Guest City Clerk Posted February 22, 2013 at 08:44 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 at 08:44 PM When you have a motion and second on the table while discussion is taking place another motion was made to table. What is the appropriate way to handle that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 22, 2013 at 08:52 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 at 08:52 PM rephrase that I had a motion and a second on the floor. Discussion started and another person made a motion to table the whole issue. We all looked at each other and was not sure what to do. We handled it by voting on the motion and second on the floor. After it failed then we had a motion and second to table. The person making the motion to table said that it is always apropriate to table an issue at any time. Is that true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:05 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:05 PM The person making the motion to table said that it is always apropriate to table an issue at any time. Is that true?No.See FAQs #12 and #13.Further, a "second" is not something that can be on the floor or on the table. Or anywhere else for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:09 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:09 PM rephrase that I had a motion and a second on the floor. Discussion started and another person made a motion to table the whole issue. We all looked at each other and was not sure what to do. We handled it by voting on the motion and second on the floor. After it failed then we had a motion and second to table. The person making the motion to table said that it is always apropriate to table an issue at any time. Is that true?As Edgar notes, a motion to lay on the table is rarely in order. In your specific case, once the main motion was defeated there was nothing left to (improperly) lay on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:21 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:21 PM The main motion and second was in the discussion period when the motion to table was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:34 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:34 PM The main motion and second was in the discussion period when the motion to table was made.If the motion to table is in order, making it while debate is in progress on the pending motion is not an issue. The question really is, what was the intent of the purpose of "tabling" the pending motion? It probably should have been handled with a different motion, such as to Postpone, or Refer to a committee. If the motion to Table was offered as a means of essentially stopping consideration of the pending motion and moving on to other business, than it probably wasn't in order and should have been ruled so by the Chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:47 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 at 09:47 PM The item on the agenda was "Consider An Ordinance to Rezoning Property". The motion was to amend the ordinancestating that HSU would be required to construct a 6ft privacy fence at 1229 Wilson Street. Another Board member felt like the whole item should be tabled and until the fence could be worked out. We told him we had to vote on the motion and second in "front" of us. That vote failed and at that time the Board member made a motion to defer action until the City Manager and the Planning Commission can get with HSU to work this matter out and bring back to the Board. The problem is now there are hurt feelings so I was asked to research to see if the Board member was correct to table in the first place or were we right by requiring a vote on the motion and second before us first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 23, 2013 at 01:06 AM Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 at 01:06 AM The item on the agenda was "Consider An Ordinance to Rezoning Property". The motion was to amend the ordinancestating that HSU would be required to construct a 6ft privacy fence at 1229 Wilson Street. Another Board member felt like the whole item should be tabled and until the fence could be worked out. We told him we had to vote on the motion and second in "front" of us. That vote failed and at that time the Board member made a motion to defer action until the City Manager and the Planning Commission can get with HSU to work this matter out and bring back to the Board. The problem is now there are hurt feelings so I was asked to research to see if the Board member was correct to table in the first place or were we right by requiring a vote on the motion and second before us first.You were both wrong.The motion to Lay on the Table was not appropriate in this instance. The purpose of that motion is to set aside a motion temporarily so that the assembly can take up some urgent business. The member's goal was to delay consideration of the motion. The appropriate tool for that purpose is the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time. This motion requires a second, is debatable and amendable, and requires a majority vote for adoption. Since this is a subsidiary motion, it is in order while a motion is pending and is voted on before the main motion. See FAQ #12 for more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.