Postponed to a Certain Time

[Guest Victoria Cohen]

If an agenda items if Postponed Until a Certain Time (4-6 months out), for an organization that meets monthly,  should the item continue to appear on the agenda, under Unfinished Business, each month?

[George Mervosh]

If an agenda items if Postponed Until a Certain Time (4-6 months out), for an organization that meets monthly,  should the item continue to appear on the agenda, under Unfinished Business, each month?

 

If you meet monthly you can't postpone a motion longer than the next monthly meeting.  Once it comes up it next month it can be postponed again, but postponing something that far out is improper.  And it appears under General Orders, not Unfinished Business.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Well, if it is not taken up at the next meeting, it will fall under Unfinished Business at the following meeting. After that, it will remain under Unfinished Business at each meeting until it is taken up.

 

However, I agree that it is improper to postpone an item 4-6 months out.

[Bruce Lages]

Well, if it is not taken up at the next meeting, it will fall under Unfinished Business at the following meeting. After that, it will remain under Unfinished Business at each meeting until it is taken up.

 

 

Are you referring to the situation where the motion to postpone is renewed at each subsequent meeting?

[Richard Brown]

Well, if it is not taken up at the next meeting, it will fall under Unfinished Business at the following meeting. After that, it will remain under Unfinished Business at each meeting until it is taken up.

Hieu, are you sure about that?  Do you have a citation for it?  That would seem to defeat the rule that a motion cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting unless it is again postponed at each meeting.

 

I don't believe that lines 26-30 on page 358 overrule the specific rule that a matter cannot  be postponed beyond the next meeting.

 

The whole thing has me confused now....   What am I missing?  Is this a conflict in RONR? 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

"Of these, the first three constitute "Unfinished Business". . . 

c ) Any questions which, by postponement or otherwise, were set as general orders for the previous meeting, or for a particular hour during that meeting, but were not reached before it adjourned. . ." (RONR 11th ed., p. 358)

[Richard Brown]

"Of these, the first three constitute "Unfinished Business". . . 

c ) Any questions which, by postponement or otherwise, were set as general orders for the previous meeting, or for a particular hour during that meeting, but were not reached before it adjourned. . ." (RONR 11th ed., p. 35

I referred to that in my post above.  That is a general rule.

 

What about the specific rule that a motion may not be postponed beyond the next meeting?

 

This would appear to allow groups that want to postpone something for, say four months, to  just postpone it for one month and then ignore it for the next three meetings and take it up in the fourth meeting without having to postpone  it again at each meeting.

 

Edited to add:  I believe we had a thread a few months ago, which I participated in, and the specific question was asked whether something postponed for one month (assuming monthly meetings) but not taken up at the next meeting remains unfinished  business for month after month, ad infinitum, that  can suddenly be taken up by surprise  six months (or a year or more) later.  I'll try to find that thread, but can't  do it right now.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

See this thread.

[Weldon Merritt]

I referred to that in my post above.  That is a general rule.

 

What about the specific rule that a motion may not be postponed beyond the next meeting?

 

This would appear to allow groups that want to postpone something for, say four months, to  just postpone it for one month and then ignore it for the next three meetings and take it up in the fourth meeting without having to postpone  it again at each meeting.

 

Edited to add:  I believe we had a thread a few months ago, which I participated in, and the specific question was asked whether something postponed for one month (assuming monthly meetings) but not taken up at the next meeting remains unfinished  business for month after month, ad infinitum, that  can suddenly be taken up by surprise  six months (or a year or more) later.  I'll try to find that thread, but can't  do it right now.

 

I don't see a conflcit. If your view were correct, then the lines quoted by Hieu would not make sense. I think the imporatnt distinction is that the postponed matter can be taken up at the next meeting. In fact, it automatcialy will be taken up unless the meeting is adjourned before it is reached, or it is again postponed. If postponement beyoine the next  meeting were allowed, the matter could not be taken up at the next meeting, except perhaps by suspending the rules to take it up earlier (assumning that would not violate absentee rights).

[Richard Brown]

See this thread.

Thank you, Hieu.  That is one of the threads I was thinking of, as well as the thread referred to within that thread, and also this thread:  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/23009-when-does-unfinished-business-die/

 

It seems to be a confusing topic, and perhaps makes it possible for someone who  wants to postpone  something to a meeting three months away to just postpone it to the next meeting and then let it sit, without anybody calling it up, for the next two meetings and then call it up at the third meeting.  It just seems to so clearly defeat the rule that something can't be postponed beyond the next meeting (assuming monthly meetings).

 

Perhaps a statement in the section on "Postpone to a certain time" in RONR can have a sentence or bullet point or footnote added that says, "However, see page 358, lines 26-30 regarding items which are postponed to the next meeting but not reached at that meeting".

 

Edited to add:  Or just treat it as the Motion to Lay on the Table and say that it dies if not taken up by the next meeting.  

 

If it's not going to die, then why not remove the rule that says it cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting?  The statement that a motion cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting is rather like a meaningless fiction.

[Weldon Merritt]

Thank you, Hieu.  That is one of the threads I was thinking of, as well as the thread referred to within that thread, and also this thread:  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/23009-when-does-unfinished-business-die/

 

It seems to be a confusing topic, and perhaps makes it possible for someone who  wants to postpone  something to a meeting three months away to just postpone it to the next meeting and then let it sit, without anybody calling it up, for the next two meetings and then call it up at the third meeting.  It just seems to so clearly defeat the rule that something can't be postponed beyond the next meeting (assuming monthly meetings).

 

Perhaps a statement in the section on "Postpone to a certain time" in RONR can have a sentence or bullet point or footnote added that says, "However, see page 358, lines 26-30 regarding items which are postponed to the next meeting but not reached at that meeting".

 

Edited to add:  Or just treat it as the Motion to Lay on the Table and say that it dies if not taken up by the next meeting.  

 

If it's not going to die, then why not remove the rule that says it cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting?  The statement that a motion cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting is rather like a meaningless fiction.

 

A motion that is postponed does not need to be called up. As I said in Post #9, it will come up automatically at the next meeting when Unfinished Busienss and General Orders is reached. The only it will not be conisdered at the next meeting (assuming the chair handles it correctly) is for the meeting to be adjourned before that item is reached, or for it to be postponed again, either of which would require a motion and a majority vote (or UC). There is, of course, a legitimate way to delay consideration beyond the next meeting; refer it to a committee with instructions to report at a specified later meeting. No need to change the rules on either Postpone or Lay on the Table.

[Josh Martin]

Thank you, Hieu.  That is one of the threads I was thinking of, as well as the thread referred to within that thread, and also this thread:  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/23009-when-does-unfinished-business-die/

 

It seems to be a confusing topic, and perhaps makes it possible for someone who  wants to postpone  something to a meeting three months away to just postpone it to the next meeting and then let it sit, without anybody calling it up, for the next two meetings and then call it up at the third meeting.  It just seems to so clearly defeat the rule that something can't be postponed beyond the next meeting (assuming monthly meetings).

 

Perhaps a statement in the section on "Postpone to a certain time" in RONR can have a sentence or bullet point or footnote added that says, "However, see page 358, lines 26-30 regarding items which are postponed to the next meeting but not reached at that meeting".

 

Edited to add:  Or just treat it as the Motion to Lay on the Table and say that it dies if not taken up by the next meeting.  

 

If it's not going to die, then why not remove the rule that says it cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting?  The statement that a motion cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting is rather like a meaningless fiction.

 

It's not a meaningless fiction at all. The purpose of the rule which prevents a motion from being postponed beyond the next meeting is to prevent an assembly from interfering with the freedom of the next session to decide whether to consider the issue at that time. If an assembly could postpone something to four months later (when the assembly meets monthly), the assembly at the next monthly meeting could not consider the motion.

 

If the assembly postpones it to the next session, and the assembly decides to adjourn before reaching that point in the order of business, it is due to the assembly's own actions that it did not consider the issue at that meeting. It still had the freedom to act on the motion if it wished to do so. If this happens several times (which is unlikely), this might ultimately mean that the motion is not considered until four months later, but it's not quite the same thing as postponing it to four months later.

 

As for all this business of the motion being taken up months later "by surprise," this can only happen if the President, the Secretary, and the rest of the assembly are ignorant of the rules. When an assembly is ignorant of the rules, all sorts of strange things can and will happen.  

[Bruce Lages]

I think an underlying question here is what happens if the postponed motion is simply ignored at the next meeting, as opposed to the meeting being adjourned before that point in the order of business is reached. Granted, doing so, especially more than once, shows an ignorance of the rules. But is there a point at which the postponed - and then ignored - motion simply dies?

[Guest Victoria Cohen]

Let me set the background for this question:

 

Homeowner Association Board of Directors has some sort of an agenda item that they decide they don't want to deal with at this time, but would like the manager to bring it back to them at a later date.  Often this is because of annual budgets, or seasonal maintenance items.  A common example is the Board asking for some bids to say...Tree Trimming, but they don't want to approve anything right now.  They may have asked for the bid for budget planning purposes, or to confirm a reserve item replacement value. There are numerous reasons an item can be on the agenda, and the board decides this is not the best time to deal with the item, and directs management to remind them, and put it back on the agenda at a future date.  Trying to figure out the best way to reflect this in the minutes, and of course follow RONR.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

You could adopt a motion to refer the items to management to report back at a future date.

[Josh Martin]

I think an underlying question here is what happens if the postponed motion is simply ignored at the next meeting, as opposed to the meeting being adjourned before that point in the order of business is reached. Granted, doing so, especially more than once, shows an ignorance of the rules. But is there a point at which the postponed - and then ignored - motion simply dies?

 

No - or at least, not necessarily. The motion may well die for some other reason. For instance, an assembly might meet monthly from September through April, but there are no meetings from May through August. Alternately, in a subordinate board, there will eventually be a periodic change in the board's membership.