Contrary motion when prior motion has been tabled at a prior meeting.

[Guest Michael Goodman]

A motion is properly made and seconded and being discussed. A member mover to place the motion on the Table. This motion is seconded, voted upon and passed by a majority vote. The meeting is subsequently adjourned. At a later meeting, without taking the tabled motion off the table, may a member introduce a motion which is in direct opposition to the tabled motion?

[Chris Harrison]

If the motion is still legitimately on the Table then no it would not be proper. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that too much time has elapsed and the motion is now dead in which case such a motion would (probably) be proper. How many meetings/length of time had the motion be sitting on the Table before the member introduced the contraindicating motion?

[Josh Martin]

At a later meeting, without taking the tabled motion off the table, may a member introduce a motion which is in direct opposition to the tabled motion?

Maybe. It depends on how much later. If it's the next meeting and it's been less than a quarterly interval, no. If it's two or more meetings later or it's been more than a quarterly interval, yes, since by then the tabled motion is dead.

[Guest Michael Goodman]

The second motion was made in a timely manner, at the same time (since the original motion was tabled) as the issue was ripe for discussion and action.

[Guest Edgar]

The second motion was made in a timely manner, at the same time . . .

At the same time as what?

[Josh Martin]

The second motion was made in a timely manner, at the same time (since the original motion was tabled) as the issue was ripe for discussion and action.

That is a very vague answer to Mr. Harrison's question and is of no help whatsoever. The phrases "a timely manner" and "ripe for discussion and action" are not sufficient to determine whether the second motion was in order.

How many meetings and how many days/weeks/months elapsed after the motion was laid on the table?

[Gary c Tesser]

We can perhaps cut to the chase by pointing out that, as long as the "tabled" motion is still alive and sleeping there on the table, the opposing ("conflicting") motion is out of order (RONR, 11th Ed, p. 112, item 4 ©). Chris Harrison (still not used to typing all that!) and Josh Martin have been trying to determine whether the motion on the table has a pulse.