Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Table A Motion


NancySkiff

Recommended Posts

I just attended an annual meeting for a Homeowners Association where a motion was made by an owner and seconded by another owner.  During discussion and before 3 other owners were recognized (they were holding their hands-up waiting to speak), another owner made a motion to table the first motion until a later date when more information could be obtained.  I objected because 3 owners were waiting to speak, this was a subject that had been discussed before and the next meeting for all owners will not take place for 6 months.  The President said my objection was overruled because a motion to table will always replace the first motion!  The President would not call a vote on the first motion, but called a vote to table.  The vote to table passed.  Is this correct?

Now it gets worse.

In two weeks, the Board of Directors will meet and they intend to vote on the matter that was tabled; meaning the owners will not have an opportunity to vote on the initial motion.  I believe the President is using Robert Rules of Order to manipulate the outcome of votes.

Can the Board of Directors vote on the initial motion in two weeks?  Or, must the Board of Directors bring this motion back to the owners for their vote?

Nancy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NancySkiff said:

... another owner made a motion to table the first motion until a later date

...

The President would not call a vote on the first motion, but called a vote to table [until a later date].

The vote to table passed.  

Is this correct?

Yes.

Although the wording was technically off a bit, a motion To Postpone (that is what really happened) can be moved, and can be adopted, despite other members wishing to speak.

All the members needed to do to continue to speak on the item was to VOTE DOWN the motion To Postpone ("to a later date").

But they didn't.

They adopted the motion To Postpone.

So, they didn't want to speak that badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On your first question, Kim is absolutely correct. In RONR there is a hierarchy of motions. While a main motion is pending, a variety of motions that either temporarily or permanently "dispose" of the main motion are in order, and take precedence over the main motion. The motions to postpone and table are both among those motions.

On the other hand, you state that they voted to table the motion "to a later date when more information could be obtained." There is nothing in RONR that makes this possible, under what appear to be your organization's rules. The options are either to Table (which kills it unless a later vote to "take it from the table" is adopted), Postpone Indefinitely, in which case it dies, or Postpone to a Certain Time, but that time must be within three months. And since you state that your next meeting is not for six months, that is not possible.

Therefore, I would advise that the motion is not postponed, but gone, in which case there is no reason for the Board to be taking it up.

In your bylaws, does your Board have authority to act on behalf of the assembly between meetings - and would that authority pertain to the motion that was "tabled?" If so, and particularly in light of the seemingly vague wording of the motion, that might give them the ability to take the matter up at their meeting and decide it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two answers above mine say that we understand the motion to lay on the table to actually be the motion to postpone to a certain time.  Okay - but if that certain time is in 6 months, the motion is out of order.  The OP objected saying, among other things, that the item would not be taken up for 6 months - why shouldn't the chair rule that the motion is out of order because it has the impact of postponing the item for longer than a quarterly time period?

In any case, though, that didn't happen, and so, whatever else has happened to it, the motion has not been finally disposed of.  Arguably, in 3 months it will die, but not in 2 weeks.  Therefore, it seems to me that the BoD may not take it up, since it remains in the possession of the assembly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NancySkiff said:

I just attended an annual meeting for a Homeowners Association where a motion was made by an owner and seconded by another owner.  During discussion and before 3 other owners were recognized (they were holding their hands-up waiting to speak), another owner made a motion to table the first motion until a later date when more information could be obtained.  I objected because 3 owners were waiting to speak, this was a subject that had been discussed before and the next meeting for all owners will not take place for 6 months.  The President said my objection was overruled because a motion to table will always replace the first motion!  The President would not call a vote on the first motion, but called a vote to table.  The vote to table passed.  Is this correct?

Now it gets worse.

In two weeks, the Board of Directors will meet and they intend to vote on the matter that was tabled; meaning the owners will not have an opportunity to vote on the initial motion.  I believe the President is using Robert Rules of Order to manipulate the outcome of votes.

Can the Board of Directors vote on the initial motion in two weeks?  Or, must the Board of Directors bring this motion back to the owners for their vote?

Nancy

The motion to "table the first motion until a later date when more information could be obtained" was not in order (and neither would a motion to Postpone have been in order, since the next meeting will not take place for 6 months), and I agree with Godelfan that the Board of Directors cannot vote on the motion in question. The Board can't "bring this motion back to the owners for their vote" because the motion is not in the Board's possession.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just to clarify, the term of art quarterly time interval does not mean three months to the day.  It means three full calendar months after this month.

For example, as today is the 11th of July, a quarterly time interval starting today would expire at the end of the third following month, i.e. at midnight on October 31st.   (Trick or treat.)

 

Do your bylaws provide any mechanism whereby the membership can call a special meeting?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2016 at 11:29 PM, Godelfan said:

The two answers above mine say that we understand the motion to lay on the table to actually be the motion to postpone to a certain time.  Okay - but if that certain time is in 6 months, the motion is out of order.  The OP objected saying, among other things, that the item would not be taken up for 6 months - why shouldn't the chair rule that the motion is out of order because it has the impact of postponing the item for longer than a quarterly time period?

In any case, though, that didn't happen, and so, whatever else has happened to it, the motion has not been finally disposed of.  Arguably, in 3 months it will die, but not in 2 weeks.  Therefore, it seems to me that the BoD may not take it up, since it remains in the possession of the assembly.  

 

On 7/10/2016 at 6:30 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The motion to "table the first motion until a later date when more information could be obtained" was not in order (and neither would a motion to Postpone have been in order, since the next meeting will not take place for 6 months), and I agree with Godelfan that the Board of Directors cannot vote on the motion in question. The Board can't "bring this motion back to the owners for their vote" because the motion is not in the Board's possession.

I'm not so much disagreeing with the two posts by Godelfan and Mr. Honemann above as I am questioning them and hoping for some clarification.  (Actually, in retrospect, now that I have finished my post, I think I do disagree, especially as to whether the Board can take up the matter after October 31).

As to Godelfan's statement (which I have bolded), it seems to me that if the motion to postpone was out of order, the main motion which was being sought to postpone will not die in 2 weeks or 3 months (or in 6 months), but has already died as of the end of the current session.  If so, it is no longer within the control of the assembly.  It has already died without being finally disposed of.  If it is no longer within the control of the assembly, what prevents the Board of Directors from taking it up anew, as a new motion by a board member, at the next board meeting?

If, on the other hand, the motion to "table until a later date when more information can be obtained" is treated as a very poorly worded motion to lay on the table, and the next regular meeting will not take place for six months, RONR says on page 214 that the original motion dies upon adjournment of the current session.  Again, if it has died, it no longer exists and is no longer within the control of the assembly.

So, whether we treat the motion to "table until a later date" as a motion to lay on the table or as a motion to postpone to a definite time six months distant, the original main motion seems to me to have died upon adjournment of the current meeting and is dead and no  longer exists and is therefore no longer within the control of the assembly.  It seems to me the Board is free to take the issue up itself if a board member makes a motion to do so.

Upon re-reading all of the posts in this thread, I think I am in agreement with the post by Mr. Goodwiller where he said the following:

On 7/10/2016 at 10:04 PM, Greg Goodwiller said:

. . . On the other hand, you state that they voted to table the motion "to a later date when more information could be obtained." There is nothing in RONR that makes this possible, under what appear to be your organization's rules. The options are either to Table (which kills it unless a later vote to "take it from the table" is adopted), Postpone Indefinitely, in which case it dies, or Postpone to a Certain Time, but that time must be within three months. And since you state that your next meeting is not for six months, that is not possible.

Therefore, I would advise that the motion is not postponed, but gone, in which case there is no reason for the Board to be taking it up.

In your bylaws, does your Board have authority to act on behalf of the assembly between meetings - and would that authority pertain to the motion that was "tabled?" If so, and particularly in light of the seemingly vague wording of the motion, that might give them the ability to take the matter up at their meeting and decide it.

Since there is no regular meeting scheduled within a quarterly time interval, why didn't the original main motion die upon adjournment of the current session and why can't the Board take up the matter itself, provided a board member makes a motion to do so (and provided it is within the Board's authority)?

And if the board cannot do it at their meeting two weeks from now, why can't they do it at their first meeting after the expiration of a quarterly time interval from the original "postponement" which will apparently be October 31?   I see nothing in RONR that would prevent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although we do not have the exact wording, we are told that the membership adopted a motion "to table the first motion until a later date when more information could be obtained." Since it was the membership's assembly that adopted this motion to "table", which did not finally dispose of the main motion but, instead, tabled it "until a later date", the association's board has no power to overrule or set aside this action taken by the assembly, or rule upon its validity.

All of this assumes that the main motion which was "tabled" was one which was within the authority of the membership to decide.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Brown,

You say that if the motion to postpone was out of order, the motion died at adjournment.  To me, this seems to confuse what should happen with what did happen.  If it is proposed to take an out of order action, and the assembly then decides to do it, it was done, and it doesn't matter that they shouldn't have done so.  If a person wants to raise a point of order at a meeting, that's something - but to do what you propose, we'd be saying that ... what?  On the say-so of some people on a forum, a board can take up an item within the control of the membership because the board decides the motion to postpone was improper?  

Similarly, tabling to a definite time is nonsensical, but does the board have the power to declare it nonsense, and thereby give itself the right to act?  I say not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Gödelfan.  As my father was fond of saying, "There's a lot of truth in what actually happens."

The assembly intended to defer further discussion of the pending question to a future time, and approved what it believed was a motion to do so.  The chair did not declare anything out of order and put the question on what everyone (arguably) believed was a motion to accomplish that--which, deficiencies in nomenclature notwithstanding, passed.  

No point of order was raised in the only body that would have had standing to raise one. 

The board therefore has no authority even to decide whether it has the authority to reach this question, let alone actually do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...