Guest Chris Posted March 24, 2021 at 11:50 PM Report Posted March 24, 2021 at 11:50 PM If the head of the meeting says an item should be tabled to a later meeting does that stop the action or can they be overridden and forced to vote Quote
Joshua Katz Posted March 24, 2021 at 11:55 PM Report Posted March 24, 2021 at 11:55 PM I assume "head of the meeting" means presiding officer. In that case: 1. It does not "stop the action." 2. If the "head of the meeting" moves to lay on the table or to postpone to a definite time (the latter is almost certainly the right one), and it is a small board or committee, then the assembly will decide what to do. It would not be "overrid[ing]" anything, any more than when a member makes a motion and it is voted down he is overriden. Quote
Richard Brown Posted March 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Report Posted March 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM 29 minutes ago, Guest Chris said: If the head of the meeting says an item should be tabled to a later meeting does that stop the action or can they be overridden and forced to vote Let's first determine what kind of meeting this is. Is it a committee meeting, a small board meeting of no more than about a dozen members, a large board meeting, or a meeting of the general membership? Different rules apply depending on what kind of meeting it is. But, regardless, the "head of the meeting" does not have the authority to arbitrarily decide what gets taken up at this meeting and what gets postponed to the next meeting. The assembly that is meeting (the members who are meeting) collectively make that decision by majority vote, not the chair (or the "head of the meeting", whatever that is). Quote
Guest MadKar Posted March 27, 2021 at 12:08 PM Report Posted March 27, 2021 at 12:08 PM If the original doesn’t mind me piggy backing. We had a meeting where a new item of business was discussed. Although the presiding officer was in favor of this item majority of chairs were not. Official recording in the minutes is that the idea would be tabled. A week later presiding officer presents via email his plan for the idea and the person who volunteered to head it. This caused strife among the executive board. Would it be correct to say the presiding officer had no authority to form this “committee” and proceed after it was voted down? Quote
Richard Brown Posted March 27, 2021 at 01:39 PM Report Posted March 27, 2021 at 01:39 PM Guest MadKar, Please ask your question by starting a new topic. The forum works better that way. Quote
Recommended Posts