Time Limit on something that is Tabled

[Tina Marie]

I am a member of a State Organization that holds a meeting for all the Auxiliaries to meet once a year. Saturday was our annual meeting, in reviewing the Treasure's Report there were several issues and an audit that needed to be "Approved as read with updates mailed to everyone," instead someone wanted to table the report until May 2017. Our Past President serving as parliamentarian was adamant that we could not table something for that long. 

We are awaiting an audit and news from the IRS (past president incorrectly filed our non-profit paperwork)-- Could we have tabled the report?

Thanks

[Richard Brown]

I think you are incorrectly using the term "table".  Such an error is common.  I think what was being attempted was actually to POSTPONE the action on the report until the May 2017 meeting.  The motion to "lay on the table" (not to "table") is to be used to lay something aside temporarily in order to take up more pressing business, normally for just a few minutes. (Thus the phrase, "lay on the table".  Literally.)  That motion should not be used when it is desired to delay considering something beyond the current session.  In fact, if a motion is laid on the table and not taken up at the next session within a quarterly time interval, it dies. 

The correct motion to use is the motion to postpone definitely (or to a definite date or time).  However, we treat motions based on what they are trying to accomplish, rather than what they are called.  So, most parliamentarians would treat the motion as a motion to postpone until May, 2017.  I am doing that, too.

However, there is another problem with postponing the action until May 2017:  a motion cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting that occurs within a quarterly time interval.  A motion to postpone something for a year is out of order.

The only way to postpone something beyond the next meeting (or for more than a quarterly time interval) is to refer it to a committee.

So, the answer to your question is, no, you could not have "tabled" (or postponed) the report until May, 2017, being a full year... well in excess of the quarterly time interval limitation.   And your past president serving as parliamentarian was right. 

btw, I hope your "past president/member parliamentarian" was not participating in debate, making motions or voting except when the vote is by ballot.  RONR provides that a member of the assembly who is serving as parliamentarian must give up those rights.  From page 467 of RONR:

"A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion. "

There are a couple of ways around that prohibition, though.  One is that your organization can adopt a special rule of order that permits a member parliamentarian to retain the right to debate, make motions, and vote.  Another is to not have an official member parliamentarian at all.  RONR provides that if the presiding officer is uncertain about procedure or a rule of order, he can consult with an "experienced member".   Perhaps your past president can be that "experienced member". 

From page 254:  "Before rendering his decision, the chair can consult the parliamentarian, if there is one. The chair can also request the advice of experienced members, but no one has the right to express such opinions in the meeting unless requested to do so by the chair."

 

[Tina Marie]

Thank you for the clarification! Someone did ask to "refer to a committee" and that caused great confusion. I will pass this along to the current President. I know when I was asked to serve, I did not vote or discuss- it was all it could do to keep up with 50 women that "knew more than me"  , but I am not 100% sure what the Past President's role was. I do know she struggled to "keep up" also! 

Maybe I can just have you on speed dial for our "Round 2" in July when we go over by-laws! LOL 

Thanks for the clarification!!

[Richard Brown]

2 minutes ago, Tina Marie said:

Thank you for the clarification! Someone did ask to "refer to a committee" and that caused great confusion. I will pass this along to the current President.

In the future if it is desired to put off or postpone something for more than one meeting (or for longer than a quarterly time interval), the matter can be referred to a committee with instructions to report at whatever meeting is desired.  In the example you used, the committee could have been instructed to report back at the May, 2017 meeting. 

[Tina Marie]

1 minute ago, Richard Brown said:

In the example you used, the committee could have been instructed to report back at the May, 2017 meeting. 

And that is what caused great confusion with our more "seasoned" members that insisted that motion was invalid. I am just relieved that I had the right idea, just should not have used the term "tabled" but should have asked for the committee to report back. This would have been a little bit better received.  

[Joshua Katz]

By the way, it isn't just because we're old-fashioned sticklers that we insist on this distinction.  It's because "lay on the table" is undebatable - as makes sense, and "postpone to a certain time" is debatable.  

[Shmuel Gerber]

4 hours ago, Tina Marie said:

Someone did ask to "refer to a committee" and that caused great confusion.

This is a regrettably sad state of affairs. It might help if people stated exactly what they wanted to accomplish instead of trying (and failing) to use parliamentary terminology.

If I were a member at a meeting when a motion was pending that the auditors' report be "approved as read with updates mailed to everyone," and then someone moved "to table the report until May 2017," and then someone else moved "to refer to a committee," I might also be subject to feelings of great confusion.