History Podcasts

Evian Agenda - History

Evian Agenda - History

II. AGENDA OF THE COMMITTEE

Communicated by the Government of the United States of America to the Governments invited. i. To consider what steps can be taken to facilitate the settlement in other countries of political refugees from Germany (including Austria). The term " political refugees", for the purposes of the present meeting, is intended to include persons who desire to leave Germany as well as those who have already done so. The Conference would of course take due account of the work now being done by other agencies in this field and would seek means of supplementing the work done by them. To consider what immediate steps can be taken, within the existing immigration laws and regulations of the receiving countries, to assist the most urgent cases. It is anticipated that this would involve each participating Government furnishing, in so far as may be practicable, for the strictly confidential information of the Committee, a statement of its immigration laws and practices and its present policy regarding the reception of immigrants. It would be helpful for the Committee to have a general statement from each participating Government of the number and type of immigrants it is now prepared to receive or that it might consider receiving. To consider a system of documentation, acceptable to the participating States, for those refugees who are unable to obtain requisite documents from other sources. To consider the establishment of a continuing body of Governmental representatives, to be set up in some European capital, to formulate and to carry out, in co-operation with existing agencies, a long-range programme looking toward the solution or alleviation of the problem in the larger sense. To prepare a resolution making recommendations to the participating Governments with regard to the subjects enumerated above and with regard to such other subjects as may be brought for consideration before the intergovernmental meeting.


The Evian Conference

The Evian Conference Between 1933 and 1941, the Nazis aimed to make Germany judenrein (cleansed of Jews) by making life so difficult for them that they would be forced to leave the country. By 1938, about 150,000 German Jews, one in four, had already fled the country. After Germany annexed Austria in March 1938, however, an additional 185,000 Jews were brought under Nazi rule. Many Jews were unable to find countries willing to take them in.

Many German and Austrian Jews tried to go to the United States but could not obtain the visas needed to enter. Even though news of the violent pogroms of November 1938 was widely reported, Americans remained reluctant to welcome Jewish refugees. In the midst of the Great Depression, many Americans believed that refugees would compete with them for jobs and overburden social programs set up to assist the needy.

Congress had set up immigration quotas in 1924 that limited the number of immigrants and discriminated against groups considered racially and ethnically undesirable. These quotas remained in place even after President Franklin D. Roosevelt, responding to mounting political pressure, called for an international conference to address the refugee problem.

In the summer of 1938, delegates from thirty-two countries met at the French resort of Evian. Roosevelt chose not to send a high-level official, such as the secretary of state, to Evian instead, Myron C. Taylor, a businessman and close friend of Roosevelt's, represented the US at the conference. During the nine-day meeting, delegate after delegate rose to express sympathy for the refugees. But most countries, including the United States and Britain, offered excuses for not letting in more refugees.

Responding to Evian, the German government was able to state with great pleasure how "astounding" it was that foreign countries criticized Germany for their treatment of the Jews, but none of them wanted to open the doors to them when "the opportunity offer[ed]."

Even efforts by some Americans to rescue children failed: the Wagner-Rogers bill, an effort to admit 20,000 endangered Jewish refugee children, was not supported by the Senate in 1939 and 1940. Widespread racial prejudices among Americans—including antisemitic attitudes held by the US State Department officials—played a part in the failure to admit more refugees.


The Évian Conference Failed // And Then the Holocaust Began

As a child, I grew up among the ruins created by one of the most appalling fascist dictatorships of all time. My hometown of Swansea in South Wales had been hammered by German bombers in 1941. A total of 230 people had been killed. After the bombing raids, large sections of Swansea lay in ruins. For a child, this was a thought-provoking environment in which to grow up.

The evidence of evil was all around, and it was both a disquieting and at the same time a comforting sight that evoked a range of emotions. The rubble reminded me that war was terrible, destructive and an appalling waste of lives and resources. Yet it also reminded me that this ruinous element could be defeated, no matter how impossible and herculean that task might appear to be.

I thought a lot about the war and what it had done to people everywhere, but principal among my thoughts was the realization that evil can be overcome and its architects destroyed. Not only did history teach me that, but the evidence was still all around me in the blasted ruins, the weed-grown rubble, the overgrown slit trenches on top of the hill near my home, the weeds that grew through the cracks in the hastily laid runway of the old RAF fighter base where Spitfires took off to challenge the might of the German Luftwaffe. Even my favorite beach was a reminder of the war, especially when corroding mustard gas mines were discovered where we sometimes played cricket on lazy summer afternoons.

And then I learned about the Holocaust with all its terrors, and that knowledge in a young boy’s mind made the whole war horrifically worse. It hadn’t been just two sides fighting each other to find a winner, the type of war one would read about in Boys’ Own-style magazines. It had been one side fighting against a cancerous evil that was too murderous to contemplate.

As a child I was an incessant reader I read every book I could lay my hands on and could often be found beneath the blankets at night, reading with a rapidly dimming flashlight. I have always had an extremely vivid imagination, and suddenly I could almost see the suffering those people had gone through in the concentration camps, and it affected me greatly. The discovery of the history of the Holocaust left an indelible stain on me I could never understand why so many people, including millions of children just like me, had been murdered so callously.

Children just like me! That thought revolved endlessly.

When as an adult I discovered what had happened during the Évian Conference of 1938 and what the conference had meant for the ultimate fate of the Jewish refugees from Nazi-controlled regions of Europe, I felt that it was really important for me to write a history of this tragedy so that the world would know what had occurred. Before I even began to write the book, I also needed to know how many people knew about the Évian Conference and its influence on the Jewish people of Europe.

For years I asked many people I knew or came into contact with, and without exception they had never heard of it. I mean that literally. Not one person I asked had ever heard of the Évian Conference. I then wrote a feature article about the conference that was published in a number of national newspapers, and after those articles were published, I received many calls from people telling me this was a story that needed to be told in detail to the world. Little did I know that it would take me 30 years to complete the task.

As the years passed, it seemed at times almost as though people no longer cared. The Holocaust was long over. Hundreds of books had been written about it how could one more embed our understanding of the horror any more deeply in our collective conscience?

To answer this, it’s necessary to go back in time to Évian-les-Bains, France, in July 1938, during which diplomatic representatives of 32 countries came together in an effort to find ways to ameliorate the plight of European Jews then suffering beneath the murderous heel of Nazi oppression. As the world now struggles to come to terms with massive global turmoil, a pandemic that has unleashed untold suffering, death and social unrest, plus ongoing military conflicts that have created tidal surges of refugees and a consequent rise in violent ultra-right-wing nationalism, we have to understand that the mistakes we made in the past could very easily be repeated today. In fact, those mistakes are being repeated right now.

In retrospect, it is a simple matter to lay the blame for the Holocaust on Hitler, but the question remains—could the Holocaust have been prevented, or at least mitigated? Could six million lives have been saved if the delegates at that vital meeting in Évian had shown more human compassion, some dignity and mercy? However, few did. The US, the country that had organized the conference, and the 31 other participating countries almost unanimously agreed that in light of their own immigration laws, which they would not alter to meet the needs of the desperate refugees, the Jewish problem was just too difficult to solve and the Jewish people would have to deal with Hitler’s genocidal intentions quite alone.

At Évian, 39 refugee organizations, including 20 Jewish groups, were to give factual, firsthand evidence of the treatment being meted out to the Jews under German control. Theirs was a simple cry in the darkness. “Help us to get out,” they told the delegations, “or we shall not survive.”

On the first day of the conference, US Ambassador Myron C. Taylor rose for his inaugural address. The auditorium was hushed there was an expectant silence as the delegates, the press and the world waited to learn what the US would offer. Speculation was rife that the US would set a high quota of Jewish immigrants from Germany. Many, in fact, believed that the US would announce it was prepared to take up to 600,000 refugees. Taylor’s speech began with details of the need for rapid action on behalf of the Jewish refugees but later continued that America’s immigration quota system would not be changed to any great degree in order to accommodate the Jewish problem. He acknowledged that a full quota of German and Austrian immigrants—amounting to slightly more than 27,000 people—would be accepted for the following year. However, he failed to point out that a large percentage of these immigrants would be Christians.

The Jewish representatives at Évian were stunned into silence by the US ambassador’s words. The country that had promised so much was now offering virtually nothing beyond those measures already in place. Taylor’s proposals were to set the example for the tragic series of events that followed.

As the conference ground to its predictable close, it became patently obvious to the representative countries—and particularly obvious to Adolf Hitler—that the world had little time for the Jews. Hitler viewed the resolution of the Évian Conference with considerable contempt. He had been hoping that the “Nations of Asylum” would take the Jewish problem off his agenda. Now, however, he believed that he was left with little opposition. Jews were not welcome anywhere in the world. There could be only one solution—extermination.

Golda Meir, the future prime minister of Israel, was later to state: “After the conference at Évian-les-Bains, it became chillingly clear that the Jewish people were entirely on their own.”
What happened at Évian also reflects powerfully on world events today, with autocratic and racist governments fomenting the malignant use of disinformation, outright deceit, deliberately contrived chaos and pernicious propaganda to mold a political environment that suits their ideological agendas.

Political manipulation and propaganda were at the heart of the Nazis’ attempt during the 1930s to turn the German people against the Jews. It is almost impossible to stop these kinds of insidious campaigns. They take hold within the public’s ephemeral imagination. The Nazis used this type of manipulation to influence not only an entire nation but an entire continent against the Jews of Europe. I would go so far as to say that the diatribe emanating from Berlin during the 1930s did much to influence the whole world against the Jewish people, and we saw the result of that at Évian. In fact, we are still seeing the result of that today.


Predictably, the debate has played itself out in Cinema with movies advocating each position being released. Recently, as far as the ‘Pro-Alien’ camp is concerned, the Film ‘Arrival’ does well to argue for Aliens as a force for good, if only we choose to understand them on their own terms.

The Film explores how the puzzle of communication with the recently arrived Aliens is solved by Humans embracing a broader concept ‘Language’ beyond speech and writing in accordance with the Human Alphabet.

This ‘leap’, creates mutual understanding and ‘bridges’ the gap with the Aliens who we are pleased to find out mean us no harm.

In Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’ Franchise, however, the unsettling high strangeness and danger to life and limb that Alien encounters pose is laid starkly bare.

In ‘Prometheus’ for instance, even our romanticized quest to ‘return’ to the Stars to meet our Alien ‘makers’ who Genetically Engineered us proves fraught with danger and ends in death and disaster for the majority of the expedition.

These are the flipsides to the ‘Alien Agenda’ debate.

The Public’s perception and attitude towards the Alien phenomenon has been carefully managed and continues to be influenced by the subtext and messages in Politics, and Culture including Film.

There seems to be an underlying assumption or concerted propaganda campaign to ensure that the public gets comfortable with the idea of Aliens and does not view them as a hostile presence until its too late.

Personally, I would rather be cautious but remain open to the idea of a relationship with a constructive Alien civilization that may assist us in developing technology and in the evolution of our consciousness.

Peep the links below to articles on the Alien Agenda debate as well as the highly recommended Alien Agenda Documentary ‘The Evil Acts Of Fallen Entities’ which suggests that caution is necessary…I agree.

The Evil Acts Of Fallen Entities Documentary


The Evian Conference

US President Franklin Roosevelt called for an international conference in 1938 to discuss the growing Jewish refugee crisis intensified by the German takeover of Austria.

In July 1938, delegates from 32 nations met in Evian, France. They were joined by representatives from dozens of relief organizations and other groups, as well as hundreds of reporters. At the conference, each delegate formally expressed sorrow over the growing number of “refugees” and “deportees,” boasted of his nation’s traditional hospitality, and lamented that his nation was unable to do more in the “present situation.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King wrote in his diary around that time, “We must . . . seek to keep this part of the Continent free from unrest and from too great an intermixture of foreign strains of blood.” In his view, nothing was to be gained “by creating an internal problem in an effort to meet an international one.” 1

The British, noting that many refugees wanted to go to Palestine, which was then under British rule, said they would like to admit more refugees, but in view of the ongoing conflict between Arabs and Jews, it was not a practical solution. The French claimed that their country had already done more than its fair share. The Americans noted that Congress would have to approve any change in the nation’s immigration laws—legislation that set a limit on the number of immigrants the United States would accept from each country each year.

Historians Richard Breitman and Allan Lichtman describe the responses of other countries at the conference:

Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Panama stated that they wanted no traders or intellectuals, code words for Jews. Argentina said it had already accommodated enough immigrants from Central Europe. Canada cited its unemployment problem. Australia said that it had no “racial problems” and did not want to create any by bringing in Jewish refugees. Imperial countries such as Britain, France, and the Netherlands said that their tropical territories offered only limited prospects for European refugees. League of Nations High Commissioner Sir Neill Malcolm was openly hostile to the idea of a new refugee organization . . . The Washington Post headlined one story on the conference, “YES, BUT—.” It noted, “it has been a disappointment, if not altogether a surprise . . . that delegates take the floor to say, We feel sorry for the refugees and potential refugees but—.” 2

The Dominican Republic was the only country that agreed to accept Jewish immigrants. In 1937, the nation’s leader, Rafael Trujillo, had ordered his soldiers to massacre thousands of Haitians at the Dominican border. Historians believe he hoped that accepting Jewish refugees might repair his image internationally. He also hoped that Jews would marry local inhabitants and “lighten” the population. He granted visas to a thousand Jews who were to live in Sosúa, a special community established for them.


EVIAN CONFERENCE

EVIAN CONFERENCE , conference of 32 nations convened but not attended by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on July 6–14, 1938, at the Hôtel Royal in Evian on the French side of Lake Geneva to consider the plight of refugees – the euphemistic way of referring to the Jewish question. The conference was convened against the backdrop of the German incorporation of Austria in March 1938, which sparked a massive exodus of Jews to any country willing to receive them. Convening the conference was the first American government initiative regarding refugees.

The Evian Conference was conceived by President Roosevelt as a grand gesture in response to mounting pressure in the United States to do something about the refugee problem. The call for the conference was greeted warmly by the American Jewish community but it also triggered a hostile reaction from American isolationist and anti-immigration forces. Thomas Jenkins, one of those who wanted to restrict immigration, accused the president of going "on a visionary excursion into the warm fields of altruism. He forgets the cold winds of poverty and penury that are sweeping over the one third of our people who are ill clothed, ill housed, ill fed." American Jews and their allies were pressing the admission of greater numbers of immigrants. Restrictionist forces kept reminding the president of the Depression, of the domestic agenda, and of the need to put America first. Roosevelt sought to balance both concerns, to assuage but also not to provoke. Walking such a political tightrope hampered any effort to pressure the international community. Internationally, Romania flatly refused to attend it wanted to get rid of its Jews, not to import new ones, and Switzerland spurned an invitation to host the conference.

The very invitation to the conference gave an indication of its reluctance to act. Attending countries were assured that "no country would be expected to receive more immigrants than were permitted under existing laws." Nor would any government be expected to subsidize refugees: all new programs would have to be funded by private agencies. American isolationists were assuaged by the understanding that U.S. quota system for immigrants would not be touched. Britain was told that Palestine would not be on the agenda. Two days after Roosevelt's announcement of the Evian Conference, Hitler issued a characteristic statement:

I can only hope that the other world which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews] will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We on our part are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships.

The United States delegation was not headed by the president or the vice president, nor by Secretary of State Cordell Hull or Undersecretary Summer Welles. Instead, Roosevelt nominated Myron C. Taylor, a businessman who was one of his close friends. Great Britain also sent a special delegation. The other nations used their diplomats in the region. Foreign leaders got the message. The French premier told his British counterpart that the American president was acting to soothe public opinion. Under these circumstances, little was expected or accomplished.

For nine days the delegates met at the Hôtel Royal, along with representatives of 39 private relief agencies, 21 of them Jewish. The world press gave the event extensive coverage.

Delegates from each country rose in turn to profess their sympathy with the plight of the refugees. They also offered plausible excuses for declining to open their countries' doors. Britain had no room on its small island and refused to open Palestine to Jewish refugees. The United States spoke abstractly about "political" refugees, using the euphemism to glide over the fact that most of the refugees were Jewish. It would fill its quota, but do no more.

The Australian delegate was more candid. "We don't have a racial problem and we don't want to import one," he said. For Canada, still in the midst of the Depression, "none was too many." Canada would, however, accept farmers – small comfort for the urbanized Jews seeking to leave Germany. Colombia's delegate could not resign himself to believe "that two thousand years of Christian civilization must lead to this terrible catastrophe." In any case, his country could offer nothing. The Venezuelan delegate was reluctant to disturb the "demographic equilibrium" of his country. No Jewish merchants, peddlers, or intellectuals were wanted in Venezuela.

Holland and Denmark were ready to extend temporary asylum to a few refugees. Only the Dominican Republic made a generous offer to receive Jews. In the end, however, few came. Even though an inter-governmental group was established at Evian to coordinate policy, the tidal wave of refugees soon overwhelmed the few offers of assistance. The German Foreign Office viewed the conference with considerable interest and sensed in it a vindication of its own attitudes toward the Jews:

Since in many countries it was recently regarded as wholly incomprehensible why Germany did not wish to preserve in its population an element like the Jews … it appears astounding that countries seem in no way anxious to make use of these elements themselves now that the opportunity offers.

At that point in time, the announced policy of Nazi Germany was the emigration – forced or otherwise – of the Jews. The Evian Conference demonstrated that forced emigration would not work since no country – or groups of countries – were willing to receive the Jews in numbers adequate to make Germany "judenrein." As events unfolded, the Jewish problem became more acute but four months later when the events of the November pogrom of *Kristallnacht triggered a tidal wave of Jewish emigration and over the course of the next two years as Germany invaded country after country, more and more Jews came under its control and the problem of what to do with the Jews became ever more acute, ever less solvable by means of emigration.


The Evian Group was founded at an international meeting of trade policy makers and policy thinkers convened at the Hotel Royal in Evian-les-Bains (on the French side of Lake Geneva) – hence the name of the Group – in April 1995.

1995 was the year the WTO was founded and corresponded to the early phases of the current era of globalisation. The participants of the meeting recognised that globalisation is not an irreversible force, that nationalism, populism and protectionism require constant vigilance, and that trade is the most fundamental driving force and barometer of globalisation.

In 1997 the founder of The Evian Group, Jean-Pierre Lehmann, joined the Faculty of IMD as professor of International Political Economy. Though The Evian Group remains a separate legal entity, its close integration with IMD resulted in it adopting the name The Evian Group at IMD.

The Evian Group activities are aimed at:

• Confidence building and knowledge creation among its members, stakeholders and constituents

• Establishing vision and direction by formulating agendas for action
• Enhancing global business leadership and business statesmanship
• Influencing policy makers
• Diffusing Evian Group ideas and intellectual capital as widely as possible
• Preparing the next generation of industry, government and opinion leaders throughout the world for the challenges and tasks they will need to face.

To achieve these goals, The Evian Group activities are based on three key pillars:

1) Forum for dialogue Edit

Open dialogue, the exchange of ideas and aspirations, and an agenda for action are facilitated and promoted through The Evian Group plenary meetings and roundtables, regularly and quite frequently convened in Europe, the Arab Region, South Asia and Greater China, and occasionally in Sub-Saharan Africa and both North and South America.

The Evian Group at IMD holds high level meetings, composed of policy makers, international business decision makers and opinion leaders from all continents, with a strong emphasis on the global South. The themes mirror the critical challenges of the international economic community. Participation in The Evian Group meetings is by personal invitation only. Discussions take place according to the Chatham House Rule. Summaries and reports are published and circulated.

Open dialogue is also fostered through the Open World Initiative (OWI) - a movement for the next generation of leaders, with meetings having been held in Switzerland, Slovenia, Turkey, South Africa, Argentina and Egypt and through an active online forum, OWIFOR.

2) Think tank Edit

The Evian Group's Brains Trust and practitioners drawn from industry, academe, think tanks, international organisations, NGOs and the media, from both industrialised and developing countries, and from different generations, throughout the world contribute in compiling policy briefs, reports, and position papers, and especially in building the intellectual capital and in formulating The Evian Group agenda.

The Evian Group also has a network of think tanks in both North and South with which it regularly cooperates.

As a Think Tank The Evian Group at IMD influences and informs policy makers on the global economic agenda and seeks to provide them with intellectual “ammunition” in support of open and inclusive trade and investment policies. This is done by inviting policy makers to The Evian Group forums, by direct correspondence, by participating in campaigns, and by active publishing in the global media: in recent years, The Evian Group articles have appeared in English, Arabic, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Czech, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese and German.

3) Education Edit

The Evian Group undertakes educational programmes at IMD, but also in other educational institutions worldwide, on the key issues emanating from The Evian Group mission and main areas of concern, focusing on the multiple challenges of globalisation and linking trade to inclusive growth, to climate change and to global governance. The Evian Group at IMD has been an active member of the Garnet (Global Governance, Regionalisation and Regulation: the Role of the EU) Network of excellence, part of the EU Sixth Framework Programme, composed of leading-edge European institutions.

The Open World Initiative (OWI) is a network and movement of young professionals from diverse constituencies, continents and cultures who are committed to an open world economy, sustainable economic growth and human development.

OWI supports open societies, greater integration and responsible governance on the global, national and corporate and institutional levels as indispensable to achieving these goals. The OWI network aims to generate awareness of development issues and the multilateral system, serve as a forum for dialogue by and for the next generation of leaders, and keep a dialogue with decision-makers at international, national and corporate levels.

The principles OWI stands to defend are:
• Transparent and responsible global governance on a global, national, corporate, financial and individual level
• Sustainable economic growth generated by open markets in a manner protective of societies, natural resources and the environment
• The primary role of the private sector in promoting growth under ethical and socially responsible codes
• Investment in human development, the empowerment of women and youth, and the enhancement of individual freedoms
• An open world economy that creates a fairer and more tolerant open society, one that promotes cross cultural and intellectual fertilisation.

The OWI community has developed OWIFOR, an online network discussion forum that strengthens the sense of an interlinked global community in addressing and debating contemporary problems and discontinuities.

As of 2010-03-18, this article is derived in whole or in part from The Evian Group. The copyright holder has licensed the content in a manner that permits reuse under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. The original text was at "History of the Evian Group"


Agenda is an abbreviation of agenda sunt or agendum est, gerundive forms in plural and singular respectively of the Latin verb ago, agere, egi, actum "to drive on, set in motion", for example of cattle. [1] The meaning is "(those things/that thing) which must be driven forward". What is now known in English as an agenda is a list of individual items which must be "acted upon" or processed, usually those matters which must be discussed at a business meeting. Although the Latin word is in a plural form, as a borrowed word in English, the word is singular and has a plural of "agendas". [2]

An agenda lists the items of business to be taken up during a meeting or session. [3] It may also be called a "calendar". [4] A meeting agenda may be headed with the date, time and location of the meeting, followed by a series of points outlining the order in which the business is to be conducted. Steps on any agenda can include any type of schedule or order the group wants to follow. Agendas may take different forms depending on the specific purpose of the group and may include any number of the items.

In business meetings of a deliberative assembly, the items on the agenda are also known as the orders of the day. Optimally, the agenda is distributed to a meeting's participants prior to the meeting, so that they will be aware of the subjects to be discussed, and are able to prepare for the meeting accordingly.

In a workshop, the sequence of agenda items is important, as later agenda steps may be dependent upon information derived from or completion of earlier steps in the agenda. Frequently in standard meetings, agenda items may be "time boxed" or fixed so as not to exceed a predetermined amount of time. In workshops, time boxing may not be effective because completion of each agenda step may be critical to beginning the next step.

In parliamentary procedure, an agenda is not binding upon an assembly unless its own rules make it so, or unless it has been adopted as the agenda for the meeting by majority vote at the start of the meeting. [5] Otherwise, it is merely for the guidance of the chair. [5]

If an agenda is binding upon an assembly, and a specific time is listed for an item, that item cannot be taken up before that time, and must be taken up when that time arrives even if other business is pending. [6] If it is desired to do otherwise, the rules can be suspended for that purpose. [6]

In parliamentary procedure, an order of business, as the name may suggest, is the sequence of items that is to be taken up during a meeting. This sequence may be a standard order of business or a sequence listed on an agenda that the assembly has agreed to follow.

Standard Order of Business Edit

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) has the following standard order of business: [7]

  1. Reading and approval of minutes[8]
  2. Reports of officers, boards and standing committees[9]
  3. Reports of special committees [10]
  4. Special orders [10]
  5. Unfinished business and general orders [11]
  6. New business [12]

The above standard order of business has been found to be appropriate for meetings in most organizations. [7]

The "special orders" and "general orders" refer to items of business that usually come from a previous meeting (the word "order" in these two cases do not refer to "sequence" but instead is more like a "command" in its meaning). [7] Usually items become special orders or general orders by adoption of the motion to postpone. [11] A difference between these orders is that, in general, a special order can interrupt other business when the time comes for its consideration, while a general order waits until the pending business is taken care of. [13] For example, say a motion is being considered and then postponed to the next meeting. This postponed motion becomes a general order for the next meeting. When the time for "general orders" comes up in the order of business, consideration of the postponed motion is resumed.

"New business" is where the bulk of the discussion as well as decisions in the meeting usually takes place. If a group has not adopted an agenda or an order of business, all of its business would be considered "new business". [14]

Optional headings Edit

Organizations may have the following optional headings in their order of business:

  • Opening ceremonies - Items may include invocation, singing of the national anthem, reciting of the pledge of allegiance, reading of the mission of the organization, recognition of dignitaries, etc. [12]
  • Roll call (taking of attendance) [15]
  • Review and adoption of the agenda [16]
  • Consent calendar - tool used by deliberative assemblies with a heavy workload to consider a series of items in bulk with a single vote [15]
  • Good of the order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum - for other issues to allow a participant to raise another point for discussion [17]
  • Announcements - may include review of key points, discussion of assignments, communications plan for what to tell others not in the meeting, and confirmation of the next meeting, if any [17]
  • Program (such as an educational talk, film, or guest speaker) [17]

An agenda may list any of the above items. [18] [19] [20]

Call for the orders of the day (RONR)
ClassPrivileged motion
In order when another has the floor?Yes
Requires second?No
Debatable?No
May be reconsidered?No
Amendable?No
Vote requiredA single member can demand it without a vote Two-thirds vote to set aside the orders of the day

A call for the orders of the day, in parliamentary procedure, is a motion to require a deliberative assembly to conform to its agenda or order of business. [21]

In Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), the "call" may be made by one member, and does not require a second. The chair must then proceed to the scheduled item of business, unless the assembly decides otherwise by a two-thirds vote. [22]

The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure does not have this motion and instead suggests that a member can request that the body take up the scheduled item of business, or make a more formal point of order. [23]

In historical writing, the expression "order of the day", as in "abolition meetings became the order of the day", [24] refers to an activity that was widespread, replacing other activities, at a particular moment in history.


Evian Conference Offers Neither Help, Nor Haven

Delegates from 32 countries meet in Evian, France, seeking solution to refugee crisis. They express sympathy for refugees, followed by excuses and inaction.

Frame Your Search

Evian, refugee, alien, emigration, immigration, quotas, Jews, Nazi, German, Germany, Roosevelt, Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees

Between 1933 and 1941, the Nazis sought to make Germany judenrein (cleansed of Jews) by making life so difficult for the approximately 600,000 German Jews that they would be forced to leave the country. By 1938, about 150,000 German Jews, one in four, had already left. After Germany annexed Austria in March 1938, an additional 185,000 Jews were brought under Nazi rule. Many German and Austrian Jews who wanted to leave were unable to find countries willing to take them in. A substantial percentage tried to go to the United States but were unable to obtain the necessary immigration visas. The US Congress had established immigration quotas in 1924 that limited the number of immigrants and discriminated against groups considered racially and ethnically undesirable.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt , responding to mounting political pressure, called for an international conference to facilitate the emigration of refugees from Germany and Austria, and to establish an international organization to work for an overall solution to the refugee problem. From July 6&ndash15, 1938 , delegates from 32 countries met at the French resort of Evian on Lake Geneva. Roosevelt chose Myron C. Taylor , a businessman and close friend, to represent the United States at the conference. During the nine-day meeting, delegate after delegate rose to express sympathy for the refugees. But most countries, including the United States and Britain, offered excuses for not letting in more refugees. Only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept additional refugees.

The conference attendees created the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees (ICR) , charged with approaching "the governments of the countries of refuge with a view to developing opportunities for permanent settlement" and seeking to persuade Germany to cooperate in establishing "conditions of orderly emigration." The ICR received little authority and virtually no funds or other support from its member nations. Its achievements were minimal before the beginning of World War II in September 1939 largely ended all efforts.

Widespread racial prejudices among Americans&mdashincluding antisemitic attitudes held by US State Department officials&mdashplayed a part in the failure to admit more refugees. In the midst of the Great Depression, many Americans also believed that refugees would compete with them for jobs and overburden social programs set up to assist the needy.

Dates to Check

Typically, daily newspapers reported news the morning after it occurred. However, some papers were printed in multiple editions, including evening news. If you are using an evening paper, begin your search on the same day as the event being researched.

July 6 - 16, 1938 News articles about the Evian Conference.

July 6 - 31, 1938 Editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and political cartoons reacting to the Evian Conference and the refugee crisis.

April 1938 - Jun 1938 News articles, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and political cartoons responding to the increasing refugee crisis spurred by the German annexation of Austria.

Learn More

Bibliography

Breitman, Richard and Alan Kraut. American Refugee Policy and European Jewry, 1933&ndash1945 . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Caron, Vicki. Uneasy Asylum: France and the Jewish Refugee Crisis, 1933&ndash1942 . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999.

Feingold, Henry L. Bearing Witness: How America and Its Jews Responded to the Holocaust . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1995.

Feingold, Henry L. The Politics of Rescue: The Roosevelt Administration and the Holocaust, 1938&ndash1945. New York: Holocaust Library, 1970.

Gurock, Jeffrey S., ed. America, American Jews, and the Holocaust . New York: Routledge, 1998.

Hamerow, Theodor. While We Watched: Europe, America, and the Holocaust . New York: Norton, 2008.

Wyman, David S. Paper Walls: America and the Refugee Crisis, 1938&ndash1941 . New York: Pantheon Books, 1985.

Wyman, David S. The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941&ndash1945 . New York: The New Press, 1998.


Watch the video: Η ιστορία του Γκέλβερι μέσα από ένα βιβλίο (January 2022).