Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Robert Dingus

Topic was tabled during discussion how / where do we take it up

Recommended Posts

At our Annual meeting last year we had a Motion offered, it was stated by the chair, an the received a Second.

we proceeded to the discussion phase, during this phase there was offered and amendment to the main motion, this attempted amendment failed to pass, so original motion stands as presented.

we went back to discussion, at this point the person talking, made the " motion to table until next year" this motion passed 39 to table 24 to deny.

this mothing had the following effect from

ROR 11th edition, S 17 page 209 and 210 line 10

There is a great temptation to make an improper use of them, and lay questions on the table for the purpose of instantly suppressing them by a majority vote, instead of using the previous question, the legitimate motion to bring the assembly to an immediate vote.

The Discussion Phase has not been closed when this happened.

1. how to we now take up this properly ?

2. is this action totally out of bounds ?

we need to make a decision on this motion as it is costing us money to do nothing.

 

Robert Dingus

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner

"To table" is incorrect usage. There is a motion to Lay on the Table, but usually, when someone moves to "table" a motion, they really want to Postpone Definitely. Under Robert's Rules, a motion cannot be postponed to the next session if it will not be held within a quarterly time interval. The chair should have rejected this motion to postpone to next year. At your next annual meeting, the main motion can be made again as a new motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I agree with GWCTD and was about to say the same thing. There is actually no motion "to table".  If it was desired to lay the motion on the table, the motion was used improperly. If it was desired to postpone the matter until the next meeting, that would also be improper unless the next meeting was going to occur within a quarterly time interval.

Since a motion which has been laid on the table dies if not taken up at the next meeting, and with that meeting being within a quarterly time interval, I would say that the motion has probably died and may simply be renewed  (reintroduced) at  the next meeting. See RONR page 214 lines 19 through 28.

It appears to me in this case that the motion was used more in the nature of a motion to postpone indefinitely, which killed the motion for the session.

Edited to add:  I suggest that you and your members get a copy of RONR or RONR In Brief and learn the differences between the Motions to postpone to a definite time, postpone indefinitely, and lay on the table.

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph, also corrected typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with by fellow posters, but would add that the motion cannot remain on the table beyond the next session and that next session must be withinthe quarterly time interval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zev

If the next meeting is within a quarterly time interval, then I believe that technically the motion is still on the table and can be brought up by moving "... to take from the table the motion on subject ..."

This motion has a problem in that if what you say is true about it costing your organization money to do nothing yet a majority do not want to deal with this subject at this time and in effect are willing to spend the money or forgo the income whichever it is. You will have to find a creative way of dealing with this aspect of this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Robert Dingus said:

we went back to discussion, at this point the person talking, made the " motion to table until next year" this motion passed 39 to table 24 to deny.

 

Richard, note that this unpalatible superordinate motion cannot be digested by undigesting it, as you suggest.  It was "passed" already.  If anything kosher happened to it, it simply died of starvation, over the year.

10 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

You will have to find a creative way of dealing with this aspect of this issue. 

I personally think we should, condignly, consider it under the table, where it belonged to start with, like human beings for pity's sake, and lunch time coming up.  George, ever try O'Heany's, it was in Albany when my kid brother got his B. Sc. there; Scottish-Irish so it might still be there.  And I have a wistful fondness for that place on I think Amsterdam Avenue around I think the '80's (I mean the location not the decade though we're talking lunchtime doctorate talk so who knows, or knew and remembers. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...