Motion to table

[Guest Jim]

During a lengthy discussion that required our Executive Director to provide us with additional information, a motion was made to table the topic until our next board meeting where we would have the additional information to consider. However the person making the motion also added “at this meeting a decision must be made by the board, either yes or no.

I do not believe that the second portion requiring that we make a decision at that point can be part of the motion.

[George Mervosh]

During a lengthy discussion that required our Executive Director to provide us with additional information, a motion was made to table the topic until our next board meeting where we would have the additional information to consider. However the person making the motion also added “at this meeting a decision must be made by the board, either yes or no.

I do not believe that the second portion requiring that we make a decision at that point can be part of the motion.

No, it can't be. One session cannot impose a special rule of order on a subsequent session by way of a majority vote. I would consider it invalid. RONR, p. 85

[Kim Goldsworthy]

During a lengthy discussion that required our Executive Director to provide us with additional information, a motion was made to table the topic until our next board meeting where we would have the additional information to consider.

However the person making the motion also added “at this meeting a decision must be made by the board, either yes or no."

I do not believe that the second portion requiring that we make a decision at that point can be part of the motion.

I agree.

Even if the mover tried to comply with Robert's Rules, he'd be unable to do exactly what he intends.

You cannot combine distinct subsidiary motions.

That is, you cannot make a single motion which is BOTH:

(a.) Postpone To A Definite Time (you are not Laying On The Table, if you specify a specific meeting at which the item shall come up)

(b.) Previous Question (i.e., to close debate)

[Tim Wynn]

During a lengthy discussion that required our Executive Director to provide us with additional information, a motion was made to table the topic until our next board meeting where we would have the additional information to consider. However the person making the motion also added “at this meeting a decision must be made by the board, either yes or no.

I do not believe that the second portion requiring that we make a decision at that point can be part of the motion.

The motion to Postpone is only amendable as to the time to which the main question is to be postponed, and as to making the postponed question a special order.

[Gary c Tesser]

Do we all think that the failure to achieve a voting threshold, without a point of order having been raised, still doesn't matter?

[Gary Novosielski]

Do we all think that the failure to achieve a voting threshold, without a point of order having been raised, still doesn't matter?

I didn't see a mention of a voting threshold, one way or the other.

[Gary c Tesser]

I didn't see a mention of a voting threshold, one way or the other.

Here's what I was thinking. I assume Guest Jim is not just asking about the theory. He wants to know about what should happen with that motion. So I'm assuming, for the purpose of exploring the issue, that it was voted on. And, that it passed by a majority vote. That's what the chairman declared (and the minutes say he did). That's where the voting threshold issue comes in.

I'm assuming that Guest Jim wants to know what the rules say here, and also probably what actually happens. So:

For Mr Mervosh's point: After the fact, if it can't be shown that a majority of the entire membership did not vote in favor, why consider it invalid?

For Mr Goldsworthy: Sure, those are the rules. But are they unsuspendable rules? If it was done, then is it a done deal, or can it be challenged later on?

For Mr Wynn: It looks to me as if the motion was presented as a package. When the OP wrote "also added," I doubt he said "added" in the technical sense. And even if he did, see above: isn't it a done deal now?

[George Mervosh]

For Mr Mervosh's point: After the fact, if it can't be shown that a majority of the entire membership did not vote in favor, why consider it invalid?

You mean if it can be shown a majority of the entire membership voted for the convoluted motion? I suppose of the vote was counted and it showed that sure. I suppose we can IF this all day. I wonder how often they count the vote in a Board meeting?

[Gary c Tesser]

George,

You mean if it can be shown a majority of the entire membership voted for the convoluted motion? I suppose of the vote was counted and it showed that sure. I suppose we can IF this all day. I wonder how often they count the vote in a Board meeting?

I figure that generally, an announced result stands unless proof against it can be provided. The one exception I know of is a p. 244 (b ) violation, where if a motion is adopted that conflicts with a motion in force at the time, it must be proven that the conflicting motion was adopted with a sufficient weight. If this is another exception, I'd like to know it, and I'm probably not the only one.

More specifically put, I would say that the announced result stands, unless it can be proven that a majority of the entire membership was NOT there at the time. -- That is, unless the burden of proof (Im not a lawyer, and I'm not practicing law, and ... maybe I'm not claiming I'd be good at if I did, unlike, say, Juliana Margolies or Jim Belishi, who do it on TV) rests with those who say the motion was adopted, rather than, as in the usual case, those who object to the announced verdict (oops, "result") will have to prove that they're right.

[Tim Wynn]

Juliana Margolies

(and it should be Julianna Margulies.)

[hmtcastle]

Juliana Margolies or Jim Belishi

(and it should be Julianna Margulies.)

And Jim Belushi.

[Tim Wynn]

And Jim Belushi.

He's not so much on my radar.

[David A Foulkes]

He's not so much on my radar.

Take a number.

[Gary c Tesser]

Nice to see parliamentarians can keep focussed on the issues, despite tempting distractions (someone did mention Julianna Margulies). But when we come up for air, can we answer the question?