Recording a motion that was 'tabled' twice and never resumed

[Student Gov]

In a board meeting (#1) for a student government, a main motion was moved. It was then moved and agreed to 'table' the matter until later in the meeting, which was understood in the sense of a motion to postpone to a certain time. When that time in the meeting arrived, it was again moved and agreed to 'table', or postpone to a certain time, namely the next meeting. The next meeting (#2) was held on schedule, but consideration of the 'tabled' motion was not resumed.

I'm aware that the term 'tabling' was misused, and also that a motion to postpone indefinitely would have been better. Given that, though, my questions are:

1. Does this situation need to be rectified, such as by formally considering or withdrawing the main motion?

2. If the main motion is never again considered or withdrawn, should at least a note need to be made somewhere in the minutes? If so, in the minutes of which meeting, #1 or #2?

Edited December 8, 2017 at 03:38 AM by Student Gov
Missing an 'also'

[J. J.]

The motion died when the second meeting ended, though it could be renewed at a future meeting (p. 214, ll. 19-28). 

The minutes of meeting #1 should show that the motion was made and laid on the table (p. 469, ll. 22-25). 

that is all that is needed.  Usually, there is no need to record what the assembly did not do. 

[Dan Honemann]

But if, as we have been told, the motion to "table" to the next meeting was indeed understood to have been a motion to postpone the pending main motion to the next meeting, that motion should be taken up as an item of unfinished business at the next meeting of the board, assuming that meeting will be held within a quarterly time interval (RONR, 11th ed., p. 358, ll. 26-30).

[jstackpo]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But if, as we have been told, the motion to "table" to the next meeting was indeed understood to have been a motion to postpone the pending main motion to the next meeting, that motion should be taken up as an item of unfinished business at the next meeting of the board, assuming that meeting will be held within a quarterly time interval (RONR, 11th ed., p. 358, ll. 26-30).

If I read the OP correctly, that "next meeting" (the poster's meeting #2) has come and gone.  So the original motion, whether postponed or (improperly) "tabled to" to meeting #2, and not taken up then (again improperly, the presiding officer should have brought it up automatically), can be made anew at meeting #3 (whenever that may be) as an item of "New Business".

[Dan Honemann]

16 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

If I read the OP correctly, that "next meeting" (the poster's meeting #2) has come and gone.  So the original motion, whether postponed or (improperly) "tabled to" to meeting #2, and not taken up then (again improperly, the presiding officer should have brought it up automatically), can be made anew at meeting #3 (whenever that may be) as an item of "New Business".

Yes, I know that meeting #2 (at which meeting the motion postponed to it was a general order) has come and gone. As I said, that motion should now be taken up as an item of unfinished business at the next meeting of the board, assuming that meeting will be held within a quarterly time interval. 

[jstackpo]

OK...  I guess I got confused between meetings of the Board and meetings of the general membership.

[Student Gov]

Sorry for the delay in responding - the end of term kept me busy - but thank you for the detailed and speedy clarifications! I'll pass them along.