Tabled Item

[Joibren]

If an item is tabled for 30 days, does the item have to be placed on each agenda until reconsidered or can the item be placed on the agenda after 30 days?

[Joshua Katz]

If a motion to lay on the table (which is almost always out of order) is adopted, the item can be taken up at the next meeting, provided it is within a quarterly time period, by a majority vote. If it is not taken up at that time, or if the next meeting is not within a quarterly time period, the item dies and would need to be made anew.

At least, that's the usual answer we give, and it suffices. In my opinion, though, it is a misleading answer, because it implies that somehow making the same motion over again is an arduous task, which it clearly is not. So I would add that the actual effect of being "on the table" has nothing to do with avoiding the hard work of making a motion, but rather has to do with what the society cannot do while the motion remains on the table - i.e. it cannot take up other business on that item until the motion is finally disposed of.

[Joibren]

Thanks for the response.  It provides some clarity on the discussion at hand.

[Joshua Katz]

I realize I didn't address your question head-on, so if we can be of more assistance, please let us know. 

[Atul Kapur]

"Tabling for 30 days" suggest that what you're really intending to do is Postpone for 30 days. However, both motions have a limitation that you cannot postpone / table beyond the next meeting. It sounds like you will have another meeting in less than 30 days; in that case, it would need to come up at that next meeting. It could be further postponed at that time. 

[Richard Brown]

5 hours ago, Joibren said:

If an item is tabled for 30 days, does the item have to be placed on each agenda until reconsidered or can the item be placed on the agenda after 30 days?

Jolbran, agreeing with my colleagues, it would help if you would elaborate a bit.and also explain what you mean when you say the item was tabled. Like Atul,  I tend to think what you actually did was postpone the item, but we need more information to be sure. I also don't understand what you mean by having it placed on each agenda  for reconsideration. Also, I don't see where reconsideration is involved.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Jolbran, agreeing with my colleagues, it would help if you would elaborate a bit.and also explain what you mean when you say the item was tabled. Like Atul,  I tend to think what you actually did was postpone the item, but we need more information to be sure. I also don't understand what you mean by having it placed on each agenda  for reconsideration. Also, I don't see where reconsideration is involved.

I think the only way to solve this puzzle is to assume that some word or other is not being used in its parliamentary sense. I chose, for whatever reason, to treat "table" as being used in (close to) its parliamentary meaning, and reconsider as not - I made no assumption on agenda. Atul (congratulations on completing your PRP) chose to think table was being misused, a fair assumption as it is commonly misused, and to assume, like me, that reconsider was not being used in its parliamentary sense.