motion to table

[hoopmama11]

Our group is just getting used to using Robert's rules of order. At a meeting, someone voted to table the election of a board as outlined in the bylaws. The procedure was to advertise the slate of board members for a month with opportunities to bring any concerns to the directors and then vote at the next meeting. Would a motion to lay this on the table thus be a violation of the bylaws and therefore, out of order?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

At a meeting, someone voted to table the election of a board as outlined in the bylaws.

The procedure was to advertise the slate of board members for a month with opportunities to bring any concerns to the directors and then vote at the next meeting. Would a motion to lay this on the table thus be a violation of the bylaws and therefore, out of order?

"Bylaws"?

If your bylaws were silent, we would give you a clear, concise answer.

But if you are referring to bylaws which no one has read (!), then no answer is possible.

No one here can tell you what you did, procedurally, at that meeting.

No one here has read your bylaws.

How can I match up one to the other?

[hmtcastle]

Would a motion to lay this on the table thus be a violation of the bylaws and therefore, out of order?

If you've adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, it's out or order because it violates your bylaws by violating RONR.

See also FAQ #12.

[hoopmama11]

If you've adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, it's out or order because it violates your bylaws by violating RONR.

Yes, we have adopted RONR as our parliamentary authority. Sorry I wasn't a little more clear on that. And thank you for your response!

[Chris Harrison]

If you've adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, it's out or order because it violates your bylaws by violating RONR.

See also FAQ #12.

Assuming the intent was actually to postpone the election rather than "table it" (which as we know well is very often mistakenly used) until the next meeting wouldn't that be proper?

[George Mervosh]

Assuming the intent was actually to postpone the election rather than "table it" (which as we know well is very often mistakenly used) until the next meeting wouldn't that be proper?

When pending, it could be properly postponed, yes.

[hmtcastle]

Assuming the intent was actually to postpone the election rather than "table it" (which as we know well is very often mistakenly used) until the next meeting wouldn't that be proper?

Well, I was speaking of the misuse of the motion to table (which I think we all agree on) and I'm not a stickler for terminology (especially arcane terminology), but I tend to think that "table" is one of those terms whose proper use should be encouraged.

Moreover, in this particular instance I'm uncomfortable with postponing an election simply to provide additional time to promote the incumbent "slate". Although, upon re-reading the original post, I'm not sure that that's what the "slate of board members" refers to.

I often think the "instructions" to this forum should advise questioners to return a day or two after they receive the initial replies, just in case an undiscovered wrinkle emerges.