taking of table

[Guest arthur]

Ihave a qestion about taking of the table an item that at a previous meeting was laid on the table and stated in the motion it was to be brought of the table.

when the group meet at the next meeting the item was not brought of the table or even discussed about bring of the table. My question does it kill the item for any futher action and become a dead issue. the groups constitution states that business shall be done by roberts rules.

[Trina]

Ihave a qestion about taking of the table an item that at a previous meeting was laid on the table and stated in the motion it was to be brought of the table.

when the group meet at the next meeting the item was not brought of the table or even discussed about bring of the table. My question does it kill the item for any futher action and become a dead issue. the groups constitution states that business shall be done by roberts rules.

'A question that has been laid on the table remains there and can be taken from the table during the same session, or, if the next regular business session will be held before a quarterly time interval has elapsed, also at the next session after it was laid on the table. If not taken from the table within these time limits, the question dies, although it can be reintroduced later as a new question.' (RONR pp. 290-291)

So, yes, it's dead.

That being said, the motion to lay on the table isn't what your group should have used in the first place. See FAQ #12 for more information:

http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12

edited to add: I see that you actually speak about an 'item' being laid on the table -- makes me wonder if there was a motion at all? Maybe just a general discussion about something, that people wanted to postpone to a future date (I've been to lots of meetings like that )... Anyway, take particular note of the last phrase in the RONR citation above -- the item (of discussion?) certainly isn't a 'dead issue' in any permanent way.

[Josh Martin]

That being said, the motion to lay on the table isn't what your group should have used in the first place. See FAQ #12 for more information:

http://www.robertsru...com/faq.html#12

Well, it's not entirely clear to me why the motion was laid on the table in the first place, but I suspect you are correct that the motion was misused (particularly if you are correct in suspecting that no motion was pending). That tends to be the safe bet when Lay on the Table is concerned.

[Gary Novosielski]

... I suspect you are correct that the motion was misused.... That tends to be the safe bet when Lay on the Table is concerned.

The FAQ puts it nicely:

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

"Seldom" is putting it mildly.