Motion Opposed vs Tabled

[Guest Sarah]

If a motion is opposed, what are the procedures to address the issue at a later date?

How does the course of action change from a motion being tabled vs opposed?

[Chris Harrison]

If a motion is opposed, what are the procedures to address the issue at a later date?

Speak against it in debate and vote against it and you need to do it when the question is pending (doing it later is a day late and a dollar short unless the member wants to move to Rescind or Amend the adopted motion or if the motion to Reconsider is still in order).

How does the course of action change from a motion being tabled vs opposed?

Laying the motion on the Table is temporarily disposing of it while something of greater importance is considered with the intent of considering it later that session. Opposing a motion means what it sounds like and comparing opposing a motion and Laying it on the Table are apples and oranges.

[Guest Edgar]

If a motion is opposed, what are the procedures to address the issue at a later date?

There are several options if you want to delay the consideration of a question. It could for example, be sent to a committee for further study. Or it could be postponed, either to a definite date or indefinitely. Or, if enough members oppose it, it can simply be defeated. In all instances you'll need the numbers on your side.

[Tim Wynn]

Laying the motion on the Table is temporarily disposing of it while something of greater importance is considered with the intent of considering it later that session.

It's not necessarily of greater importance, it's just of immediate urgency.

While the purpose is to set the pending motion aside temporarily, there need not be intent of any kind for taking up its consideration again. For the benefit of the original poster, I will point out that a motion that has been laid on the table can be taken from the table by a majority vote and in preference to any new questions that may come into competition with it for consideration.

[Chris Harrison]

While the purpose is to set the pending motion aside temporarily, there need not be intent of any kind for taking up its consideration again.

I would argue that if there was no intent to take up its consideration again the intent would appear to be to kill the motion and thus the motion to Lay on the Table would be out of order per FAQ #12 & 13.

[Tim Wynn]

I would argue that if there was no intent to take up its consideration again the intent would appear to be to kill the motion and thus the motion to Lay on the Table would be out of order per FAQ #12 & 13.

I would counter that argument by saying that in situations where the assembly's focus was squarely on the motion of immediate urgency, without giving any regard to the pending matter except for setting it aside, the motion to Lay on the Table is perfectly in order.

So long as the intent is not to Kill or Postpone the pending motion, Lay on the Table is in order, even if a plan for resuming its consideration has not yet been formulated. :-)

[Chris Harrison]

Fair enough.

[tctheatc]

If a motion is opposed, what are the procedures to address the issue at a later date?

How does the course of action change from a motion being tabled vs opposed?

Maybe I'm misreading, but the OP's question seems to imply a notion that if there is opposition to a motion, it needs to be put off somehow until some sort of consensus is reached, and what's being asked is that once that's done, does the procedure for considering the motion change. If there is opposition to a motion, that's no reason in and of itself to postpone a motion. And the procedures to postpone an item are the same whether there is opposition to it or not.

[Tim Wynn]

Maybe I'm misreading, but the OP's question seems to imply a notion that if there is opposition to a motion, it needs to be put off somehow until some sort of consensus is reached, and what's being asked is that once that's done, does the procedure for considering the motion change. If there is opposition to a motion, that's no reason in and of itself to postpone a motion. And the procedures to postpone an item are the same whether there is opposition to it or not.

My guess is that the original poster is using "Motion Opposed" to refer to a motion that was lost, but your guess is as good as mine.

[tctheatc]

You may be right, Tim. My hunch comes from spending so much time in churches, where people get hives sometimes when there is debate. As soon as it's obvious there isn't 100% agreement, some folks get antsy and want to take steps to get to unanimity before going any further. Been there, done that, gots many t-shirts...

[Guest Sarah]

Tim, I am the poster, and yes, I did phrase my question incorrectly.

I used "Motion Opposed" to refer to a motion that was lost.

I am actually researching this, because of actions occuring within my City, they are misrepresenting a previous Ordinance Reading and saying that the Ordinance motion was tabled. However, the motion was opposed, and therefore failed. Our state law did not seem to help me with the answer, so I am turning here so I have a better understanding.

Thank You everyone for your help here.

[Tim Wynn]

Tim, I am the poster, and yes, I did phrase my question incorrectly.

I used "Motion Opposed" to refer to a motion that was lost.

I am actually researching this, because of actions occuring within my City, they are misrepresenting a previous Ordinance Reading and saying that the Ordinance motion was tabled. However, the motion was opposed, and therefore failed. Our state law did not seem to help me with the answer, so I am turning here so I have a better understanding.

Thank You everyone for your help here.

Whether the motion was lost or laid on the table, it can still be considered by the assembly at the next session. So, in the larger scheme of things, it may not make much difference.