How to handle tabled item until next board meeting

[Guest David Stokes]

On 9/14/15 the FY 2015 to 2016 County budget was on the agenda under new business. A commissioner (there are 5 sitting commissioners with one serving as chair) made a motion to approve the budget. There was no second and then a commissioner made a motion to table the budget until 9/28/15 and there was a second. This was the last item of new business on the agenda. There was no more other pressing item that was more urgent to entertain. The reason for the motion to table was 3 of the 5 commissioners did not want the tax assessors line item for legal defense in his budget to be increased. Please advise how this should be handled. The proposed budget had increased that line item.

[Richard Brown]

This sounds as much (or more) like a political issue than a parliamentary one.

 

From a parliamentary standpoint, the motion that was made "to table" the budget to Sept 28 should have been a motion "to postpone definitely" (or "to a definite time") rather than as a motion "to table" and should have been treated as such.  There is actually no such thing as a motion "to table".  The correct name of that motion is to "lay on the table".   It's purpose is to lay something aside temporarily in order to reach something more pressing and then to take it back up again once the pressing business is disposed of, usually at the same meeting.   It is frequently misused as it was in your meeting.

 

However, even if the chair treated it as a motion to lay on the table and it was adopted as such, it was, in essence, postponed until the next meeting (session).  A matter laid on the table can be taken from the table either at the same meeting session or at the next meeting session.  So, once the meeting adjourned, it was effectively postponed until the next meeting.

 

There's a big caveat, though:  It does not come up automatically at the next meeting, but there must be a motion to "take from the table" in order to take it up.  If it is not taken from the table by the end of your next meeting, it dies.

 

See sections 17 and 34 in RONR for more information on the motions to "lay on the table" and "take from the table".

 

Edited to add:   Because of your statement that the budget was the last item on the agenda and there was no other pressing business to take up, I suspect you already know that the motion "to table" was misused.  The chair should have inquired as to the intent of the member who made the incorrect motion and then ruled it out of order if told that the purpose was to postpone it until the next meeting or to kill it.   But, since that didn't happen, it is my opinion that it was adopted as a motion  "to lay on the table" and can be taken from the table at the next meeting.   Others may believe that it should be treated as a motion to postpone until the next meeting.  As a practical matter, I don't think it makes any difference as long as it does in fact get taken from the table at the next meeting.  Stay tuned for other comments.

Edited September 24, 2015 at 03:08 PM by Richard Brown

[Tom Coronite]

The reason for the motion to table was 3 of the 5 commissioners did not want the tax assessors line item for legal defense in his budget to be increased. Please advise how this should be handled. The proposed budget had increased that line item.

 

Why not offer an amendment to the proposed budget?  An amendment to keep the legal defense item the same might have been the way to go, especially as it appears you had the votes to pass it. Otherwise, don't you just have the same problem at the next meeting?

[Richard Brown]

. Please advise how this should be handled. The proposed budget had increased that line item.

What exactly is it that you want to know how to handle?

[Transpower]

After the motion to accept the proposed budget is seconded, debate should commence, at which point amendments can be made and debated.  This is very normal parliamentary procedure!

[Shmuel Gerber]

This sounds as much (or more) like a political issue than a parliamentary one.

 

From a parliamentary standpoint, the motion that was made "to table" the budget to Sept 28 should have been a motion "to postpone definitely" (or "to a definite time") rather than as a motion "to table" and should have been treated as such.  There is actually no such thing as a motion "to table".  The correct name of that motion is to "lay on the table".   It's purpose is to lay something aside temporarily in order to reach something more pressing and then to take it back up again once the pressing business is disposed of, usually at the same meeting.   It is frequently misused as it was in your meeting.

 

However, even if the chair treated it as a motion to lay on the table and it was adopted as such, it was, in essence, postponed until the next meeting (session).  A matter laid on the table can be taken from the table either at the same meeting session or at the next meeting session.  So, once the meeting adjourned, it was effectively postponed until the next meeting.

 

There's a big caveat, though:  It does not come up automatically at the next meeting, but there must be a motion to "take from the table" in order to take it up.  If it is not taken from the table by the end of your next meeting, it dies.

 

See sections 17 and 34 in RONR for more information on the motions to "lay on the table" and "take from the table".

 

Edited to add:   Because of your statement that the budget was the last item on the agenda and there was no other pressing business to take up, I suspect you already know that the motion "to table" was misused.  The chair should have inquired as to the intent of the member who made the incorrect motion and then ruled it out of order if told that the purpose was to postpone it until the next meeting or to kill it.   But, since that didn't happen, it is my opinion that it was adopted as a motion  "to lay on the table" and can be taken from the table at the next meeting.   Others may believe that it should be treated as a motion to postpone until the next meeting.  As a practical matter, I don't think it makes any difference as long as it does in fact get taken from the table at the next meeting.  Stay tuned for other comments.

 

You seem to be ignoring the original poster's mention that the motion to approve the budget was not seconded. This fact would be notable only if the board of commissioners (or whatever this body is called) requires motions to be seconded, in which case the chair should have announced there was no second, and that the motion to approve has died for that reason, before entertaining any other motions.

[Richard Brown]

You seem to be ignoring the original poster's mention that the motion to approve the budget was not seconded. This fact would be notable only if the board of commissioners (or whatever this body is called) requires motions to be seconded, in which case the chair should have announced there was no second, and that the motion to approve has died for that reason, before entertaining any other motions.

You're right:  I did overlook the fact that the motion to approve the budget was not seconded.  It is also true that under the small board rules in RONR seconds might not be required in this commission (board?) of five, but we don't know if seconds are required in this commission (which appears to be a public body).

 

Assuming a second was required (something we don't know), then the motion to "table" was out of order for the additional reason that there was no motion on the floor to "table" or do anything else with...as you pointed out.  However, since no timely point of order was raised and the motion to approve the budget was tabled as if it was properly before the assembly, it seems to me that my previous responses are still applicable, but that the motion to "table" the budget was our of  order for the additional reason that the motion to approve the budget was never under consideration to start with. 

 

Wouldn't that fact (the lack of a second) be moot once the motion to "table" the approval of the budget was adopted?

 

What is your understanding of the current status of the "ta(bling" of the motion to approve the budget?  Is it different from my analysis?  If so, in what way?

[Tom Coronite]

Because the OP added the last sentence "The proposed budget had increased that line item" after asking how "this" should be handled, I surmised he was asking how the dissatisfaction with the particular line item in question should be handled, not how tabling or postponing the budget should be handled. 

 

But maybe not.  I guess we won't know unless David Stokes comes back.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Wouldn't that fact (the lack of a second) be moot once the motion to "table" the approval of the budget was adopted?

What is your understanding of the current status of the "ta(bling" of the motion to approve the budget? Is it different from my analysis? If so, in what way?

I prefer not to speculate about such things. Robert's Rules is more about how to guide the assembly so the meeting doesn't get derailed than about how to pick up the pieces from a flaming wreck. :-)

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/14/15 the FY 2015 to 2016 County budget was on the agenda under new business. A commissioner (there are 5 sitting commissioners with one serving as chair) made a motion to approve the budget. There was no second and then a commissioner made a motion to table the budget until 9/28/15 and there was a second. This was the last item of new business on the agenda. There was no more other pressing item that was more urgent to entertain. The reason for the motion to table was 3 of the 5 commissioners did not want the tax assessors line item for legal defense in his budget to be increased. Please advise how this should be handled. The proposed budget had increased that line item.

 

The non-crazy thing to have done would have been to move to amend the proposed budget by changing that line.  Then when the amendment passed (as it would if 3 of the 5 wanted it), the entire (amended) budget could be voted on, and you'd be done by now.  As it is, you have stalled for time, but nothing is likely to change.  Oh, and of course the motion to table should properly have been a motion to postpone, but that doesn't change the situation appreciably.  Sooner or later you're going to have to pass a budget.

[Guest Magellen]

My question is - the item was tabled (even incorrectly) but now do we add that item to the next agenda so it can be taken off the table?  or does someone have to do this "off the cuff"?

[jstackpo]

If the item was "tabled until the next meeting" or the like, it should be considered as postponed to that next meeting.  The chair should then bring it up as a "general order" - see p. 358 - automatically, when the time comes.

If the item was properly tabled, then any member can move to take it it from the table, most likely as new business.

No need to mention the item in any proposed agenda.

[jstackpo]

BTW, next time post your new question in a new topic.

[Guest Pinky]

City Council tabled a piece of legislation now they want to bring it back around. I honestly thought once you tabled an item that it dies and cannot be un-tabled. However, my thought is that it has to be reintroduced as a new item and given a sub-number with(A). Please advise.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/20/2023 at 6:22 PM, Guest Pinky said:

City Council tabled a piece of legislation now they want to bring it back around. I honestly thought once you tabled an item that it dies and cannot be un-tabled. However, my thought is that it has to be reintroduced as a new item and given a sub-number with(A). Please advise.

First, for future reference, this forum generally works best when you post a new question as a new topic. To your questions, however...

No, it is not correct that once an item is "tabled," it "dies" and cannot be "un-tabled."

The motion to Lay on the Table is properly used to temporarily set aside a motion in order to take up some other urgent business. The motion is frequently confused with either the motion to Postpone Indefinitely (which is used to kill a motion with a direct vote on the motion) or to Postpone to a Certain Time (which is used to delay a motion until the next meeting or later time in the same meeting). See FAQ #12 and #13.

When a motion is laid on the table, it can be taken from the table by adopting a motion to Take from the Table. Ordinarily, this is done promptly after the other urgent business is completed. If unusual circumstances arise and the motion cannot be taken up at that time, then the motion remains on the table for the duration of the current meeting and for the next regular meeting (provided that meeting is within a quarterly interval). After that point, if the motion has still not been taken from the table, it then "dies." Once again, accomplishing this is not the intended purpose of this motion.

In any event, after the tabled motion has died, the motion may indeed be renewed, or as you put it, reintroduced. RONR has no rules concerning items and sub-numbers - you will need to look to your council's rules on that matter.

You should also check whether your council has its own rules on these subjects. If so, those rules would take precedence over RONR.

[Atul Kapur]

On 6/21/2023 at 7:29 AM, Josh Martin said:

then the motion remains on the table for the duration of the current meeting and for the next regular meeting (provided that meeting is within a quarterly interval)

Because this is a City Council, the distinction between a session and a meeting may be important as to how long the motion can lay on the table and still be taken up. I have seen a few (very few) City Council's that define a session as a year long. 

But on the main point, I agree with Mr. Martin that

On 6/21/2023 at 7:29 AM, Josh Martin said:

it is not correct that once an item is "tabled," it "dies" and cannot be "un-tabled."