Reintroducing a discussion

[Guest Georgie Porgie]

At our last board meeting, a motion was made to approve a slate of new members. During debate, the discussion began to derail into a question of organizational policy (around our acceptance of new members). As chair, after allowing passionate discussion to take place in this direction for several minutes, I advised the board that we needed to return to the motion on the table and that further discussion on the matter of member policy could be raised separately at another meeting. We voted and the slate was passed unanimously.

I've now put this matter of membership policy on the agenda of the upcoming meeting. As the matter was not formally raised in a motion, was I correct to do so? Should it be characterized as "unfinished business" or "special orders?" Was it appropriate of me to put the matter on the agenda or should I have waited for a motion from another member? I don't want to be the kind of chair who 'parks' matters of interest and then never returns to the parking lot.

Thank you for your advice.

[hmtcastle]

I've now put this matter of membership policy on the agenda of the upcoming meeting. As the matter was not formally raised in a motion, was I correct to do so? Should it be characterized as "unfinished business" or "special orders?" Was it appropriate of me to put the matter on the agenda or should I have waited for a motion from another member?

In meetings of "small" boards, where not more than about a dozen members are present, the rules are relaxed and discussion can take place before a formal motion is made (and the chair is free to fully participate). I would not consider this question to be unfinished business (since the motion that prompted it was resolved). It sounds more like new business to me (not "new" as a topic, but "new" as "business").

As for proposing and adopting an agenda, see FAQ #14. But note that there is no requirement that there be an agenda at all.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

At our last board meeting, a motion was made to approve a slate of new members.

During debate, the discussion began to derail into a question of organizational policy (around our acceptance of new members).

As chair, after allowing passionate discussion to take place in this direction for several minutes, I advised the board that we needed to return to the motion on the table and that further discussion on the matter of member policy could be raised separately at another meeting. We voted and the slate was passed unanimously.

I've now put this matter of membership policy on the agenda of the upcoming meeting.

As the matter was not formally raised in a motion, was I correct to do so?

Should it be characterized as "unfinished business" or "special orders?"

Was it appropriate of me to put the matter on the agenda or should I have waited for a motion from another member?

It's all kind of loosey-goosey.

No motion was made.

So no motion was postponed.

So no motion was made a special order.

In general, all business is new business, with very few exceptions.

• "Special orders" would be things like elections, and very few other things would fall under special orders.

• "Unfinished business" would be things like an adjournment interrupting a motion in mid-debate.

• "General orders" would be things which were postponed.

Not knowing the details of your situation, it is probably best to treat it as "new business."

It isn't anything else, as far as I can tell.

[Tim Wynn]

At our last board meeting, a motion was made to approve a slate of new members.

I trust it is within the board's power to approve new members. Is it?

During debate, the discussion began to derail into a question of organizational policy (around our acceptance of new members). As chair, after allowing passionate discussion to take place in this direction for several minutes,

Don't wait several minutes. It's your duty to make sure debate is confined to the pending question.

I advised the board that we needed to return to the motion on the table

"On the table" is a parliamentary term (with a specific definition) that does not apply here. You should use the term "pending" or "before the assembly."

and that further discussion on the matter of member policy could be raised separately at another meeting.

Unless this was a special meeting or some other limitation on the motion was in place(such as a requirement of notice), a motion could have been introduced at this meeting, without the need to wait for another meeting. However, I wonder if the board has authority over such matters of policy.

We voted and the slate was passed unanimously.

I've now put this matter of membership policy on the agenda of the upcoming meeting. As the matter was not formally raised in a motion, was I correct to do so?

If debate wanders off into another topic, there is no obligation on the part of the chair to make a motion out of the topic that is improperly discussed, and you certainly don't have to negotiate with members to keep their debate on track, such as, "If you'll adhere to the rules of debate, I'll put a motion on the proposed agenda for you."

Should it be characterized as "unfinished business" or "special orders?"

The misuse of agendas is a stumbling block for many assemblies. See RONR(10th ed.) p. 342 for the Standard Order of Business. It's probably all you need. Using it, a motion that hasn't been made would generally come up under New Business.

Was it appropriate for me to put the matter on the agenda or should I have waited for a motion from another member?

The proposed agenda does not become the agenda until adopted by the assembly. So, no individual puts something on the agenda; it is the assembly that does this. Preparing the order of business for a meeting is the duty of the secretary.

I don't want to be the kind of chair who 'parks' matters of interest and then never returns to the parking lot.

That's good to hear. This would be a bad kind of chair, as the chair has no authority to keep legitimate business from being considered by the assembly.