Motion to Adjourn Skipping Voted On Agenda Items?

[Guest Jimm]

 

 

At the start of the meeting, Chair got the agenda voted on and approved.

What vote is needed now to skip a few tail-end agenda items to adjourn?

Simple majority or two-thirds majority?

And, supposing the meeting is adjourned, do those items become old business?

Thanks

[Josh Martin]

On 3/2/2024 at 11:32 PM, Guest Jimm said:

What vote is needed now to skip a few tail-end agenda items to adjourn?

Simple majority or two-thirds majority?

Generally, a majority vote. A 2/3 vote would be required if a specific time is provided for adjournment and that time has not been reached.

On 3/2/2024 at 11:32 PM, Guest Jimm said:

And, supposing the meeting is adjourned, do those items become old business?

It's "Unfinished Business," not "Old Business," but yes.

[Rob Elsman]

If this assembly regularly meets as often as quarterly, it should likely use the established order of business rather than adopting an agenda at the beginning of each meeting. Assuming RONR (12th ed.) is the organization's parliamentary authority, the established order of business is the standard order of business given in RONR (12th ed.) 41:5, unless the organization has adopted its own order of business.

The manner of arranging items of business and carrying forward items of business not reached is described in RONR (12th ed.) §41.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/3/2024 at 12:32 AM, Guest Jimm said:

And, supposing the meeting is adjourned, do those items become old business?

 

On 3/3/2024 at 9:43 AM, Josh Martin said:

It's "Unfinished Business," not "Old Business," but yes.

Won't this depend upon what the item of business is?  What if it's a standing committee report?

[J. J.]

If the purpose is not to defeat the motions, and you meet at least as often as quarterly, you could lay each question on the table, when pending (17:14).  That would require a majority vote. 

If this is done, the motions could be taken from the table at the next meeting under either unfinished business, new business, or under the class of business to which the motion belongs.  For example, if this were a standing committee report, it could taken off the table at the next meeting during standing committee reports, or  under unfinished business, or under new business.

[Atul Kapur]

Table II, Motion 3 on pages t6-7 says a majority vote is required to "Adjourn ... in advance of a time already set" (this is a main motion rather than a privileged motion, but the vote required is the same as Motion 2 in that table).

So I differ from Mr. Martin's answer and say a motion to adjourn immediately requires a majority vote in either circumstance.

On 3/3/2024 at 9:43 AM, Josh Martin said:

Generally, a majority vote. A 2/3 vote would be required if a specific time is provided for adjournment and that time has not been reached.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/3/2024 at 9:04 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Won't this depend upon what the item of business is?  What if it's a standing committee report?

Yes, it's correct that it will depend upon what the item of business is. My response assumed it was a general order.

On 3/3/2024 at 9:53 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Table II, Motion 3 on pages t6-7 says a majority vote is required to "Adjourn ... in advance of a time already set" (this is a main motion rather than a privileged motion, but the vote required is the same as Motion 2 in that table).

So I differ from Mr. Martin's answer and say a motion to adjourn immediately requires a majority vote in either circumstance.

I suppose. But in the event that, for instance, the chair had already stated the question on one of these "tail-end" items of business, and a time had already been established for adjournment, then adjourning would require a suspension of the rules, which requires a 2/3 vote. (Although as J.J. suggests, Lay on the Table might provide a workaround in that case.)

[J. J.]

On 3/3/2024 at 10:53 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Table II, Motion 3 on pages t6-7 says a majority vote is required to "Adjourn ... in advance of a time already set" (this is a main motion rather than a privileged motion, but the vote required is the same as Motion 2 in that table).

So I differ from Mr. Martin's answer and say a motion to adjourn immediately requires a majority vote in either circumstance.

 

While I agree, it is dependent of if another motion is pending or not.  If there is another motion pending, the main motion to adjourn is not in order. 

There are a lot of nuances in this situation. 

[Atul Kapur]

Agreeing with @Josh Martin and @J. J., it is a main motion and, therefore, dependent on whether there is an immediately pending motion on the floor. However, even in that situation, it could be raised as a Question of Privilege relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly.

[Rob Elsman]

On 3/3/2024 at 9:23 AM, J. J. said:

If the purpose is not to defeat the motions, and you meet at least as often as quarterly, you could lay each question on the table, when pending (17:14).  That would require a majority vote. 

If this is done, the motions could be taken from the table at the next meeting under either unfinished business, new business, or under the class of business to which the motion belongs.  For example, if this were a standing committee report, it could taken off the table at the next meeting during standing committee reports, or  under unfinished business, or under new business.

The subsidiary motion, Lay on the Table, is not in order when the sole purpose for the motion is to permanently dispose of the pending main motion and suppress it for the remainder of the session.  The proper motion is Postpone Indefinitely.

Lay on the Table is used when urgent business needs to be taken up immediately. When all business is completed in one meeting of a few hours, Lay on the Table will only rarely be in order.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/3/2024 at 1:21 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Agreeing with @Josh Martin and @J. J., it is a main motion and, therefore, dependent on whether there is an immediately pending motion on the floor. However, even in that situation, it could be raised as a Question of Privilege relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly.

I disagree. Where the rules specifically provide that the motion to adjourn is not privileged and cannot be made when another motion is pending, it would not be in order to raise it as a question of privilege. 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/3/2024 at 12:21 PM, Atul Kapur said:

However, even in that situation, it could be raised as a Question of Privilege relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly.

While I suppose I can imagine unusual circumstances where this might be the case, "we want to adjourn" is not, in itself, a question of privilege, let alone which justifies interruption of the pending business.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/3/2024 at 2:49 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The subsidiary motion, Lay on the Table, is not in order when the sole purpose for the motion is to permanently dispose of the pending main motion and suppress it for the remainder of the session.  The proper motion is Postpone Indefinitely.

Lay on the Table is used when urgent business needs to be taken up immediately. When all business is completed in one meeting of a few hours, Lay on the Table will only rarely be in order.

Depending on the circumstances, I think a motion to adjourn may well be urgent business that need to be taken up immediately.

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/3/2024 at 5:18 PM, Josh Martin said:

While I suppose I can imagine unusual circumstances where this might be the case, "we want to adjourn" is not, in itself, a question of privilege, let alone which justifies interruption of the pending business.

We'll see how the assembly, who wants to adjourn, decides on that appeal 😉

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/3/2024 at 10:53 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Table II, Motion 3 on pages t6-7 says a majority vote is required to "Adjourn ... in advance of a time already set" (this is a main motion rather than a privileged motion, but the vote required is the same as Motion 2 in that table).

As I have previously noted, in my opinion Table II, Motion 3 is in error in this respect. 

21:3 tells us that when a time for adjourning has already been established, a motion to adjourn is treated just as any other incidental main motion, and 10:8(7)(c) tells us that a two-thirds vote is required for the adoption of such a motion since it has the effect of changing something already adopted.

21:14 seems rather clearly to relate only to a motion to adjourn which is made during a meeting when another meeting has previously been scheduled for the same session.

[J. J.]

On 3/3/2024 at 3:49 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The subsidiary motion, Lay on the Table, is not in order when the sole purpose for the motion is to permanently dispose of the pending main motion and suppress it for the remainder of the session.  The proper motion is Postpone Indefinitely.

Lay on the Table is used when urgent business needs to be taken up immediately. When all business is completed in one meeting of a few hours, Lay on the Table will only rarely be in order.

Lay On the Table is not being used to suppress a question without debate, in this example.  The assembly has determined, in the set of circumstances given, that adjournment is more urgent than these motions. 

[J. J.]

On 3/3/2024 at 6:32 PM, Atul Kapur said:

We'll see how the assembly, who wants to adjourn, decides on that appeal 😉

The assembly can lay the pending question on the table first. 

 

[J. J.]

On 3/3/2024 at 6:50 PM, Dan Honemann said:

As I have previously noted, in my opinion Table II, Motion 3 is in error in this respect. 

21:3 tells us that when a time for adjourning has already been established, a motion to adjourn is treated just as any other incidental main motion, and 10:8(7)(c) tells us that a two-thirds vote is required for the adoption of such a motion since it has the effect of changing something already adopted.

21:14 seems rather clearly to relate only to a motion to adjourn which is made during a meeting when another meeting has previously been scheduled for the same session.

Suppose that adjournment was set for 5:00 PM, and at 3:00 PM, the final item of business is disposed of, at least temporarily.  Would just under 2/3 of the members voting have to sit there for two hours twiddling there thumbs because just over 1/3 of the members voting want to stay in session?  Also, as a main motion, could the motion to adjourn at a specific time be reconsidered? 

[Rob Elsman]

No, of course they don't sit there held hostage for two hours. When the hour arrives when there is no further business to transact, the chair announces that the meeting is adjourned without a motion being made.

I submit that there is no parliamentary situation whatsoever where a minority of sufficient size can hold a meeting hostage until some hour in the future. None. That's why I opine that Motion 3, Table II, on tinted page 6 is absolutely correct as it is written.

[Rob Elsman]

On 3/3/2024 at 5:54 PM, J. J. said:

Lay On the Table is not being used to suppress a question without debate, in this example.  The assembly has determined, in the set of circumstances given, that adjournment is more urgent than these motions. 

A motion to adjourn in advance of the hour fixed to adjourn is adopted (by majority vote!), and all this other silliness bites the dust.

[Wright Stuff]

On 3/3/2024 at 6:50 PM, Dan Honemann said:

As I have previously noted, in my opinion Table II, Motion 3 is in error in this respect. 

Mr. Honemann, you're the second-listed author on the book, and the first-listed author is no longer with us. Since you believe that Table II, Motion 3 is in error, why hasn't some sort of notice of correction been issued? I assume there's some sort of voting process among the authors. Has this possible error been addressed collectively?

I'm not trying to stick my nose into your business. I'm just curious how the process work. It has to be a gargantuan task to be an author. We are fortunate to have your and Mr. Gerber's participation in this forum.

Edited March 4, 2024 at 04:21 AM by Wright Stuff

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/3/2024 at 11:20 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Mr. Honemann, you're the second-listed author on the book, and the first-listed author is no longer with us. Since you believe that Table II, Motion 3 is in error, why hasn't some sort of notice of correction been issued? I assume there's some sort of voting process among the authors. Has this possible error been addressed collectively?

I'm not trying to stick my nose into your business. I'm just curious how the process work. It has to be a gargantuan task to be an author. We are fortunate to have your and Mr. Gerber's participation in this forum.

The authorship team has not as yet addressed this question.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/3/2024 at 7:08 PM, J. J. said:

Also, as a main motion, could the motion to adjourn at a specific time be reconsidered?

My understanding of the facts in the instant case is that the time fixed for adjournment was contained in an adopted agenda.  An affirmative vote to adopt an agenda may not be reconsidered.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/3/2024 at 9:02 PM, Rob Elsman said:

A motion to adjourn in advance of the hour fixed to adjourn is adopted (by majority vote!), and all this other silliness bites the dust.

I understand that there is some disagreement as to whether, if a time for adjournment has previously been established, a motion to Adjourn, if made while no motion is pending, requires a majority vote or a 2/3 vote.

But there is certainly no doubt that if such a motion is made while a motion is pending, it will require a 2/3 vote for adoption. When a time has previously been established for adjournment, a motion to adjourn is an incidental main motion, not a privileged motion. Under such circumstances, adjourning while business is pending would require a suspension of the rules, which takes a 2/3 vote.

That is where J.J. is coming from with the suggestion of Lay on the Table - this permits a mechanism for how the assembly may reach an incidental main motion to adjourn, in the instance that a majority (but less than 2/3) wishes to adjourn.

[Rob Elsman]

On 3/4/2024 at 10:15 AM, Josh Martin said:

But there is certainly no doubt that if such a motion is made while a motion is pending, it will require a 2/3 vote for adoption. When a time has previously been established for adjournment, a motion to adjourn is an incidental main motion, not a privileged motion. Under such circumstances, adjourning while business is pending would require a suspension of the rules, which takes a 2/3 vote.

I strongly disagree.  As I have said previously, there is no parliamentary situation where a minority of sufficient size can hold a meeting hostage.  None.  This is why I say that Motion 3, Table II is perfectly correct as it is written.  An order that the assembly adjourn at a certain hour is conditional upon the assembly's being in session when the hour arrives; thus, the order may be correctly interpreted as, "...shall adjourn no later than...".