A motion to Lay on the Table and later Take from the Table

[Bryce Sullivan]

I was chairing a meeting where there was a main motion to accept a resignation (this vote is required in our body). A motion was immediately made and seconded to Postpone to a Definite Time. Debate occurred for a while and then someone asked to Lay the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time on the Table. The rationale was so we could get back to the main motion, discuss and debate it, and then Take off the Table the motion to Postpone if it was still desired. I accepted that seconded motion to Lay on the Table and it passed. Then we returned to the main motion. As our time was running out, a motion was made to Take from the Table the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time.
 
Now this made sense to me. We had layed it on the table, and from my read of RONR, that was acceptable. But it appears that it is impermissible to Take from the Table a motion when there is another motion pending. According to RONR, the Take from the Table motion takes precedence over no pending motion--and the main motion was pending. It wouldn't have made sense to vote the main motion up or down (to accept the resignation) and then Take from the Table the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time (the motion to accept the resignation). If we had to dispence with the main motion, there would have been noting to Postpone.
 
I've searched the forums and read all of the posts about Lay on the Table, and I can't find posts about Take from the Table.
 
Anyway, I'm curious about what procedure I should have used when dealing with this series of motions. I think the right result happened. The group did decide to Postpone to a Definite Time.
 
Thanks! Bryce

[Richard Brown]

I was chairing a meeting where there was a main motion to accept a resignation (this vote is required in our body). A motion was immediately made and seconded to Postpone to a Definite Time. Debate occurred for a while and then someone asked to Lay the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time on the Table. The rationale was so we could get back to the main motion, discuss and debate it, and then Take off the Table the motion to Postpone if it was still desired. I accepted that seconded motion to Lay on the Table and it passed. Then we returned to the main motion. As our time was running out, a motion was made to Take from the Table the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time.

 

Bryce, my concern is whether it was appropriate to lay the motion to postpone to a definite time on the table.  RONR seems to say that subsidiary motions cannot be laid on the table by themselves and that a motion to lay such a subsidiary motion (postpone to a definite time) on the table carries with it the original main motion which was being considered.

 

Here's what I see as the pertinent provision from page 211, lines 11-17:

"it cannot be applied to any subsidiary motion except in connection with application to the main question. No motion or motions can be laid on the table apart from motions which adhere to them, or to which they adhere; and if any one of them is laid on the table, all such motions go to the table together."

 

I'm anxious to see what others have to say about this.  I'm giving it more thought, too.  Since no point of order was raised, I'm thinking it was waived and the assembly eventually came to a resolution by adopting the motion to postpone to a definite time.

[Timothy]

I agree that if you're going to lay something on the table it all goes on the table. It could get very confusing if it isn't handled that way.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

. . .there was a main motion to [X] . . .

A motion was immediately made and seconded to Postpone to a Definite Time.

. . . then someone asked to Lay the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time on the Table.

I accepted that seconded motion to Lay on the Table and it passed.

. . .

We had layed it on the table, and from my read of RONR, that was acceptable.

. . .

Anyway, I'm curious about what procedure I should have used when dealing with this series of motions.

 

". . .there was a main motion to [X] . . ."

"A motion was immediately made and seconded to Postpone to a Definite Time."

 

kg: OK.

 

". . . then someone asked to Lay the motion to 'Postpone to a Definite Time' on the Table.

I accepted that seconded motion to Lay on the Table (and it passed)."

 

kg: WHAM! There is your error.

 

You should have ruled that the motion, as stated, was out of order.

You cannot Lay On The Table any subsidiary motion (like Postpone Definitely), because to Lay On The Table only applies to main motions, and all adhering motions like 'Postpone Definitely'.

 

What should have happened?

If someone wanted to talk about the main motion, then the PROPER action should have been to "move the previous question" on the motion "Postpone Definitely" so that Postpone Definitely could be defeated, immediately. (Risking that the motion might pass, too.)

And thus you would return to the main motion, after defeat of the motion Postpone Definitely.

[Bryce Sullivan]

Thanks! This is very helpful. As they say, you learn by doing!

 

Actually, the person who made the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time didn't know what he was getting us into. There was a general mood to defer the motion (as indicated by the eventual almost 2/3 vote to do so), but the original maker said he would withdraw it after about 10 minutes--which of course you can't do. If I had forced a vote to Postpone instead of tabling it, the motion would have passed and the meeting would have effectively ended since this was the only business we could address per the rules of a specially called meeting in our situation.

 

So it was a good thing that we tabled the motion for while given that it allowed us to debate the main motion. Even though it was a wrong move per RONR, no one questioned the chair's decision.

 

This is a great forum!

 

Bryce

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks! This is very helpful. As they say, you learn by doing!

 

Actually, the person who made the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time didn't know what he was getting us into. There was a general mood to defer the motion (as indicated by the eventual almost 2/3 vote to do so), but the original maker said he would withdraw it after about 10 minutes--which of course you can't do.

Sure you can, with consent of the assembly.

 

If I had forced a vote to Postpone instead of tabling it, the motion would have passed and the meeting would have effectively ended since this was the only business we could address per the rules of a specially called meeting in our situation.

As chair, you could have explained that by defeating the motion they would have been able to continue debate, and could then move to Postpone again later.

 

[Bryce Sullivan]

Yes, with the consent of the assembly, the motion could have been withdrawn, but that level of informality doesn't work very well in a meeting with 500 voting members who don’t really understand RONR.

And you are correct, I needed to be very clear in explaining what would happen based on different actions the assembly might take. I know it’s important to try and lead the assembly to a course of action that will meet their goals. However, when leading a meeting of people who are not knowledgeable in RONR, it's pretty hard to convey even the simplest things much less the idea that they can vote a motion down at this moment and then make the same motion again a little while later.

Leading an assembly is partially an educational process and oftentimes assemblies don't meet frequently enough to have enough experience with using RONR to understand how beneficial it is in getting the business done. In these cases, the procedures used must be presented in the clearest and simplest ways possible.

Thanks, again.