JP1962 Posted October 23, 2019 at 07:21 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 at 07:21 PM A board I belong to recently met to listen to testimony on a subject and then vote on that topic and a few others. All others were taken care of, the one motion to adopt was tabled until the next meeting of the board. We only met to discuss and vote on that tabled motion. After opening the second meeting we proceeded to the motion at hand since it was the only business and did not move to "take from the table"? Was this a violation according to ROR? I can't find a current copy of the manual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 23, 2019 at 08:04 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 at 08:04 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, JP1962 said: A board I belong to recently met to listen to testimony on a subject and then vote on that topic and a few others. All others were taken care of, the one motion to adopt was tabled until the next meeting of the board. We only met to discuss and vote on that tabled motion. After opening the second meeting we proceeded to the motion at hand since it was the only business and did not move to "take from the table"? Was this a violation according to ROR? I can't find a current copy of the manual. The highlighted part was a violation according to RONR. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12 If the motion to lay on the table is properly adopted it does require a motion to take it from the table, but since the motion in question was the only thing that was being considered, it's way too late now to worry about not moving to take it from the table. Edited October 23, 2019 at 08:42 PM by George Mervosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted October 23, 2019 at 09:39 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 at 09:39 PM (edited) Expanding a bit on the answer in Mr. Mervosh's reference: What you actually did at the first meeting was to Postpone Definitely the motion to the next meeting (aka "postpone to a definite time", in this case the next meeting). At the second meeting, you do not need a motion to bring the postponed item back. It should automatically come up under General Orders. This is a common error, using the word "table" when what you really want to do is postpone definitely. One of the problems with doing that, as has happened here, is that it gets confused with the motion to Lay on the Table. A way to catch if you are making this mistake is to see if you are "tabling" it to a specific time. If you are, then you should really use the word / motion "postpone." An experienced and knowledgeable presiding officer will catch the error and state the motion using the correct term. I agree that it is too late to do anything about it now, but there is nothing to worry about. The debate and outcome of the motion at the second meeting is valid. BTW, if you are looking for the current edition online you will not find it there. Edited October 23, 2019 at 09:46 PM by Atul Kapur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 23, 2019 at 09:49 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2019 at 09:49 PM (edited) 10 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said: BTW, if you are looking for the current edition online you will not find it there. The ONLY correct and current edition of RONR is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition, which is described here: http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html It is available at most bookstores and also from Amazon. The last time I checked Amazon, the price was around $12 or $13. It fluctuates. It's about $19 at retail in bookstores. ROR is the abbreviation for Robert's Rules of Order Revised, which is several editions out of date. That was the name of the 4th, 5th and 6th editions. We are now in the 11th edition. Edited October 23, 2019 at 09:50 PM by Richard Brown Corrected typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts