Tabling a bylaw amendment

[Tomm]

Typically a motion that was tabled is not required to be put on the Agenda of the next meeting, but what if the tabled motion was to amend a bylaw?

1. Was the previous notice provided at the original meeting sufficient to not list the Tabled motion on the Agenda and just wait to se if someone Takes it from the table?

2. Regardless of the motions content, is okay to place any Tabled motioned on the Agenda of the next meeting?

[Joshua Katz]

A motion laid on the table at the last meeting (within a quarterly time period) has not been finally disposed of. It is out of order to take up the same business without removing it from the table. Putting the same item of business on the agenda would obligate the assembly to take it up, regardless of whether it has been removed from the table. So I would say it may not be placed on the agenda. 

[Rob Elsman]

It is almost certain that the motion, Lay on the Table, was not in order, and the chair should have so ruled.

It is also very likely that this body should not be using an agenda.

It would be best, I think, for this body not to have anything more to do with either of them. Just drop them and forget about them.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/18/2023 at 5:02 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It is almost certain that the motion, Lay on the Table, was not in order, and the chair should have so ruled.

It is also very likely that this body should not be using an agenda.

It would be best, I think, for this body not to have anything more to do with either of them. Just drop them and forget about them.

And yet Robert's Rules devotes many words to the topics of items laid on the table as well as agendas. Curious. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/19/2023 at 9:09 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

And yet Robert's Rules devotes many words to the topics of items laid on the table as well as agendas. Curious. 

That's true, but as FAQ#12 says about Lay on the Table, 

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

In my modest experience, this observation is vastly understated.

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

If an assembly wants to permanently dispose of a main motion without debate or a direct vote, the proper motion is, "I move that the rules that interfere be suspended, and it be agreed to immediately postpone the pending main motion indefinitely." The important thing to note is that this motion requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

[Drake Savory]

Why not just move to Postpone Indefinitely?  Why suspend the rules to do so?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/18/2023 at 3:51 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Putting the same item of business on the agenda would obligate the assembly to take it up, regardless of whether it has been removed from the table. So I would say it may not be placed on the agenda. 

But taking the item from the table could be placed on the agenda. Even if there is no agenda being submitted for adoption, it would be helpful for the chair to have it noted on his own order of business that the bylaw amendment lies on the table and may be taken from the table. 

And I would say that further notice is not required, but if a call to meeting is sent out, it would be helpful for the matter that lies on the table to be noted there as well. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 6/19/2023 at 11:01 AM, Drake Savory said:

Why not just move to Postpone Indefinitely?  Why suspend the rules to do so?

PI is debatable. Suspend the rules is not. So if the goal is to 

On 6/19/2023 at 8:34 AM, Rob Elsman said:

permanently dispose of a main motion without debate

then PI alone won't do it.

[puzzling]

If the motion was layed on the  table correctly or incorrectly) just before the end of the meeting a member could give notice of the same amendement to be decided at the next meeting. (I think this could even be done if the amendement was votes down)

 

This all asuming that the next meeting is a new session.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 6/18/2023 at 1:50 PM, Tomm said:

Typically a motion that was tabled is not required to be put on the Agenda of the next meeting, but what if the tabled motion was to amend a bylaw?

For starters, as others have noted, the motion to Lay on the Table is rarely in order. The purpose of this motion is to temporarily set aside a motion in order to take up some other urgent matter. The motion is frequently confused with the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time, which is used to delay a motion to a later time, or the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, which is used to kill a motion without a direct vote. See FAQ #12 and #13.

To the extent that a motion to Lay on the Table is properly used, and the assembly (for whatever reason) does not take up the motion to Lay on the Table at the same meeting, it is correct that the motion does not automatically become an order of the day for the next meeting. In the (likely) event, however, that the assembly is actually thinking of Postpone to a Certain Time, then the motion does automatically become a general order for the next meeting when it is postponed.

In any event, the fact that the main motion is a motion to amend the bylaws has no effect on the rules on this matter.

As for the relation between previous notice and motions to Lay on the Table or to Postpone to a Certain Time, the original notice remains valid if a motion is postponed or if the motion is laid on the table (unless and until the motion "dies" due to failure to take it from the table).

On 6/18/2023 at 1:50 PM, Tomm said:

1. Was the previous notice provided at the original meeting sufficient to not list the Tabled motion on the Agenda and just wait to se if someone Takes it from the table?

Yes.

On 6/18/2023 at 1:50 PM, Tomm said:

2. Regardless of the motions content, is okay to place any Tabled motioned on the Agenda of the next meeting?

I do not think any rule in RONR prevents placing a motion which has been laid on the table on the agenda, although it must be understood that a motion to Take from the Table will still be required to bring the motion before the assembly.

Once again, however, the motion to Lay on the Table should not be arising routinely, and it is extremely likely the assembly is confusing it with another motion.

On 6/18/2023 at 2:51 PM, Joshua Katz said:

A motion laid on the table at the last meeting (within a quarterly time period) has not been finally disposed of. It is out of order to take up the same business without removing it from the table. Putting the same item of business on the agenda would obligate the assembly to take it up, regardless of whether it has been removed from the table. So I would say it may not be placed on the agenda. 

No, I don't think this is correct. If the item of business is placed on the agenda, a motion to Take from the Table would still be needed. The assembly is not "obligated" to take it up.

On 6/19/2023 at 12:01 PM, Drake Savory said:

Why not just move to Postpone Indefinitely?  Why suspend the rules to do so?

Because Postpone Indefinitely is debatable. The advantage of using Suspend the Rules in this connection would be to postpone the motion indefinitely without debate.

On 6/19/2023 at 1:59 PM, puzzling said:

If the motion was layed on the  table correctly or incorrectly) just before the end of the meeting a member could give notice of the same amendement to be decided at the next meeting. (I think this could even be done if the amendement was votes down)

No, I don't think this is required or in order. The motion has been temporarily disposed of, and new, identical motion is not in order unless and until the motion "dies" due to not being taken from the table in time.

[Joshua Katz]

On 6/19/2023 at 2:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

No, I don't think this is correct. If the item of business is placed on the agenda, a motion to Take from the Table would still be needed. The assembly is not "obligated" to take it up.

On 6/19/2023 at 12:01 PM, Drake Savory said:

Well, I certainly agree such a motion should still be necessary to take it up, and I agree with Mr. Gerber that placing that motion on the agenda would be in order. I disagree that placing the business itself on the agenda without more is in order.

[Rob Elsman]

See RONR Off. Interp. 2006-20 for the authors' version of a motion to suspend the rules and immediately dispose of a pending main motion without the opportunity for further debate, amendment, or a direct vote on the main motion. As I previously noted, this motion always requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, because it is contrary to the general principle that a motion to permanently dispose of a main motion is debatable in an ordinary society.