Motion to "Table"

[PBix]

RONR observes that the motion to "table" something is often misunderstood.  RONR helpfully points out that if what is really desired is to kill a measure without voting on it, the correct motion is to "postpone indefinitely," and if what is desired is to kill a motion without voting on it and without further debate, the correct procedure is first to move to postpone the motion indefinitely and then to move the previous question on that motion (of course a 2/3 vote would be required).  A member who wants to postpone consideration of a motion could also move to postpone it to a certain time, or to commit it to a committee.

But what if what is really desired is, "Could we just make the pending main motion go away for the remainder of this meeting, and then it can come back or not at some later meeting, I don't care whether it comes back or not, as long as we can avoid further discussion of it any more today."  That's what people at our meetings really seem to want when they move to "table" something.  What is the proper motion for that?  That's what "postpone indefinitely" sounds like it ought to mean, but of course, it doesn't.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

Just now, PBix said:

But what if what is really desired is, "Could we just make the pending main motion go away for the remainder of this meeting, and then it can come back or not at some later meeting, I don't care whether it comes back or not, as long as we can avoid further discussion of it any more today."  That's what people at our meetings really seem to want when they move to "table" something.  What is the proper motion for that?  That's what "postpone indefinitely" sounds like it ought to mean, but of course, it doesn't.

There is no reason Postpone Indefinitely could not be used for the purpose you describe. If it was desired to also immediately end debate, however, this would need to be followed up with a motion for the Previous Question. Adopting the motion to Postpone Indefinitely kills the motion for the current session, but does not prevent a member from making it again at a later session, so a member could bring up the motion at a later meeting if desired.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, PBix said:

But what if what is really desired is, "Could we just make the pending main motion go away for the remainder of this meeting, and then it can come back or not at some later meeting, I don't care whether it comes back or not, as long as we can avoid further discussion of it any more today."  That's what people at our meetings really seem to want when they move to "table" something.  What is the proper motion for that?  That's what "postpone indefinitely" sounds like it ought to mean, but of course, it doesn't.

You have a couple of other options, though some on this forum might not be fond of this first one.  First, if the intent is to lay the motion aside temporarily in order to take up other matters that the assembly deems more important, the motion to "lay on the table" might well be appropriate.  If the motion is not taken from the table at this meeting, it remains on the table until the next meting (assuming it is within a quarterly time interval).  It dies if not taken from the table at the next meeting.  It really isn't proper to use this motion to inetentionally postpone something to the next meeting, but that would be the practical effect of not taking it from the table at the same meeting at which it was laid on the table.  However, it seems your intent is to "defer" dealing with the matter for at least one meeting, so this motion is technically not proper for that purpose.

You can also postpone the motion from meeting to meeting.  At this meeting, postpone it to the next meeting.  It should then come up automatically at that meeting under unfinished business and special orders.  If the assembly is still not ready to deal with it, then postpone it again to the next meeting.  You can do that at meeting after meeting until the membership is ready to deal with it.

Another method of dealing with it is to refer it to a committee for further study as you mentioned.  You can instruct the committee to report back at whatever meeting the assembly wishes or instruct the committee to report back when it is ready.  The assembly can also take it from the committee's hands at any time by use of the motion to "discharge the committee" from further consideration of the motion.  That motion has special characteristics depending on how and when the original motion is taken back from the committee.

As to  postponing the motion indefinitely in order to "kill it", at least temporarily, remember that it can be renewed (made again) at any subsequent meeting.  It isn't defeated permanently, but rather just for the meeting at which it was postponed indefinitely.  That sounds like it might be your best bet.   

 

 

[PBix]

Thank you for these helpful answers, which bring out a nuance of the motion to postpone indefinitely that I had not appreciated.

[Guest Puzzling]

Another (better?) option is the incidental motion "Objection to the consideration of the question" which in my opinion is a clearer signal than the two motions of postpone indefinitely and previous question. 

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Another (better?) option is the incidental motion "Objection to the consideration of the question" which in my opinion is a clearer signal than the two motions of postpone indefinitely and previous question. 

Objection to the Consideration of a Question is only in order before there has been any debate on the motion. After that, consideration of the question has already begun, and therefore the motion's consideration cannot be prevented. The situation the OP is referring to appears to relate to a situation in which debate is already ongoing, since it is said that the desire is to prevent further discussion of the motion at the same meeting.

"The objection can be raised only before there has been any debate or any subsidiary motion except Lay on the Table has been stated by the chair; thereafter, consideration of the main question has begun and it is too late to object." RONR (12th ed.) 26:2

I would also note that the purpose of this motion is to dispose of a motion when it is believed that even considering the motion would be damaging to the harmony of the assembly, so the "signal" that is sent by this may not be what is desired in this instance, since it appears the assembly has no particular problem with the motion, it simply wishes to no longer talk about it at the current meeting.

"The purpose of an Objection to the Consideration of a Question is to enable the assembly to avoid a particular original main motion altogether when it believes it would be strongly undesirable for the motion even to come before the assembly." RONR (12th ed.) 26:1

If it is desired to dispose of the pending motion in one step rather than two, a motion to Suspend the Rules may be used to combine the effects of Postpone Indefinitely and the Previous Question in a single motion.

[Atul Kapur]

17 hours ago, PBix said:

But what if what is really desired is, "Could we just make the pending main motion go away for the remainder of this meeting, and then it can come back or not at some later meeting, I don't care whether it comes back or not, as long as we can avoid further discussion of it any more today."  That's what people at our meetings really seem to want when they move to "table" something.  What is the proper motion for that? 

Another option for this situation is to see if the mover would request to withdraw the motion. It may be strategic for the mover to do so if the sense of the meeting is that it will get a more favourable hearing at a later meeting, and explaining this to the mover may convince them to request withdrawal.