Tabled Motion

[Tomm]

I'm kinda under the impression that if a motion is Tabled, it needs to be Taken from the Table with a motion and is not necessarily required to be put on the agenda of the next meeting whereas a motion to Postpone would automatically be listed on the next meetings Agenda as a motion that must be addressed.

Is it proper to list a Tabled Motion in an Agenda or is it a no-no? 

I don't believe there are any rules prohibiting it to be listed on the agenda but if there, it makes it a little harder to avoid if you really just wanted the motion to die!

[Josh Martin]

22 minutes ago, Tomm said:

I'm kinda under the impression that if a motion is Tabled, it needs to be Taken from the Table with a motion and is not necessarily required to be put on the agenda of the next meeting whereas a motion to Postpone would automatically be listed on the next meetings Agenda as a motion that must be addressed.

Yes, it is correct that a motion which is postponed to the next meeting is automatically made a general order for the next regular meeting.

22 minutes ago, Tomm said:

Is it proper to list a Tabled Motion in an Agenda or is it a no-no? 

I don't think there is any rule prohibiting it. Nonetheless, when that item is reached, a motion to Take from the Table would need to be made in order for the motion to become pending.

22 minutes ago, Tomm said:

I don't believe there are any rules prohibiting it to be listed on the agenda but if there, it makes it a little harder to avoid if you really just wanted the motion to die!

This statement suggests that your assembly might be misusing the motion to Lay on the Table. The intent of the motion to Lay on the Table is to temporarily set aside a motion so that some other urgent business can be taken up. It is not used to "kill" a motion without a direct vote. The motion for that purpose is Postpone Indefinitely. If it is desired to kill a motion without a direct vote without debate, then this can be swiftly followed by a motion for the Previous Question, or the two motions can be combined with a motion to Suspend the Rules.

Edited March 26, 2021 at 02:44 AM by Josh Martin

[Tomm]

4 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

This statement suggests that your assembly might be misusing the motion to Lay on the Table.

You are 100% correct. The motion should have been to Postpone but somebody listed it on the next meetings Agenda anyway.

[Atul Kapur]

Did the presiding officer treat it as a motion to postpone?

"Rather than always ruling that such a motion [to table] is not in order, however, the chair should properly treat it as a motion “to postpone the question until …”; that is, he should state the motion as admitted in that form unless the motion to Postpone is not in order at the time." RONR (12th ed.) 17:21

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Tomm said:

You are 100% correct. The motion should have been to Postpone but somebody listed it on the next meetings Agenda anyway.

It should be noted that an agenda which is presented in advance is not the actual agenda unless and until it is approved at the meeting, unless the organization's rules provide otherwise.

There is also the fact that most assemblies should just be using the standard order of business anyway, but that seems to be a lost cause these days.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

There is also the fact that most assemblies should just be using the standard order of business anyway, but that seems to be a lost cause these days.

Yes and no. Pretty often I find that an organization that says it uses an agenda actually means the chair hands out a paper labeled agenda that is, in fact, the order of business, albeit with a few words changed (i.e. "old business") and a few items randomly thrown in. Then the body does nothing with it. (Even more fun, they might, if they feel fancy, throw some parliamentary terms around on the agenda, but in a rather meaningless fashion.)

[Gary Novosielski]

20 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Yes and no. Pretty often I find that an organization that says it uses an agenda actually means the chair hands out a paper labeled agenda that is, in fact, the order of business, albeit with a few words changed (i.e. "old business") and a few items randomly thrown in. Then the body does nothing with it. (Even more fun, they might, if they feel fancy, throw some parliamentary terms around on the agenda, but in a rather meaningless fashion.)

That's quite correct.  I'm "guilty" of doing that myself.  During a term as a union president, I found that the Rep. Council was quite distressed if they did not have a copy of the "agenda" at the monthly meetings.  Under the principle of picking one's battles, I handed out copies of the standard order of business, with such optional features as had become customary. The body then did nothing with it  I referred to it as the order of business, and everyone else referred to it as the agenda, but they were no longer distressed.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Yes and no. Pretty often I find that an organization that says it uses an agenda actually means the chair hands out a paper labeled agenda that is, in fact, the order of business, albeit with a few words changed (i.e. "old business") and a few items randomly thrown in. Then the body does nothing with it. (Even more fun, they might, if they feel fancy, throw some parliamentary terms around on the agenda, but in a rather meaningless fashion.)

 

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

That's quite correct.  I'm "guilty" of doing that myself.  During a term as a union president, I found that the Rep. Council was quite distressed if they did not have a copy of the "agenda" at the monthly meetings.  Under the principle of picking one's battles, I handed out copies of the standard order of business, with such optional features as had become customary. The body then did nothing with it  I referred to it as the order of business, and everyone else referred to it as the agenda, but they were no longer distressed.

"The presiding officer may find it helpful to have at hand a memorandum of the complete order of business, listing, under headings (2) and (3) as explained below, all known reports which are expected to be presented, and under headings (4) and (5), all matters which the minutes show are due to come up, arranged in proper sequence or, where applicable, listed with the times for which they have been set. The secretary can prepare, or assist the presiding officer to prepare, such a memorandum. In this connection, regarding the practice in some societies or assemblies of providing each member with a copy of the expected agenda in advance of a meeting, see 41:62." RONR (12th ed.) 41:7

"In some organizations, it is customary to send each member, in advance of a meeting, an order of business or agenda, with some indication of the matters to be considered under each heading. Such an agenda is often provided for information only, with no intention or practice of submitting it for adoption. Unless a precirculated agenda is formally adopted at the session to which it applies, it is not binding as to detail or order of consideration, other than as it lists preexisting orders of the day (41:40ff.) or conforms to the standard order of business (3:16, 41:5ff.) or an order of business prescribed by the rules of the organization (2:16, 3:16)." RONR (12th ed.) 41:62

So I don't see anything wrong with what Mr. Novosielski describes. It is quite helpful to have a memorandum of the complete order of business at hand, and if the agenda prepared in this manner has no deviation from the standard order of business (or a special order of business adopted by the society), no approval is necessary.

If the agenda deviates from the standard order of business, however, the agenda must be formally adopted.

[Tomm]

Is there a simple answer or a specific defining structure that determines the difference between an Agenda and an Order of Business?

[Josh Martin]

33 minutes ago, Tomm said:

Is there a simple answer or a specific defining structure that determines the difference between an Agenda and an Order of Business?

An order of business is a general order of particular classes of business. An order of business is applicable to all regular meetings. The standard order of business in RONR, for instance, looks like this:

"1) Reading and Approval of Minutes

2) Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees

3) Reports of Special (Select or Ad Hoc) Committees

4) Special Orders

5) Unfinished Business and General Orders

6) New Business" RONR (12th ed.) 41:5

RONR has additional rules pertaining to the arrangement of particular items under all of these headings except for New Business, which is used for items which are not known in advance, and therefore cannot possibly be arranged in advance. Often a memorandum is prepared which lists the items under these headings, as called for in the rules. Such a memorandum may well still be referred to as an agenda, but it does not need to be approved by the assembly.

An agenda is more specific and lists particular items of business, and may also list particular times for the consideration of those items.

RONR advises that assemblies which meet at least as often as quarterly should use the standard order of business or a special order of business adopted by the assembly which is suited to its needs. For assemblies which meet less frequently, such as the general membership of a society which meets only annually, or a large convention which meets annually (or even less frequently), an agenda is adopted instead.

Edited March 26, 2021 at 04:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/26/2021 at 12:03 PM, Tomm said:

Is there a simple answer or a specific defining structure that determines the difference between an Agenda and an Order of Business?

The terms overlap.

1) If no agenda is proposed for adoption (or if a proposed agenda is rejected), then the session has only the order of business, if any, that is prescribed for that type of session in the parliamentary authority (such as RONR's "standard order of business"), special order of business, or bylaws of the organization. If none is prescribed, then there is no binding order of business: "If the assembly has no binding order of business, any member who obtains the floor … can introduce any legitimate matter he desires (within the objects of the organization as defined in its bylaws) at any time when no business is before the assembly for consideration." (See 3:16–3:20 and 41:6.) 

2) "In cases in which an agenda is adopted, usually this is done at the outset of a session and the agenda is intended to cover the entire session" (41:61). In this case, the agenda becomes the order of business for that session. (See also 41:2.)

3) "At a session having no prescribed or adopted order of business, such an agenda is followed as a guide by the chair pending its formal adoption." (41:61)

Edited April 8, 2021 at 05:48 PM by Shmuel Gerber
edited to insert the underlined words

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/26/2021 at 12:29 PM, Josh Martin said:

An order of business is a general order of particular classes of business. An order of business is applicable to all regular meetings.

This is not quite correct according to RONR; see 41:2.

[Rob Elsman]

With respect to the motion, Lay on the Table, it might be helpful to read FAQ #12 at www.robertsrules.com.  Here's one pertinent sentence from the response:

"In ordinary societies it is rarely needed, and hence seldom in order."