Session or Meeting

[Tomm]

Our senior community is run by a 501 c 3 corporation with a board of 9 members. In an effort of transparency these board meetings are open to the (paid) members of the community, but the only participation we’re allowed to perform is to make comments during the debate stage when the motion is pending, we can’t vote, only the board votes. The board holds a meeting every 2 weeks and each new motion must be presented in each of the following three meetings before its final vote. I assume presenting each new motion in 3 consecutive meetings covers the previous notice requirement, but my question is; when it comes to the motion to “Lay on the Table” are each of these meetings considered a “meeting” or are they simply a continuation of a “session?” Can a Tabled item be reintroduced at the next meeting of does it die at the end of each meeting and “postpone to a certain time” needs to be used?

[Rob Elsman]

Most likely, each regular, bi-weekly meeting constitutes a separate session.

While a motion can be taken from the table, it is not in order to make it again, as if for the first time.

[Tomm]

You say it can be taken from the Table even though you state that it's a separate session? Is it because meetings are held more frequently than quarterly as stated on RR , that it can be removed from the Table at a later date and didn't simply die at the end of the current meeting? 

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, the main motion can be taken from the table by majority vote. You understand the rule perfectly.

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Tomm said:

...and “postpone to a certain time” needs to be used?

Nevertheless, it is better form to postpone it to the next meeting rather than to lay it on the table.

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Tomm said:

You say it can be taken from the Table even though you state that it's a separate session? Is it because meetings are held more frequently than quarterly as stated on RR , that it can be removed from the Table at a later date and didn't simply die at the end of the current meeting? 

A motion laid on the table typically doesn't die until the end of the following meeting.

But see FAQ #12 to see why the motion to Lay on the Table is usually not in order.

 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

7 hours ago, Tomm said:

Our senior community is run by a 501 c 3 corporation with a board of 9 members. In an effort of transparency these board meetings are open to the (paid) members of the community, but the only participation we’re allowed to perform is to make comments during the debate stage when the motion is pending, we can’t vote, only the board votes. The board holds a meeting every 2 weeks and each new motion must be presented in each of the following three meetings before its final vote. I assume presenting each new motion in 3 consecutive meetings covers the previous notice requirement, but my question is; when it comes to the motion to “Lay on the Table” are each of these meetings considered a “meeting” or are they simply a continuation of a “session?” Can a Tabled item be reintroduced at the next meeting of does it die at the end of each meeting and “postpone to a certain time” needs to be used?

Postpone to a Certain Time almost always is the correct motion. "Table" is frequently misused as an effort to kill or delay a motion and is not in order unless there is a matter of true emergence pending. This "three-meeting" requirement: is it in the written rules (or minutes) or the organization?

[Tomm]

The "Three-Meeting" requirement was something that was done when the Board decided to open all meetings to the public. I think it has something to do with Title 10 or Title 33 open meetings statute?!?!

If I'm understanding RR correctly, the "Postpone to a Certain Time" has time limits depending on a "meeting" or "session". In either case, the postponement seems to only last until the next meeting or session. The scenario that concerns me is; what if there was a motion pending that first requires information from a state or local authority and it wouldn't be proper to vote on that issue until you received that information. It could takes weeks, or even months before you received that information. I guess I'm asking if you can postpone until that information is received?  What's the proper motion to delay the vote?

[Bruce Lages]

The proper motion in the scenario you've described is to refer the motion to a committee charged with gathering the information needed, possibly with instructions to report back to the assembly within a given time period. But, your organization is going to have to decide how such referral impacts your '3 consecutive meetings' rule. The most logical conclusion would seem to be that further consideration of the motion would be suspended until the committee reports back, but that's up to you.

[Rob Elsman]

Without reference to a committee, the board can let the item of business come up at each session and postpone it again to the next.

[Gary Novosielski]

6 hours ago, Tomm said:

The "Three-Meeting" requirement was something that was done when the Board decided to open all meetings to the public. I think it has something to do with Title 10 or Title 33 open meetings statute?!?!

If I'm understanding RR correctly, the "Postpone to a Certain Time" has time limits depending on a "meeting" or "session". In either case, the postponement seems to only last until the next meeting or session. The scenario that concerns me is; what if there was a motion pending that first requires information from a state or local authority and it wouldn't be proper to vote on that issue until you received that information. It could takes weeks, or even months before you received that information. I guess I'm asking if you can postpone until that information is received?  What's the proper motion to delay the vote?

If it is necessary to put something off beyond the next meeting, a proper course of action would be to refer it to a committee, with instructions to do some of the research and report recommendations to the parent assembly, possibly with a scheduled date by which to report.