Standing rule to automatically lay on the table?

[Jason H]

Our Association cites RONR (latest edition) as our parliamentary authority. Our Board is a "small Board" and frequently participates in informal discussions while no motions are pending.

 

Recently, a member made a motion that would set a time limit of 20 minutes on any "issue". Once the 20 minutes has expired the "issue" would be automatically "tabled until the next meeting unless there is time to revisit the topic before the close of the meeting."

 

I'm wondering if this motion was in order, and if so, is it really only applicable to informal discussions, rather than actual motions. (Don't really know what "issues" are.)

 

Is it in order to create a standing rule to automatically lay motions on the table based on a time limit? It's my understanding that the motion to "lay on the table" is only in order if there is another matter requiring immediate attention. If that is the case, it seems that a standing rule to automatically lay motions on the table would violate the requirement that another matter requiring immediate attention is present.  

 

Furthermore, if this motion was out of order, but had been adopted, would it constitute a continuing breach? If so, can a point of order be raised at a future meeting and how does the Association properly correct the breach?

[jstackpo]

Let's start by having you ask you member friend what he/she means by an "issue". He used the word, after all.

 

In RONR-land it would usually mean a subject for consideration embodied as a motion.  Give a motion under consideration (pending), a special rule of order to postpone (not table) it after 20 minutes would be proper, if a bit constraining.   But you bring up the "informal consideration" business (I almost typed "issue") which muddies the water.

 

Once we figure out what your friend had in mind, we can go from there.

[Gary Novosielski]

You can't table something that isn't a motion.  You can just stop discussing something, but there's nothing on the table at that point.

 

And even if it were a motion, it would be an improper use of the motion to Lay Upon the Table, which is seldom in order, as you note.

 

In any case, motions to close or limit debate (automatically, or not) are not in order in committees.  (See §50 --Conduct of Business in Committees)

[Richard Brown]

In any case, motions to close or limit debate (automatically, or not) are not in order in committees.  (See §50 --Conduct of Business in Committees)

I agree, but you do understand that the original poster is talking about his Board, not a committee, right?

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree, but you do understand that the original poster is talking about his Board, not a committee, right?

 

You can't table something that isn't a motion.  You can just stop discussing something, but there's nothing on the table at that point.

 

And even if it were a motion, it would be an improper use of the motion to Lay Upon the Table, which is seldom in order, as you note.

 

In any case, motions to close or limit debate (automatically, or not) are not in order in committees.  (See §50 --Conduct of Business in Committees)

 

Umm, Never Mind.

[Josh Martin]

Our Association cites RONR (latest edition) as our parliamentary authority. Our Board is a "small Board" and frequently participates in informal discussions while no motions are pending.

 

Recently, a member made a motion that would set a time limit of 20 minutes on any "issue". Once the 20 minutes has expired the "issue" would be automatically "tabled until the next meeting unless there is time to revisit the topic before the close of the meeting."

 

I'm wondering if this motion was in order, and if so, is it really only applicable to informal discussions, rather than actual motions. (Don't really know what "issues" are.)

 

Is it in order to create a standing rule to automatically lay motions on the table based on a time limit? It's my understanding that the motion to "lay on the table" is only in order if there is another matter requiring immediate attention. If that is the case, it seems that a standing rule to automatically lay motions on the table would violate the requirement that another matter requiring immediate attention is present.  

 

Furthermore, if this motion was out of order, but had been adopted, would it constitute a continuing breach? If so, can a point of order be raised at a future meeting and how does the Association properly correct the breach?

Since this is a board, the motion was probably not in order, and its adoption would constitute a continuing breach. The board is bound by the rules of the society, including the parliamentary authority. The board cannot adopt rules conflicting with the parliamentary authority unless authorized to do so by the society or its rules.

A Point of Order and an Appeal could be raised at a future meeting that the rule is null and void. Individual applications of the rule, however, would not be a continuing breach. If the rule is found to be null and void, it should no longer be enforced, but it would have no effect on proceedings which occurred while the rule was in force.

[jstackpo]

 The board cannot adopt rules conflicting with the parliamentary authority unless authorized to do so by the society or its rules.

 

 

Unless, of course, the OP is describing a "Stand Alone" Board that is independent of any other group.

[Jason H]

Unless, of course, the OP is describing a "Stand Alone" Board that is independent of any other group.

The Board is not "Stand Alone" and serves the general membership.

 

 

Since this is a board, the motion was probably not in order, and its adoption would constitute a continuing breach. The board is bound by the rules of the society, including the parliamentary authority. The board cannot adopt rules conflicting with the parliamentary authority unless authorized to do so by the society or its rules.

A Point of Order and an Appeal could be raised at a future meeting that the rule is null and void. Individual applications of the rule, however, would not be a continuing breach. If the rule is found to be null and void, it should no longer be enforced, but it would have no effect on proceedings which occurred while the rule was in force.

If a Point of Order is raised, which rule(s) of authority should be referenced to demonstrate that the motion was not in order?

Could the motion be made again to reflect the suggestions of Mr. Stackpole?

 

"Give a motion under consideration (pending), a special rule of order to postpone (not table) it after 20 minutes would be proper, if a bit constraining."

[jstackpo]

Unfortunately, the rule about a Board not being permitted to set its own rules (p. 456 & 486) slipped my mind (happening a lot, lately...) which means my quoted remark isn't quite correct.  I should have said:

 

"Give a motion under consideration (pending), a motion to postpone (not table) it would be proper."  But it would not be proper for the Board to adopt a Special Rule of Order to cause an automatic postponement for all future motions.

 

But we still don't know what the original member had in mind with "issue".

[Josh Martin]

If a Point of Order is raised, which rule(s) of authority should be referenced to demonstrate that the motion was not in order?

 

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 486)

 

Could the motion be made again to reflect the suggestions of Mr. Stackpole?

 

"Give a motion under consideration (pending), a special rule of order to postpone (not table) it after 20 minutes would be proper, if a bit constraining."

 

As noted previously, a board may not adopt rules which conflict with RONR, and a motion which automatically postpones motions (or other items of business) after 20 minutes is in conflict. A motion to adopt such a rule for board meetings would be in order at a meeting of the membership. Alternately, the membership could adopt a special rule of order which authorizes the board to adopt special rules of order for its own meetings which supersede the parliamentary authority (but not the society's other rules), in which event the board could then adopt the rule on its own. Adopting a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice.

[Jason H]

Excellent. Thank you all for the very useful information!