What happens to pending business when motion affecting business was tabled?

[Judy1957]

Our Lodge has been paying mileage and per diem, incorrectly, for several months to some of our officers.  A motion was made on the floor to stop paying per diem effective immediately.  This motion was seconded and extensive discussion was held on the floor.  Our Officer In Charge then stated that he thought more members who were not present at the meeting might like to vote on this motion - so he tabled the motion.  Several of the members wanted to take a vote on this motion after the officer in charge stated he wanted to table it, but the officer in charge would not allow a vote to be taken.  Now the question is this:  1) Since there was no urgent business to attend to and no additional information was needed to have a vote on the motion - was it permissible to just table the motion?  2)  What impact does this have on mileage and per diem being paid until a decision has been made on the motion?  We already have 3 requests for advance payment of mileage and per diem for an upcoming meeting.  Should these requests be paid or is it necessary for the motion to first be resolved?

 

[Edgar Guest]

The officer in charge can't "table the motion". No one can.

 

If your rules don't authorize the payments you've been making, just stop making them. No motion is required to follow the rules.

 

Getting reimbursed for the money that's already been improperly paid might be trickier.

[Chris Harrison]

1) The assembly could have Postponed consideration of the motion until the next session (Lay on the Table isn't the proper motion for your situation).  In either case the Officer in Charge doesn't have the authority (under RONR) to unilaterally Postpone or Table a motion.

2) Until an adopted motion to pay the per diem and mileage is Rescinded or Amended it remains in force.  However, the question is how did the per diem and mileage start getting paid in the first place?  Was there a motion adopted to do so?  Did someone just decree it was to be done and it was?  What happened?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

We already have 3 requests for advance payment of mileage and per diem for an upcoming meeting. 

Should these requests be paid or is it necessary for the motion to first be resolved?

The rule which was targeted for change, was not changed.

Therefore, the old rule is still enforceable.

The act of Laying On The Table (or the act of Postponement, or the act of Referring to a Committee, etc.) a potential modification or abolition of a rule does not imply "all enforcement stops" of the at-risk rule.

 

You know, the motion might be defeated, ultimately, once the (incorrect) laying on the table is processed via Take From The Table, and the motion is voted on.

So the at-risk rule would then "survive".

How silly would you look to not pay people the money they have coming just because there was a chance that the rule would change?

 

So, you will obey the rule (i.e., pay the money). -- Until the rule really is edited to say otherwise.

[Edgar Guest]

How silly would you look to not pay people the money . . . 

 

Not as silly as they'll look if they keep paying "incorrectly" just because they've done so before.

[Josh Martin]

Our Lodge has been paying mileage and per diem, incorrectly, for several months to some of our officers.

 

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Why are these payments being made and why you feel it is incorrect to make them?

 

The rule which was targeted for change, was not changed.

Therefore, the old rule is still enforceable.

The act of Laying On The Table (or the act of Postponement, or the act of Referring to a Committee, etc.) a potential modification or abolition of a rule does not imply "all enforcement stops" of the at-risk rule.

 

You know, the motion might be defeated, ultimately, once the (incorrect) laying on the table is processed via Take From The Table, and the motion is voted on.

So the at-risk rule would then "survive".

How silly would you look to not pay people the money they have coming just because there was a chance that the rule would change?

 

So, you will obey the rule (i.e., pay the money). -- Until the rule really is edited to say otherwise.

 

Since the OP says the mileage and per diem has been paid "incorrectly," however, I'm not sure these payments are consistent with the society's existing rules.

[Richard Brown]

Since the OP says the mileage and per diem has been paid "incorrectly," however, I'm not sure these payments are consistent with the society's existing rules.

 I agree.  We don't know whether there is currently a rule in place directing that such payments be made or if there is such a rule but it is being incorrectly administered.  Maybe the wrong mileage rate is being paid.  All we know is that payments have been being made and the original poster says it is being paid incorrectly.  We don't know what she means by her statement.

 

I do agree with Mr. Goldsworthy that whatever rule is in place, if there is one, should be honored until it is changed.

[Richard Brown]

A motion was made on the floor to stop paying per diem effective immediately.  This motion was seconded and extensive discussion was held on the floor.  Our Officer In Charge then stated that he thought more members who were not present at the meeting might like to vote on this motion - so he tabled the motion.  Several of the members wanted to take a vote on this motion after the officer in charge stated he wanted to table it, but the officer in charge would not allow a vote to be taken.  Now the question is this:  1) Since there was no urgent business to attend to and no additional information was needed to have a vote on the motion - was it permissible to just table the motion?

 

As Mr. Guest and Mr. Harrison have already told you, it was improper for the "officer in charge" to unilaterally postpone (or table) the motion.   Only the assembly can postpone something or lay it on the table by a majority vote.  And as you already know, the motion to lay on the table was not proper because there was no urgent business to attend to.  The proper motion would have been to postpone to a definite time.

 

What should have happened, and what someone should do if he tries this again, is for someone to make a Point of Order that the chairman cannot unilaterally "table" (an incorrect term) or postpone anything:  only the members can do that by a majority vote.

 

If the chairman/Officer in Charge finds that the point of order is not well taken, someone should appeal his decision (appeal the decision of the chair) to the assembly.  It takes a majority vote to overturn the decision of the chair.

 

RONR even provides a method for a member to put a point of order to a vote of the assembly if the chair refuses to acknowledge it or to rule on it.  (RONR p 650).

 

Edited to add:  you can even suspend the rules and remove him from presiding at all or part of a session by a two-thirds vote.   (RONR pages 651-652).