Discussion After Voting Has Started & Tabling Question

[Christina]

We made a motion at our school PTA to purchase a printer , which was then seconded. Then the president opened it up for discussion. During the discussion a motion was made to table it for further discussion. 

First we voted on purchasing the printer. It was 20 - 12, so it did not pass. Then we voted to table the discussion. It was 12 - 12. So the president started asking the members what she should do, are people going to hate her which way she votes. So then the members started voicing their opinions. I reminded everyone that during a vote, there should be no discussion. She ended up voting it down. 

Was I correct to say that after the vote had started, no discussion was allowed?

Also, was tabling the discussion by the association member correct? I was reading that tabling an issue was only used when another urgent matter needed to be discussed.

[Guest Zev]

Once the motion to purchase the printer was voted down there is no further main motion to consider. Asking the audience for their opinion when they were demonstrably divided 12-12 seems silly. There is a mechanical detail but, yes, after the voting started it cannot be interrupted. If there was a more urgent matter then Lay On The Table would be correct, otherwise something more like Postpone or Commit. It was at the moment someone moved to Lay On The Table that you should have raised a Point Of Order and reminded them of what you just said. After the presiding officer put the main motion to a vote disregarding the higher-ranking motion to Lay On The Table and announcing the result of the vote its a done deal. But not to worry. The main motion was lost this time around and the motion for a printer may be introduced again at the next meeting, perhaps a different printer or a different price or a different color to gather more support.

[Transpower]

20/32 is more than half, so the motion originally passed (unless your PTA requires more than a majority, which is doubtful).  

[Richard Brown]

On 3/6/2020 at 1:19 AM, Christina said:

First we voted on purchasing the printer. It was 20 - 12, so it did not pass

Huh? I’m confused. A vote of 20 -12 is a well more than a majority vote. Why do you say the motion failed ? 

[Rob Elsman]

On March 6, 2020 at 1:19 AM, Christina said:

Was I correct to say that after the vote had started, no discussion was allowed?

Also, was tabling the discussion by the association member correct? I was reading that tabling an issue was only used when another urgent matter needed to be discussed.

You are correct on both counts.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/6/2020 at 2:19 AM, Christina said:

We made a motion at our school PTA to purchase a printer , which was then seconded. Then the president opened it up for discussion. During the discussion a motion was made to table it for further discussion. 

First we voted on purchasing the printer. It was 20 - 12, so it did not pass. Then we voted to table the discussion. It was 12 - 12. So the president started asking the members what she should do, are people going to hate her which way she votes. So then the members started voicing their opinions. I reminded everyone that during a vote, there should be no discussion. She ended up voting it down. 

Was I correct to say that after the vote had started, no discussion was allowed?

Also, was tabling the discussion by the association member correct? I was reading that tabling an issue was only used when another urgent matter needed to be discussed.

Why would a 20-12 vote not pass?

[Christina]

The president said it would only pass by 2/3rds, not majority. I now know that is not correct 😔

So does the 2nd motion to table not count since the 1st motion technically passed?

 

[Gary Novosielski]

1 minute ago, Christina said:

The president said it would only pass by 2/3rds, not majority. I now know that is not correct 😔

So does the 2nd motion to table not count since the 1st motion technically passed?

 

No, if the president announced that the motion failed, and nobody raised a point of order at the time, then it did not technically pass.

[Christina]

So the 2nd motion to table the motion pass, even though it was used incorrectly?

[Josh Martin]

23 minutes ago, Christina said:

The president said it would only pass by 2/3rds, not majority. I now know that is not correct 😔

So does the 2nd motion to table not count since the 1st motion technically passed?

This entire procedure went downhill after the motion to Lay on the Table was made.

We are told that "We made a motion at our school PTA to purchase a printer , which was then seconded. Then the president opened it up for discussion. During the discussion a motion was made to table it for further discussion. First we voted on purchasing the printer. It was 20 - 12, so it did not pass. Then we voted to table the discussion. It was 12 - 12. So the president started asking the members what she should do, are people going to hate her which way she votes. So then the members started voicing their opinions. I reminded everyone that during a vote, there should be no discussion. She ended up voting it down."

There are numerous problems with this procedure.

• When the motion to Lay on the Table was made, the President should have asked what other business the member wished to attend to. The purpose of the motion to Lay on the Table is to take up some other urgent business. If this was not the member's intent, the chair should have ruled the motion out of order (and perhaps suggested another motion which would have been appropriate, such as the motion to Postpone).
• Setting this aside, if a motion to Lay on the Table is made, the motion to Lay on the Table takes precedence over the main motion, and is therefore voted on before the main motion. This was not done.
• The President declared the motion defeated on the basis that it required a 2/3 vote, however, none of the facts presented suggest such a vote was required.
• After the motion was defeated, the assembly had remaining a motion to Lay on the Table. However, there was no longer anything pending to Lay on the Table - the motion was already defeated (although this declaration was incorrect.) (This would not have occurred if the assembly had voted on the motions in the correct order.) You say that the assembly was now voting to table the "discussion," but there was no longer any motion to discuss. Discussion is not in order without a motion pending. As a result of all this, the President should have ruled the motion to Lay on the Table out of order at this point if he had not done so already.
• Finally, we are told that there was discussion during the vote on the motion to Lay on the Table. This is not in order, but since the motion to Lay on the Table shouldn't have been voted on at all (for several reasons), that is probably the least of the assembly's problems.

However, it is too late to raise a Point of Order about any of this at this time. Just make the motion again at a future meeting.

12 minutes ago, Christina said:

So the 2nd motion to table the motion pass, even though it was used incorrectly?

Yes. As a general rule, a Point of Order must be raised promptly at the time of the breach.

Edited March 7, 2020 at 06:19 PM by Josh Martin