"Or Otherwise"; RONR/10, p. 347, lines 18 & 23

[jstackpo]

In describing how a question is "set as [a] general order" the book notes that this can happen "by postponement or otherwise [emphasis added]."

What parliamentary device, or devices, is referred to by "or otherwise"?

The same "or otherwise" phrase recurs on line 23.

[Rob Elsman]

In describing how a question is "set as [a] general order" the book notes that this can happen "by postponement or otherwise [emphasis added]."

What parliamentary device, or devices, is referred to by "or otherwise"?

The same "or otherwise" phrase recurs on line 23.

"Otherwise" refers to the other methods of making a general order listed in RONR (10th ed.), p. 354, ll. 8-23.

[jstackpo]

"Otherwise" refers to the other methods of making a general order listed in RONR (10th ed.), p. 354, ll. 8-23.

My difficulty with that answer (and you left out "#4" - notice of a bylaw amendment) centers on the word "question" as used on p. 347.

All but universally in the book the word "question" refers to a motion-as-stated-by-the-chair: "Are you ready for the question?"; "Putting the question", "Object to the consideration of the question" -- it is essentially or primarily a synonym for motion.

However, the list on p. 354 includes items that are manifestly not "questions", particularly topics or subjects for (future) consideration included in an adopted agenda, or a bylaw amendment notice which (p. 578) need not be presented as a precise motion but need only "fairly inform the members of the changes contemplated."

So it seems that "otherwise" is too broad a net. The book (next edition - ?) needs to distinguish between "general orders" that are in the form of actual questions/motions that were formally made, earlier, and then postponed, and "general orders" that are in the form of a list of topics to be considered, and for which motions will be made when the time comes.

This distinction becomes important in the situations implied by a) through d) on p. 347 where the previous meeting (for whatever reason) didn't reach the Unfinished Business and General Orders heading in the standard order of business, or adjourned before a scheduled item, a general order, was reached. The distinction then makes it possible to know which unreached general order(s) from that meeting come up automatically in the current meeting and which are properly ignored.

[Rob Elsman]

My difficulty with that answer (and you left out "#4" - notice of a bylaw amendment) centers on the word "question" as used on p. 347.

All but universally in the book the word "question" refers to a motion-as-stated-by-the-chair: "Are you ready for the question?"; "Putting the question", "Object to the consideration of the question" -- it is essentially or primarily a synonym for motion.

However, the list on p. 354 includes items that are manifestly not "questions", particularly topics or subjects for (future) consideration included in an adopted agenda, or a bylaw amendment notice which (p. 578) need not be presented as a precise motion but need only "fairly inform the members of the changes contemplated."

So it seems that "otherwise" is too broad a net. The book (next edition - ?) needs to distinguish between "general orders" that are in the form of actual questions/motions that were formally made, earlier, and then postponed, and "general orders" that are in the form of a list of topics to be considered, and for which motions will be made when the time comes.

This distinction becomes important in the situations implied by a) through d) on p. 347 where the previous meeting (for whatever reason) didn't reach the Unfinished Business and General Orders heading in the standard order of business, or adjourned before a scheduled item, a general order, was reached. The distinction then makes it possible to know which unreached general order(s) from that meeting come up automatically in the current meeting and which are properly ignored.

John, I wouldn't waste much time with the so-called #4 on p. 578. This is a remnant that is left over from previous editions. I think it will go away.

[Shmuel Gerber]

This distinction becomes important in the situations implied by a) through d) on p. 347 where the previous meeting (for whatever reason) didn't reach the Unfinished Business and General Orders heading in the standard order of business, or adjourned before a scheduled item, a general order, was reached. The distinction then makes it possible to know which unreached general order(s) from that meeting come up automatically in the current meeting and which are properly ignored.

An item of unfinished business doesn't get "properly ignored" just because it has not been previously introduced as a motion or stated by the chair as a "question". When the item is reached in the order of business, the chair announces it as the next item of unfinished business, just as he would have announced it as a general order if it came up at the meeting for which it was originally set.

[jstackpo]

Are you, SG, saying that

IF:

Meeting A adopts an agenda listing a number of topics to be considered, which makes each of those topics a general order for that meeting per p. 360, and then runs out of time and adjourns before dealing with some of those items

THEN:

The chairman is obliged at meeting B, next month, to bring up each of those unreached topics under the Order of Business heading of "Unfinished Business and General Orders" before the meeting B can get on with New Business?

Keep in mind that at meeting A, NO motions were made concerning those "unreached topics" because, after all, they were not reached.

[Rob Elsman]

Are you, SG, saying that

IF:

Meeting A adopts an agenda listing a number of topics to be considered, which makes each of those topics a general order for that meeting per p. 360, and then runs out of time and adjourns before dealing with some of those items

THEN:

The chairman is obliged at meeting B, next month, to bring up each of those unreached topics under the Order of Business heading of "Unfinished Business and General Orders" before the meeting B can get on with New Business?

Keep in mind that at meeting A, NO motions were made concerning those "unreached topics" because, after all, they were not reached.

Assemblies that regularly meet each month should not be adopting an agenda at the beginning of each meeting; rather, they should follow the established order of business--either the standard order of business or a special order of business adopted by the society.

[hmtcastle]

Assemblies that regularly meet each month should not be adopting an agenda at the beginning of each meeting; rather, they should follow the established order of business--either the standard order of business or a special order of business adopted by the society.

When the question is, what happens when this happens, I'm not sure how helpful it is to say that this shouldn't have happened.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Are you, SG, saying that

IF:

Meeting A adopts an agenda listing a number of topics to be considered, which makes each of those topics a general order for that meeting per p. 360, and then runs out of time and adjourns before dealing with some of those items

THEN:

The chairman is obliged at meeting B, next month, to bring up each of those unreached topics under the Order of Business heading of "Unfinished Business and General Orders" before the meeting B can get on with New Business?

Keep in mind that at meeting A, NO motions were made concerning those "unreached topics" because, after all, they were not reached.

Assuming we are talking about regular monthly meetings, and that this is not a body in which the terms of some of the members have expired between the meetings (such as might happen in a city council), and that no times had been set for the items on the agenda (in which case they would come up as special orders), then I don't see why not. See RONR 10th ed., page 229, lines 8-10.