Using Tabling to Stifle Discussion

[AverageJoeMN]

I was in a meeting last night where 150 citizens came to finally have their say on an issue.  At the very beginning of the agenda item the mayor gave himself all the time he wanted, then moved to table the item, thus shutting off debate.  It only passed because people were shocked he'd done it, asking for a fast vote.

 

Is the use of tabling really allowed by Roberts to stifle debate like this?  Is there a way around this now that it's done, where one could force the issue back for discussion?

[Gary Novosielski]

No, using the motion to Lay on the Table in order to shut off debate is not in order.

 

See FAQ#13.

 

At the next meeting, someone should move to Take from the Table the resolution in question.  It requires a majority vote to do so.

 

A resolution to censure the mayor would also be a nice touch.

[AverageJoeMN]

Is there more information on what "fair procedure" is?  His use of tabling wasn't to actually defeat the motion, it was to shut people up, to avoid discussion on the topic until after elections.  

[Gary Novosielski]

As the FAQ explains, the use of the motion to cut off debate is improper, because debate may not be cut off except by a two-thirds (or greater) vote.  The appropriate motion for this is to move the Previous Question which requires a 2/3 vote, while the motion to Lay on the Table only requires a majority.

 

There is an entire book on what "fair procedure" is.   It's called Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised.