Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Advance Notice of Conflicting Motions


Sporter

Recommended Posts

We have a board meeting coming and have received advance notice of conflicting motions which certain board members want to table.  Are there any rules regarding which should be tabled first? 

 

It doesn't makes sense to have advance notice that a motion will be tabled, since the only reason to table a motion is to lay it aside in order to handle other business. A better approach would be to set an agenda that places them in the proper order.

 

If, instead of table, you mean postpone indefinitely, you would do so when the motion is being considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a board meeting coming and have received advance notice of conflicting motions which certain board members want to table.  Are there any rules regarding which should be tabled first? 

 

What do you mean by "tabled first"?  I take it to mean that you want to know which motion comes up first.  In that case, it does not matter according to RONR.  The Agenda for a meeting can have issues in any order the organization wants.  Perhaps list them based on the one that was received first.  But RONR does not care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the proper order?

 

There may not be one but perhaps the disposal of one motion might make the other one moot. Or perhaps the second motion could be accommodated by amendment during consideration of the first.

 

In any event, it seems Mr. Sporter is using the word "table" where we might use the word "floor". In other words, he's asking which motion should be considered first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the proper order?

 

RONR mentions this when it comes to conflicting bylaw amendments -  " If notice is given of several amendments which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order, much as in the case of filling blanks (12), generally taking the least inclusive amendment first and the most inclusive last so that the last one adopted is given effect. Such arrangement of the amendments can be altered by the assembly by a majority vote without debate"  RONR (11th ed.), pp. 593-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeed:  thank you both.  (The "table" bit did jar me some, but I didn't put it together.)

 

The "conflicting motions" part of it led me to think their desire was to get rid of part of the motions.

 

Generally, motions come in the order they come. But if I had a crystal ball and could decide which order they should come in, I would want the motions with broader scope to come before those with narrow scope. I might, for example, want to know the outcome of the motion "to buy a new tool shed" before I vote "to replace the window in the tool shed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "conflicting motions" part of it led me to think their desire was to get rid of part of the motions.

 

Generally, motions come in the order they come. But if I had a crystal ball and could decide which order they should come in, I would want the motions with broader scope to come before those with narrow scope. I might, for example, want to know the outcome of the motion "to buy a new tool shed" before I vote "to replace the window in the tool shed."

 

But that's precisely the opposite way of RONR's view of the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...