Guest Mary Noe Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:11 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:11 PM If there is a motion to table, what is the significance if the parliamentarian makes a comment such as "a motion to table was an aggressive anti-collegial action" on a vote taken after such a comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:15 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:15 PM (edited) 4 minutes ago, Guest Mary Noe said: If there is a motion to table, what is the significance if the parliamentarian makes a comment such as "a motion to table was an aggressive anti-collegial action" on a vote taken after such a comment? Other than it seems he misunderstands the motion to Lay on the Table http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#13 , and that parliamentarians shouldn't be making comments at all regarding the merits of any pending motion (other than advising the chair about procedure, privately), nothing. Edited February 21, 2018 at 09:16 PM by George Mervosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:16 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:16 PM There is a motion to "Table" -- RONR, page 209 -- "Lay on the Table" is the full correct name. Was it being used properly? I have no idea what your parliamentarian was talking about, but he had no business making any comment at all in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:47 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:47 PM 24 minutes ago, Guest Mary Noe said: If there is a motion to table, what is the significance if the parliamentarian makes a comment such as "a motion to table was an aggressive anti-collegial action" on a vote taken after such a comment? The motion to Lay on the Table is rarely in order in ordinary societies. Most often what is intended is a motion to Postpone to a Certain Time, or to Postpone Indefinitely. I agree that the parliamentarian should not be making comments on the merit of questions, but if I had to guess why, I'd say because this motion can be, as RONR puts it, in violation of a basic principle of general parliamentary law that only a two-thirds vote can rightfully suppress a main question without allowing free debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:56 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 at 09:56 PM The parliamentarian may have thought that the motion was dilatory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 21, 2018 at 10:12 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 at 10:12 PM 14 minutes ago, J. J. said: The parliamentarian may have thought that the motion was dilatory. I'm fairly sure a parliamentarian who thought it was dilatory would use that word, rather than calling it "an aggressive anti-collegial action." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 21, 2018 at 10:17 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 at 10:17 PM 2 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said: I'm fairly sure a parliamentarian who thought it was dilatory would use that word, rather than calling it "an aggressive anti-collegial action." One man's "aggressive anti-collegial action," may another man's "dilatory." Also, he could have thought that Lay on the Table was a method to kill a motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 21, 2018 at 10:31 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 at 10:31 PM 9 minutes ago, J. J. said: One man's "aggressive anti-collegial action," may another man's "dilatory." Also, he could have thought that Lay on the Table was a method to kill a motion. Then he should properly be called a parliavulgarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts