Motion passed but was on wrong agenda item.

[Guest Confused]

We made a motion to accept the agenda.

We were on agenda item 3 but the conversation organically moved to agenda item 7.  There was no formal, or informal action to skip ahead to agenda item #7.  A motion was passed regarding agenda item 7.  Meeting adjourned and we never got to items 4, 5, 6, or 7.  Is the motion we made valid?  If not, what do we do next?

[Joshua Katz]

Not ideal, but since the motion was made and adopted, it is adopted absent a point of order raised at the time.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/9/2024 at 5:43 PM, Guest Confused said:

We made a motion to accept the agenda.

We were on agenda item 3 but the conversation organically moved to agenda item 7.  There was no formal, or informal action to skip ahead to agenda item #7.  A motion was passed regarding agenda item 7.  Meeting adjourned and we never got to items 4, 5, 6, or 7.  Is the motion we made valid?  If not, what do we do next?

Whatever motions were adopted remain adopted.  Any items not reached on the agenda would ordinarily come up automatically under Unfinished Business and General Orders, but since you're not using the Standard Order of Business¹ for some reason, I guess you'll have to add them to the next meeting's agenda.

____________________
¹ see RONR (12th ed.) 41:5 ff.

[Rob Elsman]

As I understand the facts, there was pending a main motion pending "to accept the agenda". The chair improperly permitted "conversation" about the merits of individual items of business. Then, the chair improperly admitted a second main motion while the first one was still pending, which violated a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (only one question at a time). No one seems to have raised even the slightest objection at the time, but the adoption of the second main motion has caused "we" (who apparently opposed the motion) to have a sudden interest in misusing parliamentary law so "we" can prevail after all. Unfortunately for "we", parliamentary law does not work that way. When used in good faith, parliamentary law is to be at work even before a vote is taken on a main motion. It is not to be misused by the losing side on a question as ammunition to launch a guerilla war against an action after the vote has been taken. Way too little; way too late.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 6/10/2024 at 7:06 AM, Rob Elsman said:

As I understand the facts, there was pending a main motion pending "to accept the agenda". The chair improperly permitted "conversation" about the merits of individual items of business.

I originally thought that the agenda had been adopted, and the assembly was properly considering Item 3. But in rereading the original post, I see that apparently they were still discussing the agenda but had not adapted it. Either way, the consideration of Item 7 was improper while another main motion (either adoption of teh agenda or Item 3) was pending. Nevertheless, no time objection was raised, so I agree with Mr. Elsman:

On 6/10/2024 at 7:06 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Way too little; way too late.

 

[Rob Elsman]

I appreciate being quoted in such an excellent response, but I actually meant something a little different.

From the facts presented, it is quite apparent to me that this group is wholly ill-equipped to be using parliamentary law at all; the chair is obviously completely ill-equipped to make rulings based on parliamentary law; and, the group as a whole is just as ill-equipped to consider appeals from the decisions of the chair based on parliamentary law.  Since this is so, any effort to whip out the manual to accomplish what a vote could not just gives the appearance of bad faith.  By the end of the original post's first sentence, the proceedings were already off the track and rolling down the hill.  And, it was all downhill after that.  Not a peep was heard from anyone.  It was only after the vote on the motion related to item 7 that there was, all of a sudden, an interest in anything having to do with parliamentary law.  This just smells bad.  It smacks of an improper employment of parliamentary law in bad faith.  That's really why I said, "Way too little; way too late".

[Dan Honemann]

The initial response to the question asked here was sufficient; no need for a tirade.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/10/2024 at 8:19 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

I originally thought that the agenda had been adopted, and the assembly was properly considering Item 3. But in rereading the original post, I see that apparently they were still discussing the agenda but had not adapted it. Either way, the consideration of Item 7 was improper while another main motion (either adoption of teh agenda or Item 3) was pending. Nevertheless, no time objection was raised, so I agree with Mr. Elsman:

 

That's the way I read it too.  The fact that items 4, 5, and 6 were never reached suggests to me that 1, 2, and 3 were.   I have no idea how 7 was not reached even though it had apparently been adopted earlier.

Hint for the future:  When things are getting squirrely, raise a Point of Order (§23), or if appropriate, Call for the Orders of the Day (§18).  It is the duty of the chair to keep things on the rails, but it's every member's duty to keep an eye on things too.

Edited June 11, 2024 at 02:01 AM by Gary Novosielski