote is sufficient to set the time for adjournment.

In short, I'm saying that to schedule a time to adjourn takes a majority vote; the assembly can then adjourn earlier by majority vote (at the time that it wants to adjourn, although not while other business is pending), but it will take more than a majority vote to delay the time for adjournment.

[Joshua Katz]

I'll just point out that, whether it requires a 2/3 vote, a majority vote, or a majority of the entire membership, the motion was in order.

[Rob Elsman]

I suspect the previous discussion was in a topic of April 23, 2023 called Motion to adjourn while items on adopted agenda still pending.

[Rob Elsman]

On 5/23/2023 at 2:26 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Because the paragraph is dealing principally with adjourning without a motion, and this case is distinguished from what is treated in the next paragraph:

"21:15 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.”"

You may be right, but I do not think it passes the "average reader" test.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, I'm persuaded by the fact that an unqualified motion to Adjourn (now) is an incidental main motion, and as such requires a majority vote.

I suspect that if the motion is merely to change the time of adjournment in the agenda, before that time is reached, that is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.  But a motion to adjourn now is not necessarily an attempt to amend the agenda--it's just to quit.  Now.

I think there is a strong case to be made that a main motion to Adjourn immediately should neve require more than a majority.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/23/2023 at 10:24 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, I'm persuaded by the fact that an unqualified motion to Adjourn (now) is an incidental main motion, and as such requires a majority vote.

I suspect that if the motion is merely to change the time of adjournment in the agenda, before that time is reached, that is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.  But a motion to adjourn now is not necessarily an attempt to amend the agenda--it's just to quit.  Now.

I think there is a strong case to be made that a main motion to Adjourn immediately should neve require more than a majority.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that a motion to adjourn made before the time fixed for adjournment in an adopted agenda is not, for all intents and purposes, an amendment of that agenda. If such a motion is made immediately after the agenda is adopted it amounts for all practical purposes to a complete recission of that agenda.  

In my opinion, there should be no doubt but that when the time for adjournment is set in an agenda it will be either a special order or a general order, but in either case it should be understood that the meeting cannot be adjourned prior to the time set for its adjournment without a suspension of the rules. This is my take on all that is said in 41:37-42, and elsewhere.

Yes, 21:3 tells us that such a motion is to be treated just as any other incidental main motion, but even if you take this as being the controlling rule, 10:8(7)(c) tells us that the vote required for adoption will be the same as that required for adoption of a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Now I understand that my distinguished colleague Mr. Gerber has a different take on all of this, and for this reason alone I must admit that the opinion that I have just expressed may either be wrong, or perhaps just maybe should be wrong, but I doubt that we will be able to resolve the question here in this thread.

Which reminds me that our guest LCWCC has not as yet responded to my questions concerning how this agenda was adopted, what sort of items remained on it after the motion to adjourn was adopted, and whether it made any reference at all to the time to adjourn, so perhaps all of this discussion may be irrelevant and we should have waited for a response before hijacking this thread as we did.  I shall apologize to LCWCC on behalf of all of us for this intrusion.

[Rob Elsman]

On 5/23/2023 at 9:24 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think there is a strong case to be made that a main motion to Adjourn immediately should neve require more than a majority.

I strongly agree with this.  One of the most basic rights of an assembly is the right not to sit.  I hope the authors will take a look at this topic and see if the rules can be made clearer to reflect this unconditionally.