Take from the table

[Deb Parm]

Our membership can submit agenda items to our board, a board member will then make a motion on their behalf to consider their suggestions. One motion needed further information from the member, so it was laid on the table in order to contact her. We were not able to get clarification from her during that meeting. At the annual meeting, this was totally forgotten. We are now getting ready for our mid-year meeting and need to resolve this old agenda item. Is it proper to take from the table or is it too late for that? How do we deal with this?

[George Mervosh]

Yes, it's far too late now from what you've posted.  See RONR (11th ed.), p. 214.  The motion can be made again at any regular or properly called meeting.  Also, it appears the motion to lay on the table is not being properly used.  See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12   

[Deb Parm]

What should we have used instead of lay on the table? And, what is the proper way to make the motion now?

[Josh Martin]

1 minute ago, Deb Parm said:

What should we have used instead of lay on the table?

Probably the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time.

3 minutes ago, Deb Parm said:

And, what is the proper way to make the motion now?

The same way you would make any other motion.

[Rob Elsman]

I disagree that the motion to Lay on the Table was being misused in this instance. As I understand the facts, the motion was temporarily disposed of to proceed to other business while someone tried to contact the absent member. The intention was, as I understand it, to take up the item at an indeterminable time after the member had been reached. In this case, the use of the motion seems to me to be consistent with the purpose of the motion, Lay on the Table. Had I been the presiding officer, I would have considered it to be in order.

[J. J.]

On 6/4/2019 at 12:11 PM, reelsman said:

I disagree that the motion to Lay on the Table was being misused in this instance. As I understand the facts, the motion was temporarily disposed of to proceed to other business while someone tried to contact the absent member. The intention was, as I understand it, to take up the item at an indeterminable time after the member had been reached. In this case, the use of the motion seems to me to be consistent with the purpose of the motion, Lay on the Table. Had I been the presiding officer, I would have considered it to be in order.

I have to agree.  It does not appear to be used to kill a motion; it does not appear to be qualified.

[Richard Brown]

On 6/4/2019 at 11:11 AM, reelsman said:

I disagree that the motion to Lay on the Table was being misused in this instance. As I understand the facts, the motion was temporarily disposed of to proceed to other business while someone tried to contact the absent member. The intention was, as I understand it, to take up the item at an indeterminable time after the member had been reached. In this case, the use of the motion seems to me to be consistent with the purpose of the motion, Lay on the Table. Had I been the presiding officer, I would have considered it to be in order.

 

On 6/5/2019 at 12:49 PM, J. J. said:

I have to agree.  It does not appear to be used to kill a motion; it does not appear to be qualified.

I agree as well.  I think that either lay on the table or to postpone until later in the meeting would be appropriate.

[J. J.]

On 6/4/2019 at 12:11 PM, reelsman said:

I disagree that the motion to Lay on the Table was being misused in this instance. As I understand the facts, the motion was temporarily disposed of to proceed to other business while someone tried to contact the absent member. The intention was, as I understand it, to take up the item at an indeterminable time after the member had been reached. In this case, the use of the motion seems to me to be consistent with the purpose of the motion, Lay on the Table. Had I been the presiding officer, I would have considered it to be in order.

I will go beyond reelsman a bit, though I agree that the motion to lay the motion on the motion is in order. 

Suppose that Motion X is pending.  The motion "That we postpone consideration of Motion X until we contact Ms. Smith," is adopted.  Motion X is postponed. 

At the next regular meeting, held within the quarterly time interval, Ms. Smith has still not been contacted; she has been unavailable.  Motion X could not be reached, unless the rules were suspended by a 2/3 vote. i.e. a motion, "That the rules be suspended to consider Motion X at this time."  Motion X cannot be considered because the condition for its consideration, contacting Ms. Smith, has not been reached; it will not be reached during this session without suspending the rules. 

Supposed that Motion X is pending.  It debate, it is suggested that the assembly get more information from Ms. Smith.  The motion "that Motion X be laid on the table" is adopted. 

At the next regular meeting, held within the quarterly time interval, Ms. Smith has still not been contacted; she has been unavailable.  A motion, "That Motion X be taken from the table," is in order (under the proper heading) and would require a majority vote.  Further, if there was a desire to to hear from Ms. Smith, the motion could be subject to lay on the table, even after a brief period of debate.

While I would not rule the motion "That we postpone consideration of Motion X until we contact Ms. Smith," it would certainly be advisable to adopt the motion, "that Motion X be laid on the table."    Postpone Definitely ends up being very indefinite where there is not a set event that triggers it. 

[Richard Brown]

I agree with JJ's comments immediately above. I was thinking the same thing as I was making my own comment earlier

[Gary Novosielski]

55 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I will go beyond reelsman a bit, though I agree that the motion to lay the motion on the motion is in order. 

Suppose that Motion X is pending.  The motion "That we postpone consideration of Motion X until we contact Ms. Smith," is adopted.  Motion X is postponed. 

At the next regular meeting, held within the quarterly time interval, Ms. Smith has still not been contacted; she has been unavailable.  Motion X could not be reached, unless the rules were suspended by a 2/3 vote. i.e. a motion, "That the rules be suspended to consider Motion X at this time."  Motion X cannot be considered because the condition for its consideration, contacting Ms. Smith, has not been reached; it will not be reached during this session without suspending the rules. 

Supposed that Motion X is pending.  It debate, it is suggested that the assembly get more information from Ms. Smith.  The motion "that Motion X be laid on the table" is adopted. 

At the next regular meeting, held within the quarterly time interval, Ms. Smith has still not been contacted; she has been unavailable.  A motion, "That Motion X be taken from the table," is in order (under the proper heading) and would require a majority vote.  Further, if there was a desire to to hear from Ms. Smith, the motion could be subject to lay on the table, even after a brief period of debate.

While I would not rule the motion "That we postpone consideration of Motion X until we contact Ms. Smith," it would certainly be advisable to adopt the motion, "that Motion X be laid on the table."    Postpone Definitely ends up being very indefinite where there is not a set event that triggers it. 

It might be safer to instead refer the matter to a committee of one (or more) with instructions to attempt to contact Ms. Smith and report back later in the meeting.

If the committee reports, at this meeting or the next, that it has been unable to contact Ms. Smith, the matter is back in the hands of the assembly.  If the committee fails to report by the next meeting, the assembly can discharge it by majority vote and take up the matter again.