Motion to table a motion until a committee reports

[Guest jerry williams]

We voted to table an amendment , which was on it's 3rd reading , until a committee had finished and submitted it's report , for it's final vote.

When the committee reported , and we tried to bring the amendment off the table for it's final vote , the chair ruled that any motion on the table for two months , or 2 cycles ( we meet once a month ) had expired and must be resubmitted

Was the chair correct ?

[Josh Martin]

We voted to table an amendment , which was on it's 3rd reading , until a committee had finished and submitted it's report , for it's final vote.

When the committee reported , and we tried to bring the amendment off the table for it's final vote , the chair ruled that any motion on the table for two months , or 2 cycles ( we meet once a month ) had expired and must be resubmitted

Was the chair correct ?

The chair's ruling is indeed correct. When a motion is laid on the table, it dies if it is not taken from the table by the end of the next session and the motion must then be renewed.

The real problem is that the members used the incorrect motion. The purpose of the motion to Lay on the Table is to set a motion aside temporarily until some urgent business can be attended to. It is not used for the purpose of delaying action on a motion until after some later event (such as the report of a committee). The motion is out of order if it is qualified in any way. The motion you really wanted was the motion to Postpone Definitely. See FAQ #12 for more information.

I'm also hoping that the amendment you're referring to is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted and not the subsidiary motion to Amend, and that the committee was reporting on something other than the amendment which was tabled, or else your society has some other problems with its parliamentary procedure.

[Guest jerry williams]

Please excuse my lack of understanding . We were < are > a body of people without a great deal of education. We were attempting to amend our constitution which requires 3 readings of an amendment before it can be voted on. prior to the 3rd reading , it was the will of the body to wait for the committee to report before voting on the amendment as written. this will was thwarted thru a use of a ruling that was not explained at the time we voted to await the report. When we voted we knew that it would be several months to the report and were willing to wait until then for the final vote.

as we all agreed to wait the extra time , can the rule be used to counter the majority will ??

[Guest Edgar]

as we all agreed to wait the extra time , can the rule be used to counter the majority will ??

Your "three reading" rule is not found in RONR. Whether the readings can be spread out over a period longer than three consecutive regular meetings will be up to your organization to determine (but it sounds like a slippery slope to me).

[J. J.]

Please excuse my lack of understanding . We were < are > a body of people without a great deal of education. We were attempting to amend our constitution which requires 3 readings of an amendment before it can be voted on. prior to the 3rd reading , it was the will of the body to wait for the committee to report before voting on the amendment as written. this will was thwarted thru a use of a ruling that was not explained at the time we voted to await the report. When we voted we knew that it would be several months to the report and were willing to wait until then for the final vote.

as we all agreed to wait the extra time , can the rule be used to counter the majority will ??

If your current parliamentary authority is RONR you should have consulted it prior to laying the question on the table. It would have been better to refer this to the committee dealing with the bylaws.

[David A Foulkes]

.....the chair ruled that any motion on the table for two months , or 2 cycles ( we meet once a month ) had expired and must be resubmitted.....

Funny how the chair was well-enough versed in RONR and Lay on the Table (LOTT) to know the motion dies (died) on adjournment of the next (previous, that is) session, but not enough to rule the motion to LOTT out of order in the first place at the 3rd reading meeting. Hmmm.....

I'm also curious why there had been any action on the amendment (such as two readings) when it was apparently still in the hands of a committee for their consideration and report, although the time-line here is very vague and I'm not sure at what point the committee was appointed or had the amendment referred to it.

In the end, the rules are the rules (including Point of Order and Appeal), and the rule book is available to all.

[Trina]

Since Mr. Williams says the assembly knew it would be several months before the committee was expected to report, it's worth pointing out that the more correct motion (to postpone to a certain time) has time limits also. It can only postpone a motion until the next regular meeting (assuming that that meeting is no more than a quarterly time interval away). See RONR (11th ed.) p. 183 for details. Thus, if the assembly meets monthly, and the committee is expected to take several months to report, consideration of the motion would have to postponed at several meetings in a row to achieve that end. I don't think there is really a motion equivalent to what the assembly tried to do -- namely to put the consideration of the amendment on the back burner for several months without talking about it any further during that time. The assembly could have referred the amendment to a committee, of course...

From the description given, I'm not really clear what the job of the committee was. Was it working on a issue which the assembly thought would be relevant to the assembly's eventual decision on the amendment? Or was the committee actually told to look at the proposed amendment itself, and to report back with its findings?

[Larry Cisar]

Where do you get your three reading rule from? If it is not in your governing documents, it does not exist. You may want to review how exactly your bylaws are to be amended.

[Sean Hunt]

Since Mr. Williams says the assembly knew it would be several months before the committee was expected to report, it's worth pointing out that the more correct motion (to postpone to a certain time) has time limits also. It can only postpone a motion until the next regular meeting (assuming that that meeting is no more than a quarterly time interval away). See RONR (11th ed.) p. 183 for details. Thus, if the assembly meets monthly, and the committee is expected to take several months to report, consideration of the motion would have to postponed at several meetings in a row to achieve that end. I don't think there is really a motion equivalent to what the assembly tried to do -- namely to put the consideration of the amendment on the back burner for several months without talking about it any further during that time. The assembly could have referred the amendment to a committee, of course...

From the description given, I'm not really clear what the job of the committee was. Was it working on a issue which the assembly thought would be relevant to the assembly's eventual decision on the amendment? Or was the committee actually told to look at the proposed amendment itself, and to report back with its findings?

There is no such motion, since the assembly cannot do anything which would prejudice a future session's action. If they just want to get rid of it and have it brought up again later, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is probably the most appropriate.

[Josh Martin]

I'm also curious why there had been any action on the amendment (such as two readings) when it was apparently still in the hands of a committee for their consideration and report, although the time-line here is very vague and I'm not sure at what point the committee was appointed or had the amendment referred to it.

Well, I'm with Trina that it's not entirely clear whether the committee actually was considering the amendment, or if it was just working on something else that the assembly felt may be relevant to the issue.

If the amendment was indeed in the hands of the committee, then I'm as curious as you are.

There is no such motion, since the assembly cannot do anything which would prejudice a future session's action. If they just want to get rid of it and have it brought up again later, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is probably the most appropriate.

In the general case this would work fine, but if the organization does indeed have this "three readings" rule, that could cause problems. It might be better to refer the motion to a committee, or simply to keep postponing it at each meeting.