Can a motion to postpone to time certain be tabled?

[JDanielSmith]

The main motion is being debated. A motion is offered (and seconded) to postpone the motion to a particular time (time certain).

 

Can the motion to postpone to time certain then be tabled? (One reason for doing so might be to schedule a special meeting before the proposed time of postponement?)

 

If the motion to table is in order, and is subsequently adopted, what happens to the main motion? Is it still debatable, but a motion to postpone is out-of-order? Or, since the motion to postpone was tabled, that effectively puts aside the main motion too.

[jstackpo]

No, not in order.  You can table the whole package  --  main motion and postpone motion  --  but why do you want to?  You might be misusing Table.

 

The equivalent of scheduling a "special meeting" would be to fix the time to which to adjourn, and then adjourn.  Both these motions can be done while the postpone motion is pending (not "tabled"), as long as the adjourned meeting is not set for sooner than the time proposed to postpone to.  Or if it was, then the postpone motion would become out of order, or in need of amendment, since you cannot postpone something past the next meeting. (P. 183.)

 

Got all that?

[Chris Harrison]

If a motion is Laid on the Table it and everything adhering to it would go onto the Table (RONR pp. 214-215).  However, if the intent is to set up an Adjourned Meeting (RONR pp. 242-247) to consider the motion the proper motion to make would be Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn and then the motion to Postpone can be amended to reflect the date and time (and place if needed) of when the Adjourned Meeting was scheduled.

[JDanielSmith]

No, not in order.  You can table the whole package  --  main motion and postpone motion  --  but why do you want to?  You might be misusing Table.

 

The equivalent of scheduling a "special meeting" would be to fix the time to which to adjourn, and then adjourn.  Both these motions can be done while the postpone motion is pending (not "tabled"), as long as the adjourned meeting is not set for sooner than the time proposed to postpone to.  Or if it was, then the postpone motion would become out of order, or in need of amendment, since you cannot postpone something past the next meeting. (P. 183.)

The next meeting is in July (we're at the beginning of June); some members feel the need to decide on the issue quickly, i.e., without waiting a full month.  This is a public body, so it is somewhat difficult to schedule another meeting (the published calendar must be amended, public notice given, etc.); other than during the summer, the body meets twice each month, so it would be straight-forward to have another meeting in two weeks.

[Richard Brown]

It's my understanding that the original poster did not say the purpose of laying the motion on the table was to schedule a special meeting, but rather that trying to determine the date for a special meeting could be a reason for laying it on the table.  He was using it as an example. 

 

I think the motion to lay on the table could be perfectly proper, however, even if the purpose is to schedule a special meeting.  Assume that someone has to check to find out when an acceptable meeting room will be available but the assembly does not want to hold up business and leave the members sitting twiddling their thumbs while trying to make those arrangements.  It makes perfect sense to lay the motion on the table and allow the meeting to continue while one or two members try to make the arrangements for  an adjourned meeting.  When some possible dates and locations are determined, the matter can be taken from the table and then dealt with by postponing to a certain time, setting an adjourned meeting, or however the assembly wants to handle it.

 

As to what happens to the original main  motion, as both John Stackpole and Chris Harrison said, you cannot lay just the motion to postpone or just the main motion on the table.  The whole package gets laid on the table.  Page 211 of RONR also addresses the issue as follows:

 

"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."

[JDanielSmith]

If a motion is Laid on the Table it and everything adhering to it would go onto the Table (RONR pp. 214-215).  However, if the intent is to set up an Adjourned Meeting (RONR pp. 242-247) to consider the motion the proper motion to make would be Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn and then the motion to Postpone can be amended to reflect the date and time (and place if needed) of when the Adjourned Meeting was scheduled.

 

As I said in my response to @JDStackpole, this is a public body so scheduling another meeting requires a specific (legal) procedure and thus is probably best dealt with as a stand-alone motion.

 

Thank you for the RONR citation on tabling.

[JDanielSmith]

It's my understanding that the original poster did not say the purpose of laying the motion on the table was to schedule a special meeting, but rather that trying to determine the date for a special meeting could be a reason for laying it on the table.  He was using it as an example. 

 

I think the motion to lay on the table could be perfectly proper, however, even if the purpose is to schedule a special meeting.  Assume that someone has to check to find out when an acceptable meeting room will be available but the assembly does not want to hold up business and leave the members sitting twiddling their thumbs while trying to make those arrangements.  It makes perfect sense to lay the motion on the table and allow the meeting to continue while one or two members try to make the arrangements for  an adjourned meeting.  When some possible dates and locations are determined, the matter can be taken from the table and then dealt with by postponing to a certain time, setting an adjourned meeting, or however the assembly wants to handle it.

 

As to what happens to the original main  motion, as both John Stackpole and Chris Harrison said, you cannot lay just the motion to postpone or just the main motion on the table.  The whole package gets laid on the table.  Page 211 of RONR also addresses the issue as follows:

 

"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."

 

Does a motion to table require a purpose?  Does the (purported) purpose change what can be done?  Yes, the reason for tabling the motion to postpone was to determine whether the body wished to schedule another meeting before the proposed time of postponement.

 

In any case, we're now 3/3 that tabling the motion to postpone effectively sets aside the original (main) motion too.

[Weldon Merritt]

As I said in my response to @JDStackpole, this is a public body so scheduling another meeting requires a specific (legal) procedure and thus is probably best dealt with as a stand-alone motion.

 

I am confident that scheduling a special meeting would require following specific legal procedures, including the giving of proper notice. I am not so sure that this would be true for scheduling an adjourned meeting, which is parlimentarilly a continuation on the same meeting that is already in session. As always, of course, it is best to check with legal counsel on these sorts of questions. One can only hope that the legal counsel understands the difference between a special meeting and an adjourned meeting.

[JDanielSmith]

I am confident that scheduling a special meeting would require following specific legal procedures, including the giving of proper notice. I am not so sure that this would be true for scheduling an adjourned meeting, which is parlimentarilly a continuation on the same meeting that is already in session. As always, of course, it is best to check with legal counsel on these sorts of questions. One can only hope that the legal counsel understands the difference between a special meeting and an adjourned meeting.

 

State law says that after a fairly short period of time (36 hours?), public notice must again be given; so you can call it whatever you like, I'm not sure it matters much?  (This presumes that the body wants more than 36 hours to review the particular issue before making a decision.)

 

"Legal counsel" is not necessarily the same as "parliamentarian". :-)

 

[Weldon Merritt]

In any case, we're now 3/3 that tabling the motion to postpone effectively sets aside the original (main) motion too.

 

Actually, it is the main motion that is laid on the table, and the motion to postpone goes with it (not the other way around, altough the result is the same).

[jstackpo]

... an adjourned meeting, which is parlimentarilly a continuation on the same meeting that is already in session.

 

Not exactly. An adjourned meeting is a new separate meeting, but held as part of the same session, not a "continuation of the same meeting".   p. 93.   It is something of a hybrid however as it doesn't follow the "regular order of business", but picks up where the previous meeting left off, but with an initial opportunity for approving the minutes of that previous meeting.

 

Whether this makes any difference to the original poster, and his crack team of parliamentarian/lawyers, is for him to work out.

[JDanielSmith]

Actually, it is the main motion that is laid on the table, and the motion to postpone goes with it (not the other way around, altough the result is the same).

 

Is this just a technically, or an important difference?  For example (although probably a poor one in this case), the casually offered motion "to table until our next meeting" is usually understood as technically being a motion to postpone to time certain.

 

So is tabling the motion to postpone technically incorrect (like the casual motion to table) and should be understood to actually mean tabling the main motion?

 

[Weldon Merritt]

"Legal counsel" is not necessarily the same as "parliamentarian". :-)

 

 

Very true. That's why parliamentarians defer to legal counsel on clearly legal issues. But it also is why legal counsel sometimes need parliamentary advice. And of course applicable state law trumps RONR, so if the law indeed require a new notice after 36 hours, then that controls.

[Weldon Merritt]

Not exactly. An adjourned meeting is a new separate meeting, but held as part of the same session, not a "continuation of the same meeting".   p. 93.   It is something of a hybrid however as it doesn't follow the "regular order of business", but picks up where the previous meeting left off, but with an initial opportunity for approving the minutes of that previous meeting.

 

Whether this makes any difference to the original poster, and his crack team of parliamentarian/lawyers, is for him to work out.

 

Good point, John. I was using the term "meeting" when I should have used "session." I don't think it makes any difference to the point I was making, or to the apparent state law requirement for a new notice after 36 hours.

[Weldon Merritt]

Is this just a technically, or an important difference?  For example (although probably a poor one in this case), the casually offered motion "to table until our next meeting" is usually understood as technically being a motion to postpone to time certain.

 

So is tabling the motion to postpone technically incorrect (like the casual motion to table) and should be understood to actually mean tabling the main motion?

 

 

I suppose it is more of a technicality than a real difference, so long as it is understood that the main motion and all adhering motions go to the table together.

[JDanielSmith]

Very true. That's why parliamentarians defer to legal counsel on clearly legal issues. But it also is why legal counsel sometimes need parliamentary advice.

 

In my experience, counsel is primarily concerned about getting sued, creating liability, or other such things; the process of reaching a decision in an orderly manner is of little concern.  Unfortunately, there can be a tendency to conflate legal and parliamentary issues.

[JDanielSmith]

Whether this makes any difference to the original poster, and his crack team of parliamentarian/lawyers, is for him to work out.

 

I only wish...this is a public body (elected officials), so there are a wide variety of disparate interests/concerns. RONR doesn't make the cut.

[jstackpo]

Occurs to me that, since an adjourned meeting picks up where the initial meeting left off, the adjourned meeting will be using whatever remains of the original agenda for the meeting, if such an agenda was legally required and/or made public.  So, if you hold the adjourned meeting within 36 hours (not too late now, I trust) you could argue that no additional public notice is required to hold the adjourned meeting as there will be no surprises introduced.

 

As you note, a special meeting would require the (required legal) notice as it is a stand-alone complete meeting (with other limitations) and is considered a separate session  --  p. 92.

 

All this presumes, of course, that RONR applies, at least in part  --  this part  --  to your "public body" meeting.

[JDanielSmith]

Occurs to me that, since an adjourned meeting picks up where the initial meeting left off, the adjourned meeting will be using whatever remains of the original agenda for the meeting, if such an agenda was legally required and/or made public.  So, if you hold the adjourned meeting within 36 hours (not too late now, I trust) you could argue that no additional public notice is required to hold the adjourned meeting as there will be no surprises introduced.

 

The problem is that body likely wants more than 36 hours to review the issue (the motion to postpone was until the next regular meeting, a month away).

 

Assuming an something like an "adjourned meeting" would work, how would the body deal with other items which remain on the agenda?  Wouldn't the current meeting immediately end?

[Weldon Merritt]

 

Assuming an something like an "adjourned meeting" would work, how would the body deal with other items which remain on the agenda?  Wouldn't the current meeting immediately end?

 

No. The motion to fix the time to which to adjourn does not adjorun the current meeting; it just establishes the date and time (and the location if different) for the adjourned meeting. Then the current meeting continues until it is adjourned, either by motion or because there is no further business to consider. The confusion probably arises from the term "adjourned meeting," which does seem to indicate that the current meeting is being adjourred, but like many parliamentary terms, it is a term of art that has a specifc meeing that differs from what it might seem to mean.

 

Although apparenty not relevant to your situation, the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn is one of the few motions that can be made when the motion to adjourn is pending. If properly made and seconded, the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn is voted on first, and then consideration of the motion to adjourn is resumed.

 

If an adjourned meeting has been set, then any business not reached at the time the current meeting is adjourned is taken up at the point where the meeting was adjourned.

 

[Edited to add the third paragraph.]

[Dan Honemann]

Does a motion to table require a purpose?  Does the (purported) purpose change what can be done?  Yes, the reason for tabling the motion to postpone was to determine whether the body wished to schedule another meeting before the proposed time of postponement.

 

In any case, we're now 3/3 that tabling the motion to postpone effectively sets aside the original (main) motion too.

 

A motion to table a motion to postpone is never in order, and neither is a motion to postpone a motion to postpone or a motion to postpone a main motion while a motion to postpone it is already pending. A motion to table a main motion is seldom in order (with or without a motion to postpone also pending), and this does not as yet appear to me to be one of the few instances in which it would be in order.