Motion to Adjourn Skipping Voted On Agenda Items?

[Josh Martin]

On 3/4/2024 at 11:05 AM, Rob Elsman said:

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...".

Yes, I understand, and when no motion is pending, I do not disagree with your position.

But Motion 3, Table II (as well as RONR (12th ed.) 21:3) quite clearly indicates that when a time for adjournment has previously been established, the motion to adjourn is a main motion. Main motions cannot be made while another motion is pending.

As a consequence, adjourning a meeting when a time for adjournment has been previously set, and when a motion is pending, will require a suspension of the rules, which requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

Adjourning with only a majority vote, therefore, will require in some manner disposing of the motion which is pending, so that no motion is pending anymore, in order for the assembly to reach an incidental main motion to adjourn. J.J. has provided a mechanism to do this, which is to lay the pending motion on the table, and subsequently move to adjourn.

I don't see how you can suggest that, while a motion is pending, it is possible to adjourn with a majority vote when a time for adjournment has been previously established, unless you agree with Dr. Kapur's suggestion that this can be introduced through Raise a Question of Privilege. (I do not agree with that suggestion.)

Edited March 4, 2024 at 05:21 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

Were I able to be a fly on the wall when the authors discuss this!

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/4/2024 at 12:19 PM, Josh Martin said:

Yes, I understand, and when no motion is pending, I do not disagree with your position.

I would be interested in learning a bit more about the reasoning behind this distinction you seem to be drawing between the vote required for adoption of subsidiary improper motions and incidental main motions to adjourn prior to a time already set for adjournment in an adopted agenda.  In this connection, I think you will agree that:

1.  If a time for adjournment is set in an adopted agenda, that adjournment has been made an order of the day, and will constitute either a special order or a general order as those terms are defined in RONR.  

2.  An order of the day created by the adoption of an agenda cannot be taken up before the time for which it is set except by suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote, since an affirmative vote adopting an agenda cannot be reconsidered.  

3.  If an incidental main motion is made to amend the previously adopted agenda to change the time set for adjournment, adoption of such a motion will require either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. A majority vote will not suffice.

All three of these statements are clearly set forth in 41:40-42, 41:58-59, 41:63

Edited March 5, 2024 at 03:09 PM by Dan Honemann
Amended as shown

[J. J.]

On 3/5/2024 at 9:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I would be interested in learning a bit more about the reasoning behind this distinction you seem to be drawing between the vote required for adoption of subsidiary improper motions and incidental main motions to adjourn prior to a time already set for adjournment in an adopted agenda.  In this connection, I think you will agree that:

1.  If a time for adjournment is set in an adopted agenda, that adjournment has been made an order of the day, and will constitute either a special order or a general order as those terms are defined in RONR.  

2.  An order of the day created by the adoption of an agenda cannot be taken up before the time for which it is set except by suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote, since an affirmative vote adopting an agenda cannot be reconsidered.  

3.  If an incidental main motion is made to amend the previously adopted agenda to change the time set for adjournment, adoption of such a motion will require either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. A majority vote will not suffice.

All three of these statements are clearly set forth in 41:40-42, 41:58-59, 41:63

Though, in theory, it could end up with just under 1/3 of the assembly twiddling its thumbs for a while, there is logic in this position.   Adjournment is set a 5:00 PM, but the finial  item of business is completed at 3:00 PM.  A member might leave the meeting at 1:00 PM, planning to return at 4:00 PM to move to reconsider, raise a point of order, or give notice.  That member would know that, absent a majority of the entire membership, 1/3 of the members could prevent  the meeting from adjourning until 5:00 PM.

My problem is, that is not t6-t6 # 3 says.   

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/5/2024 at 9:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

An order of the day created by the adoption of an agenda cannot be taken up before the time for which it is set except by suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote, since an affirmative vote adopting an agenda cannot be reconsidered.  

I think this may be where we disagree. It is not the adjournment previously set that is being taken up early. Rather, a new, earlier adjournment, is being moved. 

[J. J.]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:26 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think this may be where we disagree. It is not the adjournment previously set that is being taken up early. Rather, a new, earlier adjournment, is being moved. 

If it is an "earlier adjournment," could it be privileged, at least if raised when something else is pending (which would violate 21:3 #2).

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:27 AM, J. J. said:

If it is an "earlier adjournment," could it be privileged, at least if raised when something else is pending (which would violate 21:3 #2).

No. This question answers itself. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:26 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think this may be where we disagree. It is not the adjournment previously set that is being taken up early. Rather, a new, earlier adjournment, is being moved. 

This may be one way of putting it, although I don't think it is entirely accurate.  RONR refers to items on an agenda as "subjects" (41:58), and specifically to adjournment as a "subject" (41:59).

The fact is that, unlike recesses, there can be only one adjournment of a meeting, and if an agenda has been adopted setting the time for that adjournment, any incidental main motion attempting to schedule an earlier time will be out of order unless the motion is phrased in such a way as to constitute a motion to amend the adopted agenda, and such a motion will require either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption. A majority vote will not suffice (41:63).

[Josh Martin]

On 3/5/2024 at 8:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I would be interested in learning a bit more about the reasoning behind this distinction you seem to be drawing between the vote required for adoption of subsidiary improper motions and incidental main motions to adjourn prior to a time already set for adjournment in an adopted agenda.  In this connection, I think you will agree that:

1.  If a time for adjournment is set in an adopted agenda, that adjournment has been made an order of the day, and will constitute either a special order or a general order as those terms are defined in RONR.  

2.  An order of the day created by the adoption of an agenda cannot be taken up before the time for which it is set except by suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote, since an affirmative vote adopting an agenda cannot be reconsidered.  

3.  If an incidental main motion is made to amend the previously adopted agenda to change the time set for adjournment, adoption of such a motion will require either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. A majority vote will not suffice.

All three of these statements are clearly set forth in 41:40-42, 41:58-59, 41:63

I concur with Mr. Gerber's position in this matter. "It is not the adjournment previously set that is being taken up early. Rather, a new, earlier adjournment, is being moved."

On 3/6/2024 at 9:32 AM, Dan Honemann said:

This may be one way of putting it, although I don't think it is entirely accurate.  RONR refers to items on an agenda as "subjects" (41:58), and specifically to adjournment as a "subject" (41:59).

The fact is that, unlike recesses, there can be only one adjournment of a meeting, and if an agenda has been adopted setting the time for that adjournment, any incidental main motion attempting to schedule an earlier time will be out of order unless the motion is phrased in such a way as to constitute a motion to amend the adopted agenda, and such a motion will require either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption. A majority vote will not suffice (41:63).

Well, suppose a time for adjournment has been set for 6 PM. Would it be in order for the assembly to adopt a motion to recess until 5:59 PM? (Presumably, at which time, the chair would soon announce the previously scheduled adjournment.)

If not, why not? And if so, why not simply have the assembly adopt a motion to adjourn?

Edited March 6, 2024 at 06:39 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/6/2024 at 1:37 PM, Josh Martin said:

Well, suppose a time for adjournment has been set for 6 PM. Would it be in order for the assembly to adopt a motion to recess until 5:59 PM? (Presumably, at which time, the chair would soon announce the previously scheduled adjournment.)

Yes, they could do this, or instead of doing this they could all get up and go home.

None of this refutes what I have said concerning what the rules in RONR now say.

[J. J.]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:35 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

No. This question answers itself. 

Then it wouldn't be an "earlier adjournment."  This is the same motion.

[Guest Jimm]

Thanks all,

I didn't realize my original questions would cause such a divergence of opinions here.

Latest edition of Robert's Rule of Order is prescribed in the by-laws.

Unfortunately, I'm looking at the 11th edition here, pages 332 and 337 regarding Agendas.  Unless the latest edition modified or amended the 11th edition, and I don't think it has judging from the conversations above, the language in the 11th and 12th are likely identical.

PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTION seems to say that once adopted, it becomes the order of business.

CHANGING AN AGENDA seems to say that once adopted, it can be amended by two-thirds majority.

So, if the Agenda is adopted, and there are items not yet taken up, isn't it a change to the order of business to exclude them without a two-thirds agreement?

I see the point about a minority holding the majority hostage to adjourn, but they agreed to that order of business at the onset.   If everything on the Agenda has been dispensed with, then a motion to adjourn seems in order since it does not modify the order of business any.  And, this seems to be supported by the rules that require a two-thirds majority to take up a motion not on the Agenda somewhere in the middle of the meeting, since that would be a motion taken our of order (order of business).

Thoughts.

Jimm

[Dan Honemann]

In your original post you said this:

"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?"

The discussion became a bit complicated when the assumption was made that the last item on this agenda was Adjournment.  Was this the case?  

[Rob Elsman]

On 3/6/2024 at 2:26 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think this may be where we disagree. It is not the adjournment previously set that is being taken up early. Rather, a new, earlier adjournment, is being moved.

When the authors discuss this matter, I hope there will be a thorough examination of the precise meaning of "...at [...] o'clock". I sense that the words are meaning two different things in different parts of the book, and it is this ambiguity that is fueling the disagreement.

The purpose of the order seems to me to prevent the meeting from continuing beyond the hour fixed. As such, the order is conditional upon the meeting being in session when the hour arrives, but it does not require the meeting to be in session at that hour. This is the same meaning that I give to "...at [...] o'clock" when used in a motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, to close debate at a certain hour in the future. If that is not correct, I would strongly recommend that the authors modify the book to not use the same phrase in both places.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/7/2024 at 6:10 PM, Rob Elsman said:

When the authors discuss this matter, I hope there will be a thorough examination of the precise meaning of "...at [...] o'clock". I sense that the words are meaning two different things in different parts of the book, and it is this ambiguity that is fueling the disagreement.

I'm afraid that I don't follow what you are saying here because it seems to me that "...at [...] o'clock" means "...at [...] o'clock", and any difference in meaning will be due to the context in which this phrase is found.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/6/2024 at 4:01 PM, Guest Jimm said:

So, if the Agenda is adopted, and there are items not yet taken up, isn't it a change to the order of business to exclude them without a two-thirds agreement?

No.

The purpose of adopting an agenda is to ensure the items are considered in the order listed, and that the most important items are completed first. It does not mandate the assembly to complete all of the listed items of business before adjourning. Indeed, the fact that the assembly may adjourn before all business is completed is what makes the order the items are listed on the agenda so important. The fact that an agenda has been adopted, in and of itself, does not prevent the assembly from adjourning, at any time, by majority vote.

If, however, the agenda specifies a time for adjournment, that complicates matters slightly. But in the end, if a majority of the assembly wishes to adjourn, it's going to find a way to do so.

Edited March 8, 2024 at 02:20 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest Jimm]

On 3/6/2024 at 5:25 PM, Dan Honemann said:

In your original post you said this:

"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?"

The discussion became a bit complicated when the assumption was made that the last item on this agenda was Adjournment.  Was this the case?  

No, "adjournment" was not specifically an item listed on the Agenda.    But, something that came before all the adopted agenda items were dispensed with.

Jimm

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/7/2024 at 10:39 PM, Guest Jimm said:

No, "adjournment" was not specifically an item listed on the Agenda.    But, something that came before all the adopted agenda items were dispensed with.

Jimm

In this case you can ignore the "divergence of opinions" which you rightly say is reflected in this discussion.

You originally asked: 

"What vote is needed now to skip a few tail-end agenda items to adjourn?  Simple majority or two-thirds majority?"

Mr. Martin's immediate response was:

"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."

The differing opinions all related to the second sentence of this response, which shouldn't concern you at all because it has no application to your situation.  

(Psst. Just between you and me, that second sentence was and is entirely accurate, but don't tell anybody or you will set off another firestorm. 😃)

[Josh Martin]

On 3/7/2024 at 9:39 PM, Guest Jimm said:

No, "adjournment" was not specifically an item listed on the Agenda.    But, something that came before all the adopted agenda items were dispensed with.

In this event, only a majority vote is required for adjournment, period, even if not all business on the agenda has been completed, and you can blissfully ignore everything in this thread after this sentence.

"Generally, a majority vote."

[Guest Jimm]

Ok, you are saying a simple majority by the members present.

But, the second part of the original quesion remains:

Do the items on the approved agenda become unfinished business, since they were made an order of business by approving the agenda?

Thanks

 

Jimm

 

[Rob Elsman]

The correct answer to the second question depends on facts not in evidence.

[J. J.]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:13 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The correct answer to the second question depends on facts not in evidence.

Actually, it seems to depend on a situation not applicable in this case. 

[Rob Elsman]

At best, the answer is "maybe yes, maybe no".

[Gary Novosielski]

To determine which, consult 21:7—Effect of Adjournment on Pending Business or on an Uncompleted Order of Business.

Spoiler alert: Barring edge cases introduced by quarterly intervals, ending terms, and the like, the answer is often Yes.

[Rob Elsman]

Because assemblies that meet frequently should usually not adopt an agenda at the beginning of each meeting, I would have been more inclined to have said, "... often no". With assemblies that meet less frequently than the quarterly time interval, there is no established order of business, and items of business not reached are just dropped.