When can a item be tabled?

[Guest McGhghy]

When is it acceptable to ask for an agenda item to be tabled? I am currenly the President of a School Board and last night an item was brought up. There was a motion to accept an item that was presented by our superintendent and was seconded, we then had a member object the motion by suggesting the item be tabled. I ruled the motion to table out of order and then asked for a vote on the motion. Was I correct in ordering the motion to table out of order? I made this decision because this certiam member always wants more time to make a decision as they always seem to not want to make hard decisions and always whats to delay items that the rest of the board does not have issues with. Again, was I correct in ruling this motion out of order?

[Chris Harrison]

Yes you were incorrect in ruling a motion to consider the motion at a later time out of order (the correct motion for doing what he wanted to do is to Postpone it until a certain time rather than Lay On The Table). A motion to Postpone requires a majority vote so if the Board was ready to deal with the motion then they could do so even if this member was not ready yet. It was not your place and was improper for you to make a unilateral decision that " this certain member always wants more time to make a decision as they always seem to not want to make hard decisions and always whats to delay items that the rest of the board does not have issues with" therefore ruling his validly made motion out of order.

[Guest Tyler]

So am I correct or incorrect as the motion was to table and not postpone. According to the Roberts Rule of Order book that I have, it states that it was clearing my decision to make such a motion out of order if its intent was to "kill" the motion. What I think you are saying is that if the motion was to postpone the item to the next meeting would have been the correct motion.

[Chris Harrison]

You were incorrect in ruling the motion to Table out of order and if you knew that the intent of the motion maker was to have it considered at a later time you should have treated it as a motion to Postpone. Nothing in your original post suggests that you thought that the intent was to "kill" the motion (and if that was the intent you should have treated it as a motion to Postpone Indefinitely) and in fact your rationale for ruling the motion out of order suggests that you knew that the member's intent was to put if off to a later time.

[Rev Ed]

There are three different things being discussed here:

1) Lay on the Table. This is only in order if another more pressing issue comes up that has to be dealt with prior to a decision on the matter being discussed. The example used by RONR is if a presenter has to leave early for some reason, so the motion being discussed could be laid on the table while the presentation is made, and then the motion is taken from the table.

2) Postpone Indefinitely. This motion would be used to kill a motion as there is no time frame to bring the motion back for a decision.

3) Postpone Definitely. This is the motion that should be used. An example would be as follows: "I move that the motion be postponed to 8:00 p.m." Or "I move that the motion be postponed until after we have made a decision on ___."

[Dan Honemann]

3) Postpone Definitely. This is the motion that should be used. An example would be as follows: "I move that the motion be postponed to 8:00 p.m." Or "I move that the motion be postponed until after we have made a decision on ___."

I have my doubts about the propriety of this last example.

[Gary Novosielski]

3) Postpone Definitely. ... "I move that the motion be postponed until after we have made a decision on ___."

I have my doubts about the propriety of this last example.

Yes, it sounds anything but definite.

[Gary Novosielski]

3) Postpone Definitely. ... "I move that the motion be postponed until after we have made a decision on ___."

I have my doubts about the propriety of this last example.

Yes, it would seem to be anything but definite..