To Table again

[Tomm]

Can a motion that was tabled be taken from the table before the end of the next session and then be tabled again? (because the information that was expected to be available was delayed)

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Table was probably not used correctly (see FAQ #12), however a postponed motion can be postponed again.

[Atul Kapur]

I agree with Mr. Huynh that Postpone to a Certain Time would be the appropriate motion.

However, to answer the question that was asked, "... a question that has been taken from the table can be laid on the table again, subject to the following condition ... : A motion made the same day to lay the same question on the table is in order only after material progress and business or debate has been made, or when an unforeseen urgent matter requires immediate attention."

(RONR 11th ed., p.213, lines 27-32)

The next page gives some examples of what would constitute material progress.

This is another reason why the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time is not only correct but also the better motion to use. "When the time to which a question has been postponed arrives and the question is taken up, it can be postponed again if the additional delay will not interfere with the proper handling of the postponed motion."

(RONR 11th ed., p.183, line 34 - p. 184, line 2)

[Tomm]

Yeah, I understand. An unfortunate turn of events caused the delay.

But what I don't get, since you brought it up is... the motion to "Postpone" has the same limits for action as "Lay on the Table"!?!? They both must be acted on by the end of the next business session (pg 183)? So if the motion to "Postpone" was used, and the information wasn't available by the end of the next session what happens?

I thought "Postponing to a certain time" pretty much had limits to the types of amendments that could be brought against it and they pretty much had to pertain to the "Day" "Meeting" or "Hour" of the postponement" as well as a "certain event". But I was under the impression that the "certain event" still couldn't extend past the end of next business session. 

Perhaps, would it have been better to just let the motion that was Tabled die and simply make a new motion at a later meeting when the information was finally available?

[George Mervosh]

Aside from the simple fact that the purpose of a motion to lay on the table is entirely different from a motion to postpone, the postponed matter will automatically come up under the heading of general orders at the next meeting unless it is made a special order.  At that time it can be postponed again to the next session (assuming it is within a quarterly time interval).  No need to even debate or make progress on it.  

[Richard Brown]

13 hours ago, Tomm said:

But what I don't get, since you brought it up is... the motion to "Postpone" has the same limits for action as "Lay on the Table"!?!? They both must be acted on by the end of the next business session (pg 183)? So if the motion to "Postpone" was used, and the information wasn't available by the end of the next session what happens?

If a motion which was postponed to the next meeting is not reached before that next meeting adjourns, it becomes unfinished business at the following meeting. In other words, it stays alive. RONR p. 187 lines 11-15.  Theoretically, it apparently can remain in that state for meeting after meeting.

The motion to lay on the table, by contrast, dies if not taken up by the end of the following session. Page 214, lines 19-23.

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

If a motion which was postponed to the next meeting is not reached before that next meeting adjourns, it becomes unfinished business at the following meeting. In other words, it stays alive. RONR p. 187 lines 11-15.  Theoretically, it apparently can remain in that state for meeting after meeting.

Provided, of course, that each meetng is within a quarterly time interval after the preceding one.