Sporter Posted August 13, 2014 at 02:34 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 02:34 PM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted August 13, 2014 at 03:02 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 03:02 PM 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 More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 13, 2014 at 04:08 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 04:08 PM ... A better approach would be to set an agenda that places them in the proper order.... What's the proper order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted August 13, 2014 at 04:19 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 04:19 PM 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 More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted August 13, 2014 at 04:58 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 04:58 PM 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 More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted August 13, 2014 at 04:59 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 04:59 PM 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. That is how I understand the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:12 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:12 PM 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. Oh, please don't tell me I have to buy the British translation of Robert's Rules of Order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:12 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:12 PM That is how I understand the question. Yes indeed: thank you both. (The "table" bit did jar me some, but I didn't put it together.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:13 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:13 PM Oh, please don't tell me I have to buy the British translation of Robert's Rules of Order. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:25 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:25 PM 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 More sharing options...
Timothy Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:26 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:26 PM 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 More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:40 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:40 PM 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 More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:58 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 05:58 PM RONR mentions this when it comes to conflicting bylaw amendments ... Yes. But it might be eminently, perhaps preeminently, sensible ... I didn't see it as binding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted August 13, 2014 at 06:28 PM Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 at 06:28 PM 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. I suspect trust Mr. Fish is assuming there is no "old" tool shed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.