Postpone a vote on a motion

[Guest Jack]

Recently, our church was having a discussion on a motion which continued for some length of time.  Robert's Rules are very loosely applied in our small group but it is in our constitution that Robert's Rules is the final authority in questions of procedure.  Anyway, due to the lateness of the hour a motion was made to take this motion up at a later meeting but that no further discussion would be allowed and only a vote would be taken.  I objected that no further discussion would be allowed but someone else contended that the discussion was already done and the vote just needed to be taken.  My question is, Is this a proper use of a motion to postpone?    It seems to me that a time limit for discussion would need to be proposed or a motion to end discussion needed to be made.   It doesn't seem right to just end the meeting because it was getting late and take it up again and tell everyone that there will be no further discussion will be made and only a vote will be taken.  Again, is this proper use of a motion to postpone?

[Bruce Lages]

Your suppositions are correct. A motion to postpone to a definite time brings the postponed motion back in whatever stage of consideration it was at when it was postponed. At that time, a motion for the previous question would have to be made - and adopted by a 2/3 vote - to end discussion and proceed directly to a vote.

 

Note also that you can only postpone to the next regular meeting, as long as that meeting occurs within a quarterly time period. Postponing to anything beyond that is not in order and will cause the original motion to 'fall to the ground' - meaning you'll have to start all over.

 

And we all thank you for realizing that the proper motion was to postpone, not to table.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... a motion was made to take this motion up at a later meeting

but that no further discussion would be allowed and only a vote would be taken. 

 

I objected that no further discussion would be allowed but someone else contended that the discussion was already done and the vote just needed to be taken. 

 

My question is, Is this a proper use of a motion to postpone?   

It seems to me that a time limit for discussion would need to be proposed or a motion to end discussion needed to be made.  

 

"Later meeting"?

 

Two answers, to cover two possibilities.

 

● If the "later meeting" was an "adjourned meeting", then the answer is, "the motion comes up in the same form it was in, i.e., 'close debate' is still in effect.

 

● If the "later meeting" was a new meeting, i.e., your next "regular meeting," then "The adoption of a motion to 'close debate' is not in effect."

 

If the method of closing debate was via the adoption of via PREVIOUS QUESTION, then the following rule applies.

If the execution of an order for the Previous Question is interrupted and if the motion or motions that were pending come up again later, the rules in the foregoing paragraph apply as follows:

● If the questions were referred to a committee and are later reported, the Previous Question is exhausted and the motions are open to debate and amendment, even if it is during the same session.

● But if the interruption of execution occurred by any other means than referral and the questions come up again during the same session, the order remains in effect; all motions on which the Previous Question was ordered must be voted on immediately (unless a reconsideration of the order is possible and a motion to reconsider it has been made, or is then made; see below).

● If the questions do not come up again until a later session, the Previous Question is always exhausted, regardless of how the interruption of execution occurred.

 

Bullet #1 = referral to committee. (Does not apply here.)

Bullet #2 = Same session.

Bullet #3 = Different (new) session.

 

If the "later meeting" was a new order of business (new session), then the Previous Question "is always exhausted."

If the "later meeting" was still the same order of business (still the same sesssion), then the Previous Question is not exhausted.

 

Note: I have not cross-referenced "Limit Debate" in RONR. I am assuming that when the debate has been limited, and not extended, and the time limit reached, that Previous Question is in effect.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

EFFECT ON MOTIONS ADHERING TO A POSTPONED QUESTION.

When a main motion is postponed, motions to Postpone Indefinitely, Amend, and Commit may be pending, and debate may have been limited or closed. 

All such adhering or attached motions are postponed with the main question, and when consideration of that question is resumed at the specified time, the business is in the same condition as it was immediately before the postponement, with the following exception:

 

If the consideration is not resumed until the next session,

any limitation on or curtailment of debate is exhausted

and therefore ignored.

[RONR, page 188, section 14, "Postpone to a Certain Time"]

 

[Richard Brown]

Anyway, due to the lateness of the hour a motion was made to take this motion up at a later meeting but that no further discussion would be allowed and only a vote would be taken.  I objected that no further discussion would be allowed but someone else contended that the discussion was already done and the vote just needed to be taken.  My question is, Is this a proper use of a motion to postpone? 

 

"Later meeting"?

 

Two answers, to cover two possibilities.

 

● If the "later meeting" was an "adjourned meeting", then the answer is, "the motion comes up in the same form it was in, i.e., 'close debate' is still in effect.

 

● If the "later meeting" was a new meeting, i.e., your next "regular meeting," then "The adoption of a motion to 'close debate' is not in effect."

 

I don't read the original posters comment  as saying that the Previous Question was ever ordered.  The matter was being debated when someone  proposed postponing it, but with the proviso that there would be no more debate and only a vote would be taken.

 

Unless I'm really missing something, that is not at all the same thing as ordering the previous question.

 

I do agree that if the matter is postponed to the next meeting to take place within a quarterly time interval, the previous question would be exhausted even if it had been ordered just prior to the postponement.  The motion would be subject to debate again at the next meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree, someone saying that there has been enough debate is not the same as ordering the Previous Question.   And even if it were, postponing it to a future (not adjourned) meeting, as appears to have happened, with or without a proviso to limit debate, all such limits would be exhausted by then.

 

But as Mr. Lages pointed out, one could immediately make a motion for the PQ at the next session, and by a 2/3 vote eliminate further discussion at that time.

 

I assume that's how all this PQ stuff got started.

 

 

OP Jack, if anyone claims that debate is not in order at the next meeting, do not "object" but instead raise a Point of Order that debate cannot be limited in advance, and offer the RONR citations listed above in earlier replies.   

[Josh Martin]

Anyway, due to the lateness of the hour a motion was made to take this motion up at a later meeting but that no further discussion would be allowed and only a vote would be taken.  I objected that no further discussion would be allowed but someone else contended that the discussion was already done and the vote just needed to be taken.  My question is, Is this a proper use of a motion to postpone?    It seems to me that a time limit for discussion would need to be proposed or a motion to end discussion needed to be made. 

 

No, this is not a proper use of the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time. As you suggest, a motion to Limit Debate or for the Previous Question would be necessary, and it would probably be necessary to make such a motion at the later meeting, as the effect of such motions is "exhausted" at the end of a session.

 

I agree, someone saying that there has been enough debate is not the same as ordering the Previous Question.   And even if it were, postponing it to a future (not adjourned) meeting, as appears to have happened, with or without a proviso to limit debate, all such limits would be exhausted by then.

 

To be clear, there is no such thing as a motion to Postpone to a Certain Time "with a proviso to limit debate."

[Gary Novosielski]

No, this is not a proper use of the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time. As you suggest, a motion to Limit Debate or for the Previous Question would be necessary, and it would probably be necessary to make such a motion at the later meeting, as the effect of such motions is "exhausted" at the end of a session.

 

 

To be clear, there is no such thing as a motion to Postpone to a Certain Time "with a proviso to limit debate."

 

Agreed that there is no such thing as the "proviso to limit debate" for the future, when the motion is taken up at the next meeting.  When it is taken up, debate limits are reset to two speeches of ten minutes each (or as set by some other rule).  

 

But it is a proper use of the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time, if the hour is getting late, and the assembly wishes to delay this matter to the next meeting, just so long as they don't try to tack a proviso on it.  Hey, I'm just glad they didn't try to "table" it.

[Richard Brown]

Hey, I'm just glad they didn't try to "table" it.

 

Based on what I have been seeing in this forum, I'm beginning to think that the misuse of the motion "Lay on the Table" is one of the most....and maybe THE most misunderstood and misused of all motions.  Thank goodness that it is generally misused as a motion to "postpone to a definite time" and usually no real harm results other than perpetuating the misuse.

 

Certainly it ranks right up there with improper definitions of "majority vote" and when the chair votes.  Oh, and the "Previous Question".

 

Has anybody ever ranked the motions and procedures most commonly misunderstood or asked about on here?