What to use? To lay on the table or to postpone indefinitely.

[Guest Tammy G]

A meeting is going to be held to discuss building a new addition to a church. A contractor has provided a proposed drawing and wants to have a vote to proceed with his proposal. The majority of the membership feels that more time is needed before pursuing a capital improvements project. Our pastor has left and we have about $100,000 dollars of general maintenance things to do before a new pastor arrives. Which is the most appropriate motion to use to hold the new addition proposal for a later date - (1) a motion to lay the discussion and further developments of the addition to the church on the table until a 'time certain'/in the future, or (2) postpone indefinitely? Any input you might be able to provide would be appreciated. I will continue to review your RRO site and FAQ, but felt I was better to ask and not assume the correct procedure. Thank you.

[David A Foulkes]

Neither. It would be an improper use of the motion to Lay on the Table (Section 17) which is used to temporarily put a motion aside to address an urgent matter, with expectation to Take From the Table when the interruption is dealt with. Postpone Indefinitely (Section 11) is actually a means by which to kill the motion for the current session.

What you want is either Postpone Definitely (or to a Certain Time, Section 14) or Commit/Refer (Section 13). The first allows you to put off consideration until a future time (within limits). To Commit/Refer means to send the question to a committee for investigation, which will report back to the assembly with its findings.

[Sean Hunt]

A meeting is going to be held to discuss building a new addition to a church. A contractor has provided a proposed drawing and wants to have a vote to proceed with his proposal. The majority of the membership feels that more time is needed before pursuing a capital improvements project. Our pastor has left and we have about $100,000 dollars of general maintenance things to do before a new pastor arrives. Which is the most appropriate motion to use to hold the new addition proposal for a later date - (1) a motion to lay the discussion and further developments of the addition to the church on the table until a 'time certain'/in the future, or (2) postpone indefinitely? Any input you might be able to provide would be appreciated. I will continue to review your RRO site and FAQ, but felt I was better to ask and not assume the correct procedure. Thank you.

That's an excellent question. Lay on the Table is most definitely incorrect. A motion should be laid on the table only when the assembly wishes to consider a more urgent matter, and intends to get back to the matter laid on the table once that's complete. It could be that there is something occurring later in the order of business that the assembly wants to deal with first, or it could be that some other event - such as a guest speaker - is time-sensitive and so must intervene.

Postpone to a Certain Time is possibly the motion you want to use depending on how frequently your meetings are. A motion can only be postponed in this fashion to the next regular meeting, although that meeting could choose to postpone it again. Postpone Indefinitely is probably not what you want as it just kills the motion without deciding on it, although I suppose that might actually be desirable here.

Given the circumstances, though, it might be that a motion to Commit/Refer is the best option. You could put the motion in the hands of a committee so that they can evaluate the question and report back at a later time - thus giving the capital improvements project the proper consideration you seem to think it deserves.

[Guest Edgar]

The majority of the membership feels that more time is needed before pursuing a capital improvements project.

You could simply defeat the motion when it's made.

[tctheatc]

You could simply defeat the motion when it's made.

True, but then some eager beaver might bring it up again and again at every meeting, forcing the group to waste time defeating it again and again, or it may end up defeated for good. Whereas we're told the majority believe the timing is not right (as opposed to the idea itself), postponing it until they're better suited to deal with it seems the better way to go.

[Rob Elsman]

A meeting is going to be held to discuss building a new addition to a church. A contractor has provided a proposed drawing and wants to have a vote to proceed with his proposal. The majority of the membership feels that more time is needed before pursuing a capital improvements project. Our pastor has left and we have about $100,000 dollars of general maintenance things to do before a new pastor arrives. Which is the most appropriate motion to use to hold the new addition proposal for a later date - (1) a motion to lay the discussion and further developments of the addition to the church on the table until a 'time certain'/in the future, or (2) postpone indefinitely? Any input you might be able to provide would be appreciated. I will continue to review your RRO site and FAQ, but felt I was better to ask and not assume the correct procedure. Thank you.

As I understand the question, there is a limited amount of money to spend either on an additon to the church or general maintenance. If the motion to build the additon is postponed to the next meeting, a motion to spend the same money on general maintenance will not be in order until the first motion is finally disposed of. If that is not what is desired, it will be best to reject the motion to build the additon, either directly or indirectly, after which the motion to spend the money on general maintenance will be in order.

[Guest Tammy G.]

Thank you for the replies and recommendations/insight. I appreciate each of you taking the time to read my inquiry and posting your thoughts. Wish me luck! Kindest Regards.