Pull a ballot amendment

[Guest Michael]

If a ballot item has been placed on the agenda, can the board member who placed the item on the agenda unilaterally pull the item off the agenda?

Would it matter if there was already a public hearing?

[Tim Wynn]

If a ballot item has been placed on the agenda, can the board member who placed the item on the agenda unilaterally pull the item off the agenda?

Would it matter if there was already a public hearing?

The proposed agenda doesn't become the official agenda until it is adopted by the assembly. After that, it requires a two-thirds vote (or a vote of a majority of the entire membership) to modify the agenda. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 360.

[Josh Martin]

Would it matter if there was already a public hearing?

No, this has no bearing on the relevant rules.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... can the board member who placed the item on the agenda unilaterally pull the item off the agenda?

"Unilaterally"?

No.

Agendas are adopted by majority vote.

Agendas are amended by majority vote.

Certainly, someone must draft the agenda, unilaterally, just to get items down on paper.

But the drafter isn't making an official document - yet!

The agenda must be approved, for the agenda to be official and binding.

[Tim Wynn]

"Unilaterally"?

No.

Agendas are adopted by majority vote.

Agendas are amended by majority vote.

... before they are adopted. After adoption, amendment requires a two-thirds vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 360, l. 24-29.

[Gary Novosielski]

... before they are adopted. After adoption, amendment requires a two-thirds vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 360, l. 24-29.

Isn't it odd that that passage would mention unanimous consent as a third way of amending an agenda--as if a motion could be passed on a 2/3 vote yet somehow not be passed by unanimous consent?

[Tim Wynn]

Isn't it odd that that passage would mention unanimous consent as a third way of amending an agenda--as if a motion could be passed on a 2/3 vote yet somehow not be passed by unanimous consent?

Yes, I do find that odd, though I suppose RONR is just trying to be helpful, in case the reader is unfamiliar with the option for unanimous consent. However, it's curious that RONR doesn't give a page reference to unanimous consent, since such a reader would most likely require one (p. 51).

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, I do find that odd, though I suppose RONR is just trying to be helpful, in case the reader is unfamiliar with the option for unanimous consent. However, it's curious that RONR doesn't give a page reference to unanimous consent, since such a reader would most likely require one (p. 51).

I think that unanimous consent is mentioned here because unanimous consent is so very frequently utilized in this situation.

[Tim Wynn]

I think that unanimous consent is mentioned here because unanimous consent is so very frequently utilized in this situation.

That makes sense... as expected.