# 8. Agenda Control ## 8.5. Methodology/Refinements/Sub-species ### 8.5.2. Order setting In this case the manipulator controls the order of discussion and voting. There are two ways in which this might be done. **Distracting attention:**  Firstly, the sequence of an entire agenda can be set so as to dissipate the importance of an issue which the manipulator wishes to receive less than normal attention. The contentious issue is partly concealed from the rest of the voting body. One option for doing this would be to put such an issue at the end of an agenda for a very long meeting. Another possibility is to use the cover of a very important item of breaking news to divert attention, or hide something contentious or controversial. A disaster may represent a good opportunity, or to put it another way, "a good day to hide bad news". In the famous example of 11 September 2001, after both World Trade Centre towers had been hit in terrorist attacks, but before either tower had collapsed, Jo Moore, special advisor to the Blair government sent an email to the press office of her department which read: "It's now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury, i.e. councillors' expenses?" The intention was to hide some relatively bad news whilst the press and public were distracted by the enormity of the 9/11 attacks. **Stage management:**  Secondly, if an agenda setter wants to get a vote in favour of a particular option, they can do so by setting the sequence of business so that "the scene is set" for a vote in their favour. They do this by preceding the target agenda item with other items upon which they are sure to obtain pre-determined majority decisions. These decisions subsequently oblige the victims to vote in favour of a manipulator's issue because the voters have already set a precedent in their earlier decisions, and their attitudes towards the issue have already been modified by their responses to the preceding business. For example, if a manager presiding over a budgetary meeting is seeking additional financial allocations for his manufacturing department he may wait to make his play for funding until the issue of say, purchasing new company cars has been discussed. He can then, in advance, place an agenda item after the "company car vote". The precedent of buying luxury fringe benefits is made nice and clear in everybody's mind. Then, if he meets any opposition to the motion for a budget allocation for real operational costs for his department, the manager has a very persuasive precedent available. Very few could argue with a straight face for new cars but against new production equipment.