Rejecting the Agenda or Editing the Agenda

[Guest Jasmine]

Hi

I'm wondering what would happen if the agenda is voted against for any reason. We have a meeting in which some of the agenda is irrelevant to the specific reason of our meeting, and I'm not sure if we can just vote against that agenda in order to make sure we will discuss things that the meeting was originally called for. If not, how can we edit the agenda or create a priority agenda to ensure that certain topics are discussed and attended to before moving on to more irrelevant topics? I know it's possible to kind of do this throughout the meeting by postponing an item/motion or ending the debate on it, but I'm looking for a more straightforward way of handling the situation that is less time-consuming and creates fewer fractions and frustrations. Thank you! 

[Gary Novosielski]

Before adopting the agenda for a particular meeting, the contents are open to amendment the same as any other motion.  Once all amendments have been made, the agenda can be adopted by a majority vote.   After it has been adopted, further changes would require a two-thirds vote.

If the agenda is simply voted down (defeated) then the standard order of business would apply:

The Standard Order of Business comprises the following headings:

     1) Reading and Approval of Minutes
     2) Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees
     3) Reports of Special (Select or Ad Hoc) Committees
     4) Special Orders
     5) Unfinished Business and General Orders
     6) New Business

In organizations that have adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority, that hold their regular meetings as frequently as quarterly, and have not adopted a special order of business, this series of headings is their prescribed order of business.
[see RONR (12th ed.) 41:5 ff.]
 

Edited January 20, 2024 at 07:29 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 1/20/2024 at 1:17 PM, Guest Jasmine said:

I'm wondering what would happen if the agenda is voted against for any reason. We have a meeting in which some of the agenda is irrelevant to the specific reason of our meeting, and I'm not sure if we can just vote against that agenda in order to make sure we will discuss things that the meeting was originally called for.

Based on your stated goals, I think it would make more sense to amend the agenda then to vote against it entirely. Because it sounds like you still want an agenda, you just want the agenda to look different than what has been proposed.

When you say that you are hoping to ensure "we will discuss things that the meeting was originally called for," could you clarify whether this is a regular meeting or a special meeting?

If it's a special meeting, then the assembly may only consider the business included in the call.

If it's a regular meeting, the assembly is free to consider whatever business it wishes. Further, unless your bylaws provide otherwise, striking these other items from the agenda will not necessarily prevent their consideration. You could certainly, however, try to ensure that the most important business is considered first.

But in any event, supposing the agenda is voted down in its entirety, then what will happen is:

• If this is a regular meeting and the assembly meets at least as often as quarterly, then the assembly will follow the standard order of business in RONR. (Or if the assembly has adopted its own order of business for its meetings, then you'd follow that.)
• If this is a regular meeting and the assembly meets less frequently than quarterly, then the meeting would proceed with no agenda or order of business, and all items of business will be "first come, first served."
• If this is a special meeting, the assembly is limited to considering the items of business specified in the call, but there will be no set order for how to consider those items, and it will again be "first come, first served."

On 1/20/2024 at 1:17 PM, Guest Jasmine said:

If not, how can we edit the agenda or create a priority agenda to ensure that certain topics are discussed and attended to before moving on to more irrelevant topics?

When the agenda is pending, you are free to move to Amend the agenda in any manner you see fit. So you could move to amend the agenda by moving these "certain topics" earlier in the agenda than the "more irrelevant topics." Majority rules.

On 1/20/2024 at 1:27 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If the agenda is simply voted down (defeated) then the standard order of business would apply:

Assuming that the assembly meets at least as frequently as quarterly.

Edited January 21, 2024 at 07:33 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

It is pretty likely that this body should not be voting on an agenda at all, since it is pretty likely that it already has an established order of business.

The proper motion to immediately take up an item of business ahead of its assigned position in the established order of business is the incidental motion, Suspend the Rules.  See RONR (12th ed.) §25 and 41:37ff.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/21/2024 at 2:31 PM, Josh Martin said:

Assuming that the assembly meets at least as frequently as quarterly.

Yes, as the paragraph I quoted said, they must meet no less frequently than quarterly, must have adopted RONR, and must not have adopted special rules to the contrary.

[Guest Jasmine]

On 1/20/2024 at 2:27 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Before adopting the agenda for a particular meeting, the contents are open to amendment the same as any other motion.  Once all amendments have been made, the agenda can be adopted by a majority vote.   After it has been adopted, further changes would require a two-thirds vote.

If the agenda is simply voted down (defeated) then the standard order of business would apply:

The Standard Order of Business comprises the following headings:

     1) Reading and Approval of Minutes
     2) Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees
     3) Reports of Special (Select or Ad Hoc) Committees
     4) Special Orders
     5) Unfinished Business and General Orders
     6) New Business

In organizations that have adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority, that hold their regular meetings as frequently as quarterly, and have not adopted a special order of business, this series of headings is their prescribed order of business.
[see RONR (12th ed.) 41:5 ff.]
 

 

On 1/21/2024 at 2:31 PM, Josh Martin said:

But in any event, supposing the agenda is voted down in its entirety, then what will happen is:

• If this is a regular meeting and the assembly meets at least as often as quarterly, then the assembly will follow the standard order of business in RONR. (Or if the assembly has adopted its own order of business for its meetings, then you'd follow that.)
• If this is a regular meeting and the assembly meets less frequently than quarterly, then the meeting would proceed with no agenda or order of business, and all items of business will be "first come, first served."
• If this is a special meeting, the assembly is limited to considering the items of business specified in the call, but there will be no set order for how to consider those items, and it will again be "first come, first served."

Thank you both for taking the time to answer. I now have a much better grasp of how things work. 

To answer your question Josh, this is a special meeting and we had proposed not to have it governed based on RONR and for it to be an informal discussion (since it was our request for the meeting to be called) but they dismissed our request so I wanted to see if by defeating the agenda, we can achieve that format of informal discussion. It appears that even though it will give us that sense of informality since it will be a "first come, first served" system, all other rules of order will still be in place, and it was those rules that we were trying to defeat mainly, not the items on the agenda (mainly because RONR format doesn't make much sense for this meeting, because we are not trying to make governing decisions in which we need to vote for/against motions. We are meeting to address some concerns and issues that we recently had, and everyone is frustrated/disappointed in the way the admin/HR has been handling the situation). 

If we cannot disassemble the rule of order for this meeting, I guess our next best move will be to create a priority agenda. is there a specific phrase that must be used for this situation? (since we will only adopt the agenda at the meeting itself). I'm sorry if some of these questions don't make sense, I'm just new to all these and there is a lot to learn. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 1/21/2024 at 5:32 PM, Guest Jasmine said:

To answer your question Josh, this is a special meeting and we had proposed not to have it governed based on RONR and for it to be an informal discussion (since it was our request for the meeting to be called) but they dismissed our request so I wanted to see if by defeating the agenda, we can achieve that format of informal discussion.

No, voting down the agenda will not have the effect of suspending all rules of order. But suspending all rules of order, in addition to being out of order, is a bad idea. My question is, what is the purpose of this meeting? If it is only to discuss, and not to conduct any business, then I'd suggest it's better off not being called as a meeting at all, just a lunch or the like (unless there's an applicable sunshine law or someting to that effect that could complicate things). If you want to conduct business, I think trying to have it be informal and not governed by the rules of order is a mistake.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, the additional fact that the meeting that is involved is a special meeting sort of changes things.  A special meeting does not have an order of business; rather, it just handles the business for which the meeting was called.  There is no agenda, either.  I am suddenly having difficulty understanding what the problem is.  What was described in the original post sounds more like the kind of problem that might be expected in a regular meeting.  So, what's really going on?

[Atul Kapur]

If you just want to have an informal discussion of the issue that is the subject of the special meeting (as stated in the call to the meeting), then one option is to move to consider the motion informally, or the subject if no motion has yet been made. This suspends 
the rule limiting the number of times a member can speak in 
debate on the main question and any amendments to it. See52:24-27

[Guest Jasmine]

On 1/21/2024 at 5:39 PM, Joshua Katz said:

No, voting down the agenda will not have the effect of suspending all rules of order. But suspending all rules of order, in addition to being out of order, is a bad idea. My question is, what is the purpose of this meeting? If it is only to discuss, and not to conduct any business, then I'd suggest it's better off not being called as a meeting at all, just a lunch or the like (unless there's an applicable sunshine law or someting to that effect that could complicate things). If you want to conduct business, I think trying to have it be informal and not governed by the rules of order is a mistake.

 

On 1/21/2024 at 8:17 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I am suddenly having difficulty understanding what the problem is.  What was described in the original post sounds more like the kind of problem that might be expected in a regular meeting.  So, what's really going on?

 

On 1/21/2024 at 10:45 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If you just want to have an informal discussion of the issue that is the subject of the special meeting (as stated in the call to the meeting), then one option is to move to consider the motion informally, or the subject if no motion has yet been made. This suspends 
the rule limiting the number of times a member can speak in debate on the main question and any amendments to it. See52:24-27

 

Once again, thank you all for your help. This has been frustrating us for a while, so this is all super helpful insight. 
Also, my apologies for creating confusion. So the situation, to be more exact, is as follows:  
There have been some issues with EDI (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion) at our department in a university. A few statements that were released had some phrasing issues that were problematic, and overall, the department has not appropriately upheld the EDI statement they have and has failed to uphold its responsibilities toward students and faculty in some other aspects as well (such as not addressing malicious rumors that were going around, or create a safe environment for workers, etc.). We wrote to the admin to raise concerns and express a desire to meet so we can discuss and address these issues (particularly because there is currently a rift between the student body as well). They agreed but indicated that it would be governed by RONR by a professional moderator, and they insisted on having it. So as Joshua and Rob have both pointed out, there is essentially no order of business here. There will be no decision-making on how the department is going to be run or a change in laws and statements. We just wanted to gather for discussion to explain our perspectives, and it seems like they are going with an RONR to limit how long/how much a speaker can debate and discuss things (as Atul pointed). They have put together an agenda for this special meeting, and some of the items they have indicated in that agenda have absolutely nothing to do with the concerns that led to this meeting. This is why a) I was wondering if there would be a way to suspend the rules of order, even for a short while, so that we can have appropriate debate and discussion about some of our concerns and b) whether there would be a way to just make sure at least our concerns will not be pushed to the bottom of the agenda and rushed through since it will be the end of the meeting. 

So yes, it doesn't make sense to us either. We did really just wanted an informal lunch to talk things out. And there will be no form of decision-making (legal or business) happening in this meeting. Which is why we don't understand the need for it to be governed by RONR. The only thing they can basically get a vote on is things like, should we keep discussing things or move on? how many people agree that they don't feel safe? and things like this, which can still be done in an informal setting; it just needs careful moderation. I don't know if we can have any sort of amendment instead that would at least make it not completely rigid. Because we have had this twice before, and everyone was super confused about what was going on, and instead of listening/discussing, they were trying to figure out the appropriate phrases they should use and what they could/could not do in an RONR run meeting.  

So any advice/suggestions would be welcomed. Thank you! 

[Joshua Katz]

My suggestion is that, if you want an informal lunch, to simply schedule one, rather than using the usual mechanism for calling a meeting.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/21/2024 at 4:32 PM, Guest Jasmine said:

so I wanted to see if by defeating the agenda, we can achieve that format of informal discussion.

This is correct. Defeating an agenda does not have the effect of throwing the rules out the window.

On 1/21/2024 at 4:32 PM, Guest Jasmine said:

It appears that even though it will give us that sense of informality since it will be a "first come, first served" system, all other rules of order will still be in place, and it was those rules that we were trying to defeat mainly, not the items on the agenda (mainly because RONR format doesn't make much sense for this meeting, because we are not trying to make governing decisions in which we need to vote for/against motions. We are meeting to address some concerns and issues that we recently had, and everyone is frustrated/disappointed in the way the admin/HR has been handling the situation). 

If we cannot disassemble the rule of order for this meeting, I guess our next best move will be to create a priority agenda. is there a specific phrase that must be used for this situation? (since we will only adopt the agenda at the meeting itself). I'm sorry if some of these questions don't make sense, I'm just new to all these and there is a lot to learn. 

Well, I'm not necessarily saying you can't "disassemble the rule of order for this meeting," I'm just saying that defeating the agenda isn't the way to accomplish that. Until this post, I wasn't aware that was the goal.

If your goal is to provide for an "informal discussion" and to throw all the rules out the window, then it seems to me the best way to accomplish this would be to adopt a motion to Recess or to Adjourn. No meeting, no rules.

In the alternative, perhaps it is still desired to provide some structure for this discussion, but not the formal structures of RONR. So instead, perhaps you could come up with a motion suggesting to hold an informal discussion on X topic, proposing the ground rules for that discussion, and so forth.

If it is instead desired to amend the agenda, you would accomplish this by making a motion to, for example, move "Item A" to before "Item B" on the agenda. Without a draft agenda in front of me, I don't know that I can be more specific than that.

But now that it's been clarified that this is a special meeting, there shouldn't be anything else on the agenda besides the topic(s) which were included in the call of the meeting.

On 1/21/2024 at 9:45 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If you just want to have an informal discussion of the issue that is the subject of the special meeting (as stated in the call to the meeting), then one option is to move to consider the motion informally, or the subject if no motion has yet been made. This suspends the rule limiting the number of times a member can speak in 
debate on the main question and any amendments to it. See52:24-27

I'm not certain that Consider Informally (unlike Committee of the Whole and Quasi Committee of the Whole) can be used to discuss a general subject rather than a motion.

I have no doubt that an assembly may adopt a motion to have an informal discussion on a subject if it so chooses, I just don't know that this is technically a motion for informal consideration.

On 1/21/2024 at 10:57 PM, Guest Jasmine said:

They have put together an agenda for this special meeting, and some of the items they have indicated in that agenda have absolutely nothing to do with the concerns that led to this meeting.

Were these additional items included in the call of the special meeting - that is, the notice of the meeting sent to all members?

On 1/21/2024 at 10:57 PM, Guest Jasmine said:

This is why a) I was wondering if there would be a way to suspend the rules of order, even for a short while, so that we can have appropriate debate and discussion about some of our concerns and b) whether there would be a way to just make sure at least our concerns will not be pushed to the bottom of the agenda and rushed through since it will be the end of the meeting. 

If you want to suspend all of the rules, then adopt a motion to Recess. No meeting, no rules.

But you may wish to consider whether you actually want to suspend all of the rules. It might still be desirable, for instance, to have the rules of decorum in force, for members to take turns while speaking, to have limits on how long members may speak, and so forth.

So in the alternative, a motion could be proposed to have an "informal discussion" under whatever parameters you prefer, and if that motion is adopted, the rules will be suspended to the extent necessary to carry out that motion. That's how the motion to Suspend the Rules works under RONR - the rules are suspended for a specific purpose, and the rules are suspended to the extent they interfere with that purpose, rather than simply being an on/off switch of all the rules or no rules.

As to the concerns regarding the agenda, it should first be determined whether these additional items were properly included in the call. If not, they cannot be considered at the special meeting. If they were, then what I would do is move to amend the agenda so that your preferred item of discussion is the first item on the agenda.

On 1/21/2024 at 10:57 PM, Guest Jasmine said:

The only thing they can basically get a vote on is things like, should we keep discussing things or move on? how many people agree that they don't feel safe? and things like this, which can still be done in an informal setting; it just needs careful moderation. I don't know if we can have any sort of amendment instead that would at least make it not completely rigid.

Then I would propose that you come up with a motion suggesting to hold an informal discussion on X topic, proposing the ground rules for that discussion, and so forth.

Edited January 22, 2024 at 01:22 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/22/2024 at 8:21 AM, Josh Martin said:

But now that it's been clarified that this is a special meeting, there shouldn't be anything else on the agenda besides the topic(s) which were included in the call of the meeting.

As best I can determine, this isn't the sort of meeting referred to in 9:13 as a "special meeting" unless the "administration" referred to by the OP is actually what RONR refers to as an "organized society" in 1:9.  If it is, then this meeting will be governed entirely by rules adopted by the administration, and the group which the OP describes as "we", will have no rights other than those which the administration is willing to grant them.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/22/2024 at 9:22 AM, Dan Honemann said:

As best I can determine, this isn't the sort of meeting referred to in 9:13 as a "special meeting" unless the "administration" referred to by the OP is actually what RONR refers to as an "organized society" in 1:9.  If it is, then this meeting will be governed entirely by rules adopted by the administration, and the group which the OP describes as "we", will have no rights other than those which the administration is willing to grant them.

You raise an excellent point. As I look back at the most recent post, it's not clear that this is a meeting of a deliberative assembly. If it is not, I am somewhat puzzled by the statement that the meeting "would be governed by RONR."

[Rob Elsman]

As the facts of the case keep unfolding, I tend to agree with Mr. Honemann. 

[Guest Jasmine]

On 1/22/2024 at 8:21 AM, Josh Martin said:

In the alternative, perhaps it is still desired to provide some structure for this discussion, but not the formal structures of RONR. So instead, perhaps you could come up with a motion suggesting to hold an informal discussion on X topic, proposing the ground rules for that discussion, and so forth.

If it is instead desired to amend the agenda, you would accomplish this by making a motion to, for example, move "Item A" to before "Item B" on the agenda. Without a draft agenda in front of me, I don't know that I can be more specific than that.

So in the alternative, a motion could be proposed to have an "informal discussion" under whatever parameters you prefer, and if that motion is adopted, the rules will be suspended to the extent necessary to carry out that motion. That's how the motion to Suspend the Rules works under RONR - the rules are suspended for a specific purpose, and the rules are suspended to the extent they interfere with that purpose, rather than simply being an on/off switch of all the rules or no rules.

Thank you, Josh; this has been most helpful in sorting out the situation and helping me realize the ways to achieve my goals and also the possibilities that exist overall. 

On 1/22/2024 at 10:22 AM, Dan Honemann said:

As best I can determine, this isn't the sort of meeting referred to in 9:13 as a "special meeting" unless the "administration" referred to by the OP is actually what RONR refers to as an "organized society" in 1:9.  If it is, then this meeting will be governed entirely by rules adopted by the administration, and the group which the OP describes as "we", will have no rights other than those which the administration is willing to grant them.

That's a great point, Mr. Honemann, since it is exactly what we have no right to other than what the administration is willing to grant us, which is why we can't just call for an informal lunch. If we want to talk to the administration, this is how they are willing to sit down and talk with us. And we have to take it, even if it's not what we were exactly hoping for. 

On 1/22/2024 at 10:25 AM, Josh Martin said:

You raise an excellent point. As I look back at the most recent post, it's not clear that this is a meeting of a deliberative assembly. If it is not, I am somewhat puzzled by the statement that the meeting "would be governed by RONR."

Well, it has been interesting to see how people in this thread are overall confused by the adoption of RONR when it is not a deliberative assembly, that there is an agenda when there is no business, and so forth. In all honesty, it doesn't make much sense to us either, except that this is a way that the administration has adopted because they are afraid the conversation will get out of hand and they will be blamed for taking one side or the other. So, they have invited an outside moderator who has professional experience running deliberative assembly meetings with RONR to run this meeting and the conversations (as a fair third party). While I do understand and appreciate the invitation of a third-party moderator, I really see no point in structuring the meeting with RONR except as a way to limit the discussion among the attendees and make it more so like a hearing session where the admin would listen to us raise our concerns without creating any constructive space for debate on different topics. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/22/2024 at 11:22 PM, Guest Jasmine said:

Well, it has been interesting to see how people in this thread are overall confused by the adoption of RONR when it is not a deliberative assembly, that there is an agenda when there is no business, and so forth.

Well, it hasn't yet been established that this will or will not be a deliberative assembly.

When you refer to the "administration" what, exactly, are you referring to?  Is this a group that is formally organized in some fashion, and meets from time to time under its own set of rules?

When you refer to "we" or "us", who, exactly, are you referring to?

And in any event, I can understand the desire that this meeting be conducted under some set of rules.  Even a meeting of an unorganized group needs some rules for the governance of its proceedings.  Look closely at Section 53 in RONR, 12th ed., especially 53:8-10.