Postpone until after an event

[Guest Confused about the Rules]

Can I move to postpone a vote on an issue until after a vote has been taken on an underlying matter that is not currently under consideration. 

Here is the case. At my institution the faculty has to approve all changes to the curriculum. 

We were told that the administration had made a decision to reduce the required number of classes for students next year. 

There was then a motion mede to change graduation requirements and this was presented to the faculty for a vote. The change in graduation requirements presupposed that the reduction of academic requirements for next year was a fait accompli. So the vote was presented as a choice between telling students that follow the rules for next year that they will have an academic deficiency or changing the graduation requirements. 

I wanted to move that we postpone a vote on the change in the graduation requirements until after a vote was taken on the reduction of academic requirements for the next academic year. So I tried to move that we postpone until after a vote was taken by the faculty on the reduction of academic requirements. 

Is this out of order?

Thanks.

[Weldon Merritt]

Generally speaking, it is in order to postpone an item until after the occurrence of a specified event. But it is not in order to postpone an item beyond the next session, or for longer than a quarterly interval. So if the faculty vote will occur before the next session, and the next session will occur within a quarterly time interval, then postponing the item to (but not beyond) the next session would be in order.

Another option is to postpone the item indefinitely, and then introduce it as a new motion after the faculty vote. Or it could be adopted before the faculty vote, but with a proviso that it will not take effect until the faculty has voted to reduce the academic requirement.

[Rob Elsman]

The motion to change graduation requirements was not in order, because it did not present an independent, free-standing question.

[Confused about the Rules]

Can you postpone a vote until after an event that might not happen?

Here is what I wanted to do: 

(1) I thought that a policy had been adopted without the vote required by our handbook. 

(2) A motion was made to vote on something else. 

(3) I wanted to say: "Look, we should hold off on voting on this motion until after we have a proper vote on the policy was improperly adopted."

(4) So I moved to postpone the vote until after a proper vote had been taken on the improperly adopted policy. 

(5) I was told that, since there was no vote on the original policy scheduled, I couldn't make this motion. Instead, I would have to move to postpone indefinitely and that I would need a 2/3 vote to do so. I was told that you could only postpone something until after an event in a case where that event was on the agenda for the meeting.

 

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

No, you cannot postpone a vote until after an event that might not happen; and no, a motion to postpone indefinitely does not require a 2/3 vote for its adoption.

[Atul Kapur]

11 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

The motion to change graduation requirements was not in order, because it did not present an independent, free-standing question.

Where is this a requirement? I don't see this anywhere in the list of reasons why a motion would be out of order on p. 110-113.

[Atul Kapur]

7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No, you cannot postpone a vote until after an event that might not happen; and no, a motion to postpone indefinitely does not require a 2/3 vote for its adoption.

So if I move to Postpone the motion to adopt the Audit Committee's recommendations until the Treasurer arrives at the meeting, that's not in order unless I know for a fact that the Treasurer is on their way to the meeting?

[Dan Honemann]

10 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

So if I move to Postpone the motion to adopt the Audit Committee's recommendations until the Treasurer arrives at the meeting, that's not in order unless I know for a fact that the Treasurer is on their way to the meeting?

No, it's not, and I'm not convinced that your motion would be in order even if you think you know for a fact that the Treasurer is on his way to the meeting (although I'll admit that it's a tougher call).

The motion we are dealing with here is a motion to postpone to a certain time, and when cast in the form of a motion to postpone until after an event, the event must be one which is scheduled to occur during the meeting at which the motion is made (or, I suppose if the next meeting will be held within a quarterly time interval, until after an event which is scheduled to occur during that meeting, although I think this is unlikely to be the case). In other words, I'm in basic agreement with whoever it was who told the OP that "you could only postpone something until after an event in a case where that event was on the agenda for the meeting."

 

 

[Guest Zev]

Another option the OP had was to amend the original motion on graduation requirements and add a second clause dealing with academic requirements. In this fashion one subject would not be adopted without dealing with the other.

[Nathan Zook]

Gentlemen, we have a table!  RONR (11th ed), pg 209, ll 26-30 "The motion to Lay Upon the Table permits the assembly to lay the pending question aside temporarily ... when something else needs to be addressed before consideration of the pending question."

Or...am I missing something?

[Rob Elsman]

I motion, Lay on the Table, is used to quickly lay aside motions in order to deal with a matter requiring urgent consideration.  Given the facts presented, the motion would be misused and would not be in order.

[Nathan Zook]

You are quoting the reason I elided. I'm talking about the second reason.  Perhaps I should have included the "or"?

 

[George Mervosh]

On 5/28/2020 at 1:00 PM, Confused about the Rules said:

Can you postpone a vote until after an event that might not happen?

Here is what I wanted to do: 

(1) I thought that a policy had been adopted without the vote required by our handbook. 

(2) A motion was made to vote on something else. 

(3) I wanted to say: "Look, we should hold off on voting on this motion until after we have a proper vote on the policy was improperly adopted."

(4) So I moved to postpone the vote until after a proper vote had been taken on the improperly adopted policy. 

(5) I was told that, since there was no vote on the original policy scheduled, I couldn't make this motion. Instead, I would have to move to postpone indefinitely and that I would need a 2/3 vote to do so. I was told that you could only postpone something until after an event in a case where that event was on the agenda for the meeting.

 

18 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

You are quoting the reason I elided. I'm talking about the second reason.  Perhaps I should have included the "or"?

A bit further on after the "or", it says "there is no set time for taking the matter up again; "  As I understood the facts, there is a set time for taking up the matter again (which I bolded above). Even though that set time may be insufficient for postponing the matter I find it adequate to suggest the motion to lay on the table is not in order.  So I agree with Mr. Elsman.   Your thoughts on this would be appreciated, Mr. Zook.

Edited June 2, 2020 at 05:32 PM by George Mervosh

[Nathan Zook]

First, p 209, lines 22 and 23 describe the effect of adoption the motion, not a limitation on it being in order.  That is, "The motion to Lay Upon the Table permits the assembly to lay the pending question aside temporarily when A or B in such a way that C and D ..." means that the motion is in order if either A applies or B applies, and, assuming that the motion is adopted, that C and D effects ensue.

Furthermore, in the original post, op indicated that there is a logical dependency of the matter under consideration on the matter improperly disposed of.  To me, this logical dependency meets the requirement B that the matter "needs" to be considered first, but of course, it is the assembly's duty to determine if this is the case.

 

[Josh Martin]

52 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

First, p 209, lines 22 and 23 describe the effect of adoption the motion, not a limitation on it being in order.  That is, "The motion to Lay Upon the Table permits the assembly to lay the pending question aside temporarily when A or B in such a way that C and D ..." means that the motion is in order if either A applies or B applies, and, assuming that the motion is adopted, that C and D effects ensue.

Furthermore, in the original post, op indicated that there is a logical dependency of the matter under consideration on the matter improperly disposed of.  To me, this logical dependency meets the requirement B that the matter "needs" to be considered first, but of course, it is the assembly's duty to determine if this is the case.

"It is proper for, and the chair can ask, the maker of this motion to state his reason first, however, as: "Our speaker must catch an early flight," or "Laying this question aside temporarily will ensure adequate time to consider the next item of business, which must be decided at this meeting." (The urgency and the legitimate intent of the motion can thus be established; but mentioning its purpose imposes no requirement as to when or whether the assembly will take the question from the table." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 211-212)

"It is out of order to move to lay a pending question on the table if there is evidently no other matter requiring immediate attention." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 215)

If the intent is that, if the motion to Lay on the Table is adopted, the member will then immediately make a motion relating to "the reduction of academic requirements for the next academic year," then I agree that this is in order.

From the facts presented in the original post (and especially in his follow-up post), however, it seems unclear whether or not this was the intent.

In any event, I believe the chair acted correctly in ruling the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time out of order, however, the chair should have followed up with the member regarding what exactly he was trying to do. Those additional facts may have enabled the chair to suggest a motion which was more appropriate. Lay on the Table may well have been one such motion, but since I do not have these additional facts, I cannot say this with certainty.