Entertaining a motion that circumvents agenda

[Jamey]

If there is a topic to be discussed that was placed on the agenda, and a person makes a motion to table the topic while the subject is being discussed. It is then seconded, does this motion have to be entertained or can the Chair rule the motion out of order? Or can the motion simply be ignored and continue the discussion?

[Edgar Guest]

For agendas, see FAQ #14.

 

For the motion to Lay on the Table, see FAQs #12 and #13.

[Josh Martin]

If there is a topic to be discussed that was placed on the agenda, and a person makes a motion to table the topic while the subject is being discussed. It is then seconded, does this motion have to be entertained or can the Chair rule the motion out of order?

I'm not entirely certain based upon the facts provided. For what reason is the member proposing to lay the question on the table? The motion to Lay on the Table is frequently misused, and it is quite possible that a different motion is the appropriate tool. The appropriate use of this motion is to set aside a motion temporarily in order to take up some other urgent business. If that is the member's intent, the motion must be entertained.

If the member has something else in mind, the motion to Lay on the Table should be ruled out of order, but the chair should inform the member of the appropriate motion for his goal. See FAQ #12 and FAQ #13.

The fact that the topic in question is on the agenda has nothing to do with whether the motion to Lay on the Table is in order.

Or can the motion simply be ignored and continue the discussion?

No, it is not appropriate to simply ignore the motion.

[Jamey]

The member never stated why the motion to lay on the table was given, I think I can safely assume that it wasn't for other urgent business. In my response to the person that posed this question to me, I said that because the motion was not made properly (to the extent of clearly stating the motion's intent), the chair only had one of two choices:

1. declaring it out of order (with further explanation). Or

2. Entertaining the motion, because it was properly seconded.

I also said that in any case, it can't be simply ignored as if nothing took place. I guess I shouldn't say "can't be" since it in fact was [ignored].

[Jamey]

I'm just curious to know if my response was sound.

[Josh Martin]

The member never stated why the motion to lay on the table was given, I think I can safely assume that it wasn't for other urgent business. In my response to the person that posed this question to me, I said that because the motion was not made properly (to the extent of clearly stating the motion's intent), the chair only had one of two choices:

1. declaring it out of order (with further explanation). Or

2. Entertaining the motion, because it was properly seconded.

I also said that in any case, it can't be simply ignored as if nothing took place. I guess I shouldn't say "can't be" since it in fact was [ignored].

 

The chair should have asked why the member wished to lay the motion on the table. Once that was clear, the chair would then know whether to state the question on the motion or to rule it out of order. If it was out of order, he also would then have known what motion to tell the member to make instead. The chair doesn't really have a choice on whether to entertain a motion. If the motion is in order, he states the question on the motion. If the motion is not in order, he rules it out of order.

 

It is quite correct that it was inappropriate to simply ignore the motion as if nothing happened.

[jstackpo]

And in case this concern was a part of the original question....

 

It is perfectly proper to move to postpone (or commit, or a number of other "parliamentary" motions) a (main) motion that has been placed on an agenda and moved so that it is now pending.   Just because a topic has been placed on an agenda (even one that was adopted at the start of the meeting), the appropriate motion doesn't have to be acted upon and finally disposed of right then and there.   Any number of the "subsidiary" motions may be adopted, some of which will make the man motion "go away" for a while, depending on what the subsidiary motion (if adopted) calls for.   It will be back, however, unless defeated (or postponed indefinitely).  And even if defeated someone can make the motion all over again, next meeting.