Tabled For Set Time

[Guest Mike_L]

At a regular scheduled meeting, a motion to table for a year was made. This was done because other items needed to be set up and completed and more information was needed that would not be able to obtain until close to a year from that meeting. I have seen and read that tabling has to be taken up before then end of the next meeting or the motion dies. I have also seen this happens unless it was tabled to a specific time. Postponing didn’t seem correct based on order and reason. Can anyone give clarification? 

[Joshua Katz]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:07 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

At a regular scheduled meeting, a motion to table for a year was made.

The motion was out of order. The motion to lay on the table does not carry a set time. As you note, an item laid on the table may be removed at the next meeting if within a quarterly time period, otherwise, the motion dies. (But so what? It can be made anew.)

On 1/12/2024 at 2:07 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

I have also seen this happens unless it was tabled to a specific time.

This is incorrect. The motion to delay something to a specific time is postpone definitely, but a year is too long for that motion, too. The way to keep it kicking for a year is to refer to committee. Or just forget about it and make it again in a year. (So what's the point? When a motion has not been finally disposed of, the body is prevented from taking other actions. So referring it to commitee may be preferred under some circumstances.)

On 1/12/2024 at 2:07 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

Postponing didn’t seem correct based on order and reason.

Why is that?

 

[Rob Elsman]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:17 PM, Joshua Katz said:

The way to keep it kicking for a year is to refer to committee.

I disagree. A motion to refer to committee for the sole purpose of postponing consideration of a main motion to a later time is not in order on account that postponement does not fall within the purpose of the motion given in RONR (12th ed.) 13:1.

[Guest Mike_L]

It was a for a zoning issue. The commission did not have enough information to recommend an approval or denial to the council. There were things that they stated had to be completed in order to recommend an approval but that would take at least a year for those items to be completed in order to support the reason for rezoning. There was additional information that was requested in order to make an informed recommendation of a denial. The motion to lay on the table was made (incorrectly as of now) in order to allow for both parties to obtain the information that was needed. So the motion died. In order for the motion to be renewed, would the applicant for rezoning have to request that and essentially start over with rezoning process? Or does the renewal have to be initiated by the commission?

[Guest Mike_L]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:29 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I disagree. A motion to refer to committee for the sole purpose of postponing consideration of a main motion to a later time is not in order on account that postponement does not fall within the purpose of the motion given in RONR (12th ed.) 13:1.

If a commission wants to consider at a specific date that falls after the next meeting, how would they properly do that? Some cities have their own set of rules with timelines of bringing a denied motion back up, but this city does not. 

[Rob Elsman]

From the facts given, I cannot confidently say that the motion to lay on the table has fallen to the ground. However improper, the motion was adopted. So—whatever the intent—the motion—whatever kind of motion it was—became operative. 

[Rob Elsman]

Because of the use of the agentless passive voice, I am unable to understand who is doing what to whom.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:17 PM, Joshua Katz said:

The way to keep it kicking for a year is to refer to committee. Or just forget about it and make it again in a year. (So what's the point? When a motion has not been finally disposed of, the body is prevented from taking other actions. So referring it to commitee may be preferred under some circumstances.)

 

On 1/12/2024 at 1:29 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I disagree. A motion to refer to committee for the sole purpose of postponing consideration of a main motion to a later time is not in order on account that postponement does not fall within the purpose of the motion given in RONR (12th ed.) 13:1.

I disagree. That is not what 13:1 says.  What it says is that the motion "is GENERALLY used to send a pending question to a . . . committee so that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider". The motion is not limited to that purpose, rather that statement is used as an example of how the motion is generally used.  The rule does not say that it would be out of order if used as Mr. Katz suggested.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:02 PM, Rob Elsman said:

From the facts given, I cannot confidently say that the motion to lay on the table has fallen to the ground. However improper, the motion was adopted. So—whatever the intent—the motion—whatever kind of motion it was—became operative. 

I think RONR 17:8 is pretty clear that the motion laid on the table dies if not taken from the table by the end of the next regular session.  It may not have died YET, but it will die if not taken from the table by the end of the next regular session.

[Rob Elsman]

Different motions are properly used for postponement. For disposing of a main motion that is untimely or inopportune, the proper motion is Postpone Indefinitely.  If a change in time or circumstance suggests that the action proposed in the motion later seems advisable, the main motion can be renewed at any later session and handled as if it had never been made before.

[Rob Elsman]

I'm not sure what was the intent of the motion, notwithstanding the use of the word, "table".

[Guest Mike_L]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:32 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I'm not sure what was the intent of the motion, notwithstanding the use of the word, "table".

The intent of the motion was to give the city time to begin work on infrastructure that would have to be completed in order to have enough resources to support anything other than what the current zoning allowed. It was also to allow the applicant time to provide more information as to the need for rezoning. The applicant simply stated they wanted to build homes, which could be done with current zoning. 

[Rob Elsman]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Mr Brown is of the opinion that the motion was an instance of Lay on the Table. I am less sure. I lean toward thinking it was an invalid instance of Postpone to a Certain Time. We could argue about this till the cows came home, but the fact is that the commission is not properly trained about these two motions or the motion, Postpone Indefinitely.

Edited January 12, 2024 at 09:16 PM by Rob Elsman

[Guest Mike_L]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:32 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I'm not sure what was the intent of the motion, notwithstanding the use of the word, "table".

The intent of the motion was to give the city time to begin work on infrastructure that would have to be completed in order to have enough resources to support anything other than what the current zoning allowed. It was also to allow the applicant time to provide more information as to the need for rezoning. The applicant simply stated they wanted to build homes, which could be done with current zoning. 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:07 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

At a regular scheduled meeting, a motion to table for a year was made.

So far as RONR is concerned, this motion was out of order, for multiple reasons.

• First, the assembly is confusing the motion to Lay on the Table with the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time.
• Second, there are time limits on how far a motion may be postponed. At most, a motion can be postponed to the next regular meeting, provided that meeting is within a quarterly interval. A postponement of a year is too far.

"12. Isn't it always in order to move to table a motion to the next meeting?

This question confuses the motion to Lay on the Table with the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time. The purpose of the motion to Lay on the Table is to enable an assembly, by majority vote and without debate, to lay a pending question aside temporarily when something else of immediate urgency has arisen or when something else needs to be addressed before consideration of the pending question is resumed. In ordinary societies it is rarely needed, and hence seldom in order. [RONR (12th ed.) 17:1–24; see also p. 127 of RONR In Brief.]" FAQ #12

"In a case where more than a quarterly time interval (see 9:7) will elapse between meetings (for example, in an annual convention of delegates or in a local society that holds only an annual meeting), a question cannot be postponed beyond the end of the present session. In cases where no more than a quarterly time interval will elapse between sessions, a question can be postponed until, but not beyond, the next regular business session. For example, in a society that holds regular business meetings on the same day of each week, a question cannot, at one meeting, be postponed for longer than a week." RONR (12th ed.) 14:6

The proper course of action would have been to postpone the item to the next meeting. At that time, if necessary, the motion can be postponed to the next meeting again.

On 1/12/2024 at 1:07 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

I have seen and read that tabling has to be taken up before then end of the next meeting or the motion dies.

Yes, this is correct.

"A question that has been laid on the table remains there and can be taken from the table during the same session (8), or, if the next regular business session will be held before a quarterly time interval has elapsed (see 9:7), also until the end of the next regular session. If not taken from the table within these time limits, the question dies, although it can be reintroduced later as a new question. (For additional rules regarding the meetings at which a question can be taken from the table, see Time Limits on Taking a Question from the Table, 34:3.)" RONR (12th ed.) 17:8

However, as noted above, the motion to Lay on the Table should not have been used in the circumstances described. The appropriate motion would be the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time.

Nonetheless, as also noted above, it can't be postponed beyond the next meeting either.

Since it appears this involves some sort of zoning board, there may also be rules in applicable law on this matter, which will take precedence over RONR. So the board may wish to consult with its clerks and attorneys on this matter.

On 1/12/2024 at 1:07 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

I have also seen this happens unless it was tabled to a specific time.

There is no such thing as "tabled to a specific time." If a specific time is involved, the correct motion is the aptly named Postpone to a Certain Time.

"This motion, as explained earlier, is undebatable and cannot be qualified in any way. In moving it, a member can mention its intended purpose or name a time at which he plans to move that the question be taken from the table, but he cannot move to lay a question “on the table until after the completion of…,” or, “on the table until 2 P.M.” Rather than always ruling that such a motion 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

On 1/12/2024 at 1:48 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

The motion to lay on the table was made (incorrectly as of now) in order to allow for both parties to obtain the information that was needed. So the motion died.

I'm not as certain about this. I don't know that a motion to "table for a year" which was improperly adopted should be interpreted as an unqualified motion to Lay on the Table. It seems equally reasonable to interpret it as a motion to postpone to the next meeting.

Also, I again advise consulting with the board's clerks and attorneys on this matter.

On 1/12/2024 at 1:48 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

In order for the motion to be renewed, would the applicant for rezoning have to request that and essentially start over with rezoning process? Or does the renewal have to be initiated by the commission?

I have no idea. That will have to do with applicable law, not RONR.

On 1/12/2024 at 1:58 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

If a commission wants to consider at a specific date that falls after the next meeting, how would they properly do that?

You postpone it to the next meeting and then, at that meeting, you postpone it again.

In the alternative, I suppose the commission could adopt a special rule of order authorizing motions to be postponed for longer time periods.

On 1/12/2024 at 2:26 PM, Richard Brown said:

I think RONR 17:8 is pretty clear that the motion laid on the table dies if not taken from the table by the end of the next regular session.  It may not have died YET, but it will die if not taken from the table by the end of the next regular session.

Yes, but what was adopted was not a proper motion to Lay on the Table, but instead, a motion "to table for a year." Such a motion cannot be properly adopted under RONR, so RONR contains no guidance as to what happens if such a motion is adopted.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:07 PM, Guest Mike_L said:

At a regular scheduled meeting, a motion to table for a year was made. This was done because other items needed to be set up and completed and more information was needed that would not be able to obtain until close to a year from that meeting. I have seen and read that tabling has to be taken up before then end of the next meeting or the motion dies. I have also seen this happens unless it was tabled to a specific time. Postponing didn’t seem correct based on order and reason. Can anyone give clarification? 

There is no way such a motion would be in order.  The motion to Lay on the Table can never specify a time period.  The question lies on the table until a motion to Take From the Table is adopted.  If this is not done by the end of the following regular meeting, the question dies.

A motion to Postpone Definitely can specify a time to which the question is postponed, but this cannot be beyond the  following session either.  Such a postponed question becomes an order of business at the next meeting without needing a motion to bring it back.

In neither case can any question remain in either status for more than a quarterly interval. 

So the motion at this point is dead, and can be renewed (made again) whenever it appears that the necessary conditions to consider it have been achieved.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/12/2024 at 3:43 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

There is no way such a motion would be in order.  The motion to Lay on the Table can never specify a time period.  The question lies on the table until a motion to Take From the Table is adopted.  If this is not done by the end of the following regular meeting, the question dies.

A motion to Postpone Definitely can specify a time to which the question is postponed, but this cannot be beyond the  following session either.  Such a postponed question becomes an order of business at the next meeting without needing a motion to bring it back.

In neither case can any question remain in either status for more than a quarterly interval. 

So the motion at this point is dead, and can be renewed (made again) whenever it appears that the necessary conditions to consider it have been achieved.

I am quite uncertain as to this suggestion that the motion is now "dead." The motion which was adopted was not in proper form for a motion to Lay on the Table. Further, it is quite apparent from the statements by the original poster that the motion to Lay on the Table is not what was intended.

If the rules in RONR were all that was controlling on this matter, if I were in the chair, I would rule that the motion would come up under General Orders at the next meeting, as if it had been postponed.

Of course, the rules in RONR are not all that is controlling on this matter, so ultimately this will be a question for the board's clerks and attorneys.

Edited January 12, 2024 at 09:48 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Mike_L]

On 1/12/2024 at 3:16 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Mr Brown is of the opinion that the motion was an instance of Lay on the Table. I am less sure. I lean toward thinking it was an invalid instance of Postpone to a Certain Time. We could argue about this till the cows came home, but the fact is that the commission is not properly trained about these two motions or the motion, Postpone Indefinitely.

The City Council has been acting as P&Z Commission, as well as the Board of Adjustments for 10 plus years. They had the board and commission in place but after the last set of members resigned, the council never appointed anyone to fill the vacancies. This went against state laws, dual office holding of administrative and legislative offices. Recently, this was brought to their attention. In response they initially tried to vote to abolish all zoning and the commission. Due to the fact that notices were not provided in time for zoning changes and they received information on what that would allow, they decided not to pursue that and appoint members to the board and commission. The new members have been serving for about 6 months and have been doing what they can with what the city has provided. To my knowledge they have asked about training for OMA and other trainings but have not been provided any. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/12/2024 at 4:47 PM, Josh Martin said:

I am quite uncertain as to this suggestion that the motion is now "dead." The motion which was adopted was not in proper form. Further, it is quite apparent from the statements by the original poster that the motion to Lay on the Table is not what was intended.

If the rules in RONR were all that was controlling on this matter, if I were in the chair, I would rule that the motion would come up under General Orders at the next meeting, as if it had been postponed.

Of course, the rules in RONR are not all that is controlling on this matter, so ultimately this will be a question for the board's clerks and attorneys.

I understand your unwillingness to pronounce it dead--but if not dead, then surely moribund.  I agree that the intent of the motion may have been to Postpone Definitely but I'm less certain than you are that a chair may simply rule this is what occurred, when the assembly actually voted on a different motion.  I understand the reasoning, but I'm uncomfortable with the conclusion.  If anything, I believe that a motion to "table for a year" is more nearly equivalent to Postpone Indefinitely than to postpone to the next meeting. 

As a procedural convenience, assuming the motion's death, while perhaps premature at this stage, seems the easiest way to proceed at this point, since no permanent harm is done, and it can be freely renewed whenever it seems appropriate.

 

[Rob Elsman]

In the end, the community deserves the officials it elected. If and when the community decides it wants something better for itself, it will be free to elect more competent people.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/12/2024 at 4:01 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

As a procedural convenience, assuming the motion's death, while perhaps premature at this stage, seems the easiest way to proceed at this point, since no permanent harm is done, and it can be freely renewed whenever it seems appropriate.

I suppose this seems correct insofar as RONR is concerned.

Part of my other concern with declaring the motion "dead" is I am somewhat skeptical a zoning application can be properly rejected in this manner.

Edited January 12, 2024 at 10:45 PM by Josh Martin

[Weldon Merritt]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:29 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I disagree. A motion to refer to committee for the sole purpose of postponing consideration of a main motion to a later time is not in order on account that postponement does not fall within the purpose of the motion given in RONR (12th ed.) 13:1.

First of all, 13:1 says that Commit "is generally used to send a pending question to a relatively small group of selected persons—a committee—so that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider." (Emphasis added. It does nit say that the motion can be used only for that purpose. But even if 13:1 is interpreted that way, who says that delaying it for a year was the sole purpose? Guest Mike_L said that "more information was needed." Seems to me like a perfectly good reason to use Commit.

[Rob Elsman]

The fact that the motion was to "table" puts to rest the notion that the body wanted some kind of investigation. "Table" implies a state of rest or inaction. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/12/2024 at 5:44 PM, Josh Martin said:

Part of my other concern with declaring the motion "dead" is I am somewhat skeptical a zoning application can be properly rejected in this manner.

It's a valid concern, but in that context other factors arise, such as the likelihood that a zoning board has fixed terms and a given fraction of the membership subject to change at interval. In that case, it may not be possible to postpone a question past that point of reorganization.

I'm not familiar enough with zoning boards to know whether their unfinished business falls to the ground at those times, or whether there is some other way to put an application 'on ice' for extended periods.  It may be best to simply reject an application that is unworkable because it is "before its time", and suggest that it be resubmitted at a later date.  (But keep the application fee, of course. ☺️)

[Joshua Katz]

On 1/12/2024 at 6:34 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm not familiar enough with zoning boards to know whether their unfinished business falls to the ground at those times, or whether there is some other way to put an application 'on ice' for extended periods.  It may be best to simply reject an application that is unworkable because it is "before its time", and suggest that it be resubmitted at a later date.  (But keep the application fee, of course. ☺️)

Often there are laws prohibiting reapplication for a substantial period of time.