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.

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 If the main motion is never again considered or withdrawn, should at least a note need to be made somewhere in the minutes?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?

Thank you so much for your detailed and speedy replies! I appreciate the clarifications and will pass them along.

I've been lurking for a little while but this is my first question, so my apologies if I'm not doing it right. I am a member of a student association that is usually quiet but has seen some controversy recently. At a Board meeting earlier this year, several members of the association who were not members of the Board were present. (For convenience, I'll refer to them as guests, although that's part of the dispute.) Our policies state that "All members may attend any meeting. Non-members of the Board may address Board meetings if they have requested to be put on the agenda." One of the guests - guest A - asked permission in advance to address the Board, and at the appropriate point on the agenda, began to make a statement. Another guest - guest B - interrupted A, claiming a point of personal privilege. A Board member then made a point of order that B's point of privilege was out of order. However, the interruption was recorded by the Secretary. At the next meeting, the Board removed the interruption while correcting the draft minutes, noting that B was a guest, had not been extended speaking rights, and their point of privilege was out of order, besides. When B saw the minutes, they made several arguments that the record of their point of privilege should be retained: 1. That they are not a guest, but a full member of the association. 2. That there is a difference between addressing the Board and raising a point of personal privilege. 3. That according to RONR, minutes should include “all points of order and appeals, whether sustained or lost, together with the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling.” (47.9) 4. That because the point of order ruling them out of order is recorded in the minutes, their point of privilege should also be included, as minutes should include "secondary motions that were not lost or withdrawn, in cases where it is necessary to record them for completeness or clarity." (47.7) Do any of these arguments have merit? I think they do not, but would appreciate any certainty you can offer. Thank you.