Defusing Dueling Agendas

Defusing Conflicting Agendas

By Steven J. Bolen, PRP

Agenda1: Definition 1) A list of matters to be discussed at a meeting. Definition 2) A list of aims or possible future achievements.

In a culture where, increasingly, conflict has become a normal aspect of life, it is not surprising when we find organizations are seeking help in dealing with their internal conflicts. Recently, a client organization found itself struggling to get anything done due to such conflict. They frequently got stuck on the question of the agenda or, more specifically, on whose agenda should be used. At times, the two definitions of the word agenda can conflict when different groups pursue the adoption of differing agendas of purpose for the meeting.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term agenda to mean “Memoranda of things to be done, as items of business or discussion to be brought up at a meeting; a program consisting of such items.”2 While this definition sweeps a wide path encompassing all things that occur in a meeting, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised uses a technical definition that is narrower; thus, when discussing an “agenda,” one must be clear as to whether it is used in the general non-parliamentary sense or as parliamentary terminology.

The rules under which an organization operates influence how the meeting agenda must be handled. Many governmental bodies, ranging from advisory boards to city councils, operate under open meeting laws and therefore, in the nomenclature of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, essentially operate as if every meeting were a special meeting in that they must provide the agenda beforehand and are unable to deviate from it during the meeting. Organizations that do not operate under open meeting rules are not subject to restrictions as to the freedom of their agendas. However, as David Hume said in the 18th century, “There is no such thing as freedom of choice unless there is a freedom to refuse.” Whenever an assembly has the ability to choose or refuse, the personal agenda of some members may come into play.

Non-Conflict Agenda Creation

General Robert envisioned a methodical open approach to the creation of agendas to keep them free from the personal agendas of members. Presiding officers will often express their intent by sending a proposed agenda with the meeting notice; however, contrary to the belief of most of the uninformed, the agenda does not belong to the presiding officer but to the assembly. A proposed agenda is constructed, within the context of the rules, as a multi-tier structure built from, firstly, the general flow of the meeting, referred to as the order of business; then secondly, a list of business items previously approved, or carried over to, the meeting; and finally, a list of new items that may be considered.

The foundation of everything that happens in a meeting is represented in

1 The Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/agenda) 2 Deluxe Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Page 63

the order of business (RONR 41) which includes all categories that will be tackled. For most assemblies, this order generally will be constant from meeting to meeting and, once adopted (RONR 3:16), should require a two-thirds vote to change. The rules provide, in descending order of priority, four methods for the creation of these categories, each method overruling the methods listed beneath it: 1. Resolution from the previous meeting. 2. Bylaw provision. 3. Special or standing rule. 4. Parliamentary authority.

Conflict on the order of business is greatly reduced by maintaining consistency across meetings and thus enhancing the integrity of the organization itself by allocating time for dealing with minutes, reports, and maintaining the rights of members to introduce new business.

Continued construction of the agenda consists of taking the order of business and adding any series of special orders or general orders that have been made for the meeting. (RONR 41:58) The rules provide several ways that items become included in the order of business (RONR 41:23), primarily under the category of unfinished business: 1. Items made special orders or the special order by means of a resolution at the previous meeting. 2. Items made general orders by means of a resolution at the previous meeting. 3. Items previously made general orders for a previous meeting but which the assembly left unaddressed. 4. An item that was pending when the previous meeting adjourned. 5. Items (such as nominations and elections) required to be addressed due to provisions of the bylaws or other governing documents.

Where there is a flexibility in the ordering of unfinished items, wise planning can lessen conflict by tackling the non-controversial items first and thus encouraging cooperation and an atmosphere of accomplishment from the outset. When placing items under unfinished business, careful consideration should be given as to whether action is actually required. Too often, an item is listed under unfinished business when, in fact, it is just a status update and thus best listed under reports. Proper placement of such items can help reduce conflict since assemblies usually do not feel obligated to debate reports as they would an item of business. If no vote is going to be required, then it is likely to be just a report and should be handled as such.

Finally, creators of agendas must address the question of new business. When presiding officers create proposed agendas, they often include items of new business, which would not fall under the technical term of “agenda” until formally introduced through the means of a motion. It is wise for the creator of such an agenda to note that these are items that have been proposed and “might” be discussed.

Handling Agendas Within the Context of Meetings:

When approaching the question of how to handle approval of agendas, the needs of the society to keep the meeting orderly is of the utmost importance. Orderly meetings are difficult to manage without a functional agenda. There are

some interesting motions for which the negative vote is inherently irrelevant. (RONR 4:35) For these motions there can only be an affirmative vote, as a negative vote would be dangerous to the organization. Motions relating to approval of minutes, agendas, resignations, and acclamations are some of these motions. Rejecting the minutes leaves the organization with no history. Rejecting a resignation leaves the organization with the dilemma of forcing membership. Likewise, voting down an agenda results in a situation similar to the mathematical dilemma of dividing by zero. Depending on whether you view the rules as permissive or restrictive, either all motions are now in order as in an unorganized society, or no motions are in order since there is no currently pending business category.

Wisely, the rules provide a process so that the society need never be without an agenda. With the minutes, there is never a vote to approve the minutes but instead, the minutes are open to corrections and changes. Each of the changes is handled independently and, once no more changes are offered, the minutes should be declared approved as corrected. (RONR 41:9-10) Likewise, using a similar methodology, the agenda can be updated to the assembly’s preference with the motion to amend the agenda (RONR 41:63). Any of the accepted forms of amendment can be utilized—insert/add, strike out, strike out and insert, substitute— or fill in the blank. Using these amendments, the agenda can be changed in any way necessary, including complete replacement via a motion to amend by substitution. When the agenda is introduced to the assembly and the floor opened for amendments, each proposed amendment would be handled, and the agenda updated, as necessary. Once all the proposed changes are addressed, the agenda can be approved as amended using unanimous consent. Any objections may result in additional motions to amend. It is important to remember the fundamental principle of “One thing at a time,” which means that when the agenda is being considered, only the agenda is being considered and the items on the agenda are not open for consideration at that time. While it is in order to add or remove items on the agenda, other actions such as postponement or committing to a committee are not in order as that is acting on the item, not the agenda.

The rules regarding the handling of agendas are little known among non-parliamentarians, but they hold the key to getting meetings off to a productive start and allowing presiding officers to keep meetings on track. Conflicts within meetings were the sine qua non for General Robert’s development of the rules. Germinated in a period of deep cultural conflict, his rules have served the purpose of resolving meeting issues for 144 years, beginning with the turmoil of his time, and continuing to resolve them in ours. NP

Steven J. Bolen, PRP, an NAP member since 2019, is vice-president of the Martha Knowles Memorial Unit in Dallas, TX. He serves as consulting parliamentarian for several local organizations and clubs, presented at the 2020 NAP-NTC, and serves on various city and county advisory boards.