Lie on the table

[Guest Victoria]

On 6 December 2017 for agenda item 5.16 Strategic Plan 2017-2022: This was said to be an information to action item. A motion was made to move it from information to action 2^nd was made and Dr. XXXX (board member) recommended the board approve the Strategic Plan 2017-2022 and a second was taken for the recommendation. A short presentation followed by Dr.  XXXXXXXXX along with significant debate by the board members that the document before them was not sufficient and needed changes to it.

A motion was made and 2^nd to Table the item until Feb 7.

On February 7 the Board took up agenda item 5.03 Strategic Plan 2018-2023: This was said to be information to action item. A motion was made to move it from information to action 2^nd was made and Dr XXXXXX recommended the board approve the Strategic Plan 2018-2023 A short presentation followed by Dr. XXXXX (staff member). In this presentation she notes that she was returning after the 6 December meeting stating based on public input and your thoughts you guided us to make some small targeted adjustments and then the panel highlights the changes made. The board members acknowledged their input was made to the document. A motion is on the floor to accept the strategic plan it is then 2^nd and voted on to approve it.

 No motion was made to Take the issue of the Strategic Plan from the table and reconsider it.  In addition modifications were made to the plan without motions to amend it or a Request for permission to withdraw or modify the motion to consider. Public input was not put into the document only board input.

If an motion is to Lie on the table until 7 Feb 18, seconded and carries, is amending it and bringing it forward as a new item on 7 Feb 18 a violation of the rules? does it null the action; is the item still on the table as it was not taken from the table? Can they avoid a vote this way?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

First, see FAQ #12 and 13.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Victoria said:

If an motion is to Lie on the table until 7 Feb 18, seconded and carries, is amending it and bringing it forward as a new item on 7 Feb 18 a violation of the rules?

Well, the problem started when a motion was made to table the motion until February 7th. The motion to Lay on the Table is not used to delay consideration of a motion until the next meeting. It is used to set aside a motion temporarily in order to permit some other more pressing business to be considered. The proper motion would have been to Postpone to a Certain Time. When a motion is postponed, it automatically comes before the assembly (in the same condition as it was when it was postponed) under Unfinished Business and General Orders. So that’s something to remember for next time.

To answer your question, however, yes, it was a violation of the rules to make a different motion on the same subject, since it is not in order to make a motion which conflicts with a motion which has been temporarily disposed of and is still under the control of the assembly.

1 hour ago, Guest Victoria said:

does it null the action;

No. Generally speaking, a Point of Order must be raised at the time of the violation. Only in particularly egregious cases does a violation cause a continuing breach, which would make a prior action null and void. The situation described here is not a continuing breach.

1 hour ago, Guest Victoria said:

is the item still on the table as it was not taken from the table?

No. Motions which are laid on the table die if they are not taken from the table before the adjournment of the next regular meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

The motion to Lay (a question) on the Table is seldom needed (and therefore rarely in order) in ordinary assemblies. Unless the purpose is to put a question aside temporarily so that a more urgent issue may be dealt with immediately, it is not being properly used.

Decide what you truly want to accomplish:  To postpone the motion, to refer it to a committee, to defeat it outright, and move or vote to do that.  Tabling is probably not in order.

Incidentally, Motions are laid on the table.  Members are not permitted to lie on the table with them.  

[Richard Brown]

The motion to lay on the table was not an appropriate motion under the circumstances. It seems obvious to me that the intent was to postpone the matter until the next meeting. It also appears to me that the assembly should have and did in fact treat the motion to table as a motion to postpone until the next meeting.

As has already been pointed out, a motion which has been postponed comes up automatically at the appropriate time. There is no need to "take it from the table". It should come up automatically.

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

It also appears to me that the assembly should have and did in fact treat the motion to table as a motion to postpone until the next meeting.

I don’t agree with this assessment. As I understand the facts, a member made a new main motion on the subject, with different wording. If the motion was, in fact, treated as a motion to postpone, then the motion would have automatically come before the assembly, and a member would have then moved to amend it.

Edited February 15, 2018 at 07:29 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

28 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I don’t agree with this assessment. As I understand the facts, a member made a new main motion on the subject, with different wording. If the motion was, in fact, treated as a motion to postpone, then the motion would have automatically come before the assembly, and a member would have then moved to amend it.  (Emphasis added).

Well, if it was treated as a motion to postpone, it SHOULD HAVE automatically come back before the assembly at the next meeting.  As we know all too well, things don't always happen as they should.  Apparently, it did not come back up at the next meeting.  From the facts as stated by the OP, it is hard for me to tell exactly what happened.  It appears they discussed one action plan (2017-2022) at the December meeting and laid it on the table or postponed it until the January meeting.  At the January meeting, a different action item came up... with a different agenda number and for the years 2018-2023).   So, I can't tell exactly what happened.

[J. J.]

As soon as a date was attached to "Lay on the Table" it should have been treated as a motion to Postpone.  The error could have been corrected only when it occurred at the December meeting.  

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Well, if it was treated as a motion to postpone, it SHOULD HAVE automatically come back before the assembly at the next meeting.  As we know all too well, things don't always happen as they should.  Apparently, it did not come back up at the next meeting.  From the facts as stated by the OP, it is hard for me to tell exactly what happened.  It appears they discussed one action plan (2017-2022) at the December meeting and laid it on the table or postponed it until the January meeting.  At the January meeting, a different action item came up... with a different agenda number and for the years 2018-2023).   So, I can't tell exactly what happened.

Since the assembly did it wrong either way, I suppose there is no real way to tell whether it was treated as a motion to Postpone to a Certain Time or as a motion to Lay on the Table.

Thankfully, the result is the same in either case. The main motion which proposed a different action plan was not in order, but it is too late to raise Point of Order regarding that issue.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

In addition to all of the foregoing, Lying on the Table is never recommended, even if the sturdy table is a sturdy one, and especially if it is already set for dinner.

[Gary Novosielski]

Don't lie on the table, don't lie while you have the floor.

Tell the truth both places.