Postponement

[OCDSA]

An item was postponed until a specific date (a court hearing). Can it be reconsidered? What would it take to bring this topic back up before the set date? Would it need a 2/3s vote to adjust the timeframe?

[Rob Elsman]

The scheduling of a court hearing is ordinarily done by a judge or other officer of the court.

[OCDSA]

I will provide more context. Union body voted for looking into a new schedule. At the same time union is going through contract negotiations with a scheduled arbitration hearing. A motion was passed (well over 2/3s) to postpone any vote on a new schedule until after the hearing so union has all information regarding new contract prior to making that vote. Some of the body is wishing to readdress this because they are wishing to implement a new schedule as soon as possible. There are questions as to whether it would need to be majority or 2/3s to reconsider it or if it can even be amended.

Edited July 11, 2024 at 07:53 PM by OCDSA

[Rob Elsman]

What does the arbitration court (?) have to say? My guess is that the parties would need to appear when the court schedules the hearing. I rather doubt one party or the other has the singular power to set the schedule.

[Joshua Katz]

In addition to Mr. Elsman's points, I'll just note that postponing to an uncertain time is out of order. Was a date set, or was it simply postponed until after the arbitration, without knowing when that will be? Note that you cannot postpone beyond the next meeting. So, most likely, once the next meeting has passed, as a matter of parliamentary law, it can be taken up again without need for any further action. But that's not the same as saying whether you need to wait until after arbitration to pass the motion.

[Richard Brown]

I'm not at all sure what the situation is.  A motion may be postponed until a specific event, so a postponement until the day of the hearing would likely be in order as long as it occurs before the next regularly scheduled meeting and as long as that occurs within a quarterly time interval.  It could also be postponed to the date of the hearing under the same terms.  It sounds like maybe that is what was done, rather than postponing it "until the hearing".  It sounds to me like you postponed it to "a date certain".

However, it is too late to reconsider the motion to postpone. 

It is possible to move the date up to consider it prior to the date for which it was postponed, but as a practical matter that presents challenges and any such motion to move it up would probably require a two-thirds vote and would have to take place at a meeting. That would not be an actual "reconsideration", but would most likely be a motion to suspend the rules and change the date the postponed motion is to be heard.  I'm not sure that would be possible in your situation.

We really need more information order to properly help you.  This is all very confusing and hard for us parliamentarians to understand.  Perhaps it's because non-standard language is being used. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 7/11/2024 at 3:29 PM, OCDSA said:

A motion was passed (well over 2/3s) to postpone any vote on a new schedule until after the hearing.

then

On 7/11/2024 at 3:29 PM, OCDSA said:

Some of the body is wishing to readdress this because they are wishing to implement a new schedule as soon as possible.

As you've read in the replies, the motion Postpone to a Definite Time has certain time limits regarding how far forward you can postpone an item (often only to the next regular meeting but sometimes only to the end of the current meeting). It's not clear whether your postponement exceeded the time limit that applies. 

If the time limit was not exceeded, then 14:13 says, "It cannot be taken up before the time for which it is set, except by . . . suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote." (the portion I've omitted doesn't apply here).

OTOH, if the motion to Postpone pushed it beyond the time limits, as it sounds like it did, then the motion to Postpone was not in order. So the motion regarding the new schedule is probably dead and a new motion (or the same motion) can be moved at any future meeting as if it hadn't been moved previously at all, no matter what the status of the hearing (i.e., the hearing is a red herring).

While I believe that this is the correct answer from a parliamentary procedure perspective, I would recommend you, at least, give plenty of notice to the membership because many of them apparently believe that this has been shelved until after the arbitration decision (even though a meeting cannot tie the hands of a future meeting). This potential political problem has resulted from a procedural error.

 

Or, I could be misunderstanding the entire situation.

Edited July 11, 2024 at 10:34 PM by Atul Kapur
Corrected typo

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/11/2024 at 3:29 PM, OCDSA said:

I will provide more context. Union body voted for looking into a new schedule. At the same time union is going through contract negotiations with a scheduled arbitration hearing. A motion was passed (well over 2/3s) to postpone any vote on a new schedule until after the hearing so union has all information regarding new contract prior to making that vote. Some of the body is wishing to readdress this because they are wishing to implement a new schedule as soon as possible. There are questions as to whether it would need to be majority or 2/3s to reconsider it or if it can even be amended.

Is there another membership meeting scheduled between now and the hearing date?  If not, where would this motion be brought up again?

And if there is, then how did you manage to postpone anything past the intervening meeting?  At that meeting raise a Point of Order that the motion was improperly postponed, and the discussion of à new schedule should be taken up at that time.

It's too late to Reconsider, but you can bring the schedule question before the assembly if you can get a meeting to consider it at.

[OCDSA]

So with further information I was given this is the situation:

We are in current contract negotiations but other members were pushing for a new schedule. A motion was made to postpone until after our new contract is signed as prior admistration has used beneficial schedules against us in contract negotiation. The schedule would be something being done outside of the contract. 

A hearing for arbitration was set for later this month and we are planning to have a meeting later than evening to discuss the outcome or what happened. There has been no other meeting between this one and the one where the postponement was made. 

The schedule in relation to contract would be handled as a side bar agreement.

The question needing to be addressed is that some of the body would like to motion to change the time from  "after contract is signed" to something sooner like after arbitration hearing. 

I know this is probably a very confusing matter so hopefully this information helps. I had limited knowledge of Robert's Rule before and in process of reading through the newest edition. I am one of few people even aware of Robert's Rules of Order. We are trying to be better as a Union Board to make sure meetings are being conducted appropriately.

[Gary Novosielski]

Okay, but my answer remains essentially the same.  In order to move to Amend Something Previously Adopted [RONR (12th ed.) §35], you have to be in a meeting to move it.     So reread my answer with that in mind.

[Atul Kapur]

On 7/11/2024 at 8:33 PM, OCDSA said:

So with further information I was given this is the situation:

This is a complicated situation. It would help if you could provide the wording of the motion that was on the floor and the exact wording of the postponement motion (with any identifying details redacted, of course).