Conceptual Review

[Guest Bridget]

Does conceptual review on a case need a motion to approve, table, or whatever the case may be. For example, I had a conceptual review case where we tabled it to the next meeting, but no one made a motion or approved it to be tabled, then the next meeting the conceptual review was approved, but still no motion or "official approval" was taken. 

Should it be under discussion or new business? 

[J. J.]

Could you define what a "conceptual review" is? 

[Guest Bridget]

It is the review of a case for the Boards opinions and concerns before it brought to board for "full approval". 

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

And what is a "case?" Are you talking about some kind of legal proceedings (in which case the relevant legal code comes into play, and you need the advice of an attorney rather than a parliamentarian).

Is a "conceptual review" defined in your organization's bylaws or constitution? If so, what exactly does it say?

That is not a term that is defined in Robert's Rules, so ultimately it may be a matter of your organization's interpretation of its rules. But it sounds to me as if the result of such a review is some sort of advice regarding the case. Such advice, in parliamentary language, would properly be offered as a resolution, which is a main motion (offered by one of your members) - something like, "I move that we adopt the following advice on the case . . ."

As for where it comes on the agenda, it is likely new business, but we don't know your structure and manner of operating. It could come under the report of one of your officers, or a committee, or elsewhere.

[jstackpo]

Like an interim or partial report from a committee?  RONR, p. 527?

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Guest Bridget said:

For example, I had a conceptual review case where we tabled it to the next meeting, but no one made a motion or approved it to be tabled,

Well, someone (likely the chair) must have said, "It is tabled to the next meeting". If no one objected at the time, then it sounds like the chair assumed the motion (to table) and it was approved by unanimous consent (ie: no one objected). This is described in the RONR under "Adoption of a Motion, or Action Without a Motion, by Unanimous Consent" which begins on p.54 (emphasis added).

Similarly the approval of the "conceptual review" sounds like it was also done by unanimous consent.

As long as all members understood what was going on, both of these sound fine. This is a great timesaver for non-controversial matters.

For the purposes of this answer, it does not matter what a conceptual review actually is; I'm only commenting on how the matter was handled. Also for the purposes of this answer, I have ignored the misuse of the term "table". Correctly, the item was Postponed to the next meeting.

 

Edited May 15, 2018 at 03:55 PM by Atul Kapur, PRP "Student"

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

6 hours ago, Guest Bridget said:

Should it be under discussion or new business? 

There is no such heading as "discussion" in the standard order of business. Items that are postponed to the next meeting with no other qualification come up under General Orders and Unfinished Business.

[Gary Novosielski]

And for more information on why the motion "to table" was improper, see here.