Point of Order

[mrart]

At the conclusion of a point of order to the Board, can you then present a motion on that subject? mrart

[David A Foulkes]

At the conclusion of a point of order to the Board, can you then present a motion on that subject? mrart

I guess that might depend on what the Point of Order is, and what the motion is. If your Point of Order is that a particular topic cannot be brought up (for some reason), then you couldn't very well bring that topic to the assembly via a motion.

So, care to elaborate?

[Gary Novosielski]

No--if by that you mean that at the time when you are raising the point of order, you then go on to make a motion. That is not permitted.

It is quite probable that someone else has the floor when the point of order is raised and would presumably be entitled to reclaim the floor after the point of order was dealt with.

Once you have raised a point of order, you resume your seat and await the ruling of the chair on the question you raised. The making of a Point of Order seeks a ruling from the chair. After the ruling is made (and possibly Appealed from), the business that was already underway resumes, subject to the results of the ruling.

Making a new motion requires that you seek the floor and be recognized by the chair, and may not interrupt someone else who has the floor; this is not the situation during a point of order.

[mrart]

I guess that might depend on what the Point of Order is, and what the motion is. If your Point of Order is that a particular topic cannot be brought up (for some reason), then you couldn't very well bring that topic to the assembly via a motion.

So, care to elaborate?

The "motion made to table the issue pending futher information", I believe that is incorrect. Once it tabled it's gone and pending further information woun't bring it back. I would like then to make a motion on the same subject. Thank You mrart

[tctheatc]

The "motion made to table the issue pending futher information", I believe that is incorrect. Once it tabled it's gone and pending further information woun't bring it back. I would like then to make a motion on the same subject. Thank You mrart

That it's gone likely isn't correct, either. From what you've described, I gather the scenario is something like this:

A pending motion needs further work/info/consideration, so the group wants someone to work on it and bring it back later. Someone moves to "table" it, when they really intended to refer it to a committee for more consideration or tweaking. If so, for you to raise a point of order would be swell, but as noted above, you need to get the chair's ruling on your point of order; you can't run straight into a new motion. If the point of order that (laying it on the) table is improper is well taken, then it would be proper for someone to obtain the floor and move the matter be referred to the committee for more info/study/tweaking.

Is that what you're looking for?

(BTW, a matter is usually laid on the table to deal with another urgent or pressing matter. What is laid on the table is not gone forever. You might be thinking of postponed indefinitely.)

[David A Foulkes]

The "motion made to table the issue pending futher information", I believe that is incorrect. Once it tabled it's gone and pending further information woun't bring it back. I would like then to make a motion on the same subject. Thank You mrart

I'd agree that to Lay on the Table the motion that apparently requires further information before the assembly can make an informed decision is the incorrect parliamentary step. To Lay on the Table is to temporarily put a motion aside when some other matter of urgency requires the assembly's immediate attention. As noted, either to Refer the motion to a committee, or possibly Postpone Definitely (until that further information became available for consideration) would be more appropriate.

However, with either of those two motions, the question is still within the assembly's control, and thus the rule on pages 72-73 that "While a question is temporarily disposed of (by any of several methods described in this and later chapters) but is not finally settled, no similar or conflicting motion whose adoption would restrict the assembly in acting on the first question can be introduced" would likely prevent you from making a motion on the same subject.

Additionally, when a motion to Lay (the pending question) on the Table is adopted, that pending question is not "gone". It is "on the table" waiting for someone to move to Take from the Table, where consideration picks up where it left off.

[mrart]

That it's gone likely isn't correct, either. From what you've described, I gather the scenario is something like this:

A pending motion needs further work/info/consideration, so the group wants someone to work on it and bring it back later. Someone moves to "table" it, when they really intended to refer it to a committee for more consideration or tweaking. If so, for you to raise a point of order would be swell, but as noted above, you need to get the chair's ruling on your point of order; you can't run straight into a new motion. If the point of order that (laying it on the) table is improper is well taken, then it would be proper for someone to obtain the floor and move the matter be referred to the committee for more info/study/tweaking.

Is that what you're looking for?

(BTW, a matter is usually laid on the table to deal with another urgent or pressing matter. What is laid on the table is not gone forever. You might be thinking of postponed indefinitely.)

What is the saying," a person with a little knowledge is dangerous", well that's me. RONR IN BRIEF,on page 119, question 13, is what I base my point of order on. The term Lay on the Table was never used and that is why I'm challenging the motion. Thank you mrart

[George Mervosh]

I'm having trouble following the facts, mrart, but I'm rather confident it's too late now to raise your point of order about something being improperly laid on the table.

[David A Foulkes]

I'm having trouble following the facts, mrart, but I'm rather confident it's too late now to raise your point of order about something being improperly laid on the table.

Well, you never know.... with today's technology, he could be checking in from the meeting as we "speak".

[David A Foulkes]

What is the saying," a person with a little knowledge is dangerous", well that's me. RONR IN BRIEF,on page 119, question 13, is what I base my point of order on. The term Lay on the Table was never used and that is why I'm challenging the motion. Thank you mrart

Hoo boy! So, in your post (#4) you mentioned "the motion made to table the issue." Now you say it was never used and so you are challenging the motion.

What motion are you challenging then? And if Lay on the Table was never used, why did you bring it up?

I must say the confusing array of "facts" that you're providing is making it difficult to sustain interest, never mind provide an answer. Wanna start over?

[mrart]

Hoo boy! So, in your post (#4) you mentioned "the motion made to table the issue." Now you say it was never used and so you are challenging the motion.

What motion are you challenging then? And if Lay on the Table was never used, why did you bring it up?

I must say the confusing array of "facts" that you're providing are making it difficult to sustain interest, never mind provide an answer. Wanna start over?

No thanks. Thanks you, mrart