Tabled Agenda Items

[Guest Charles]

I have a 3 Member Board. 4 Months ago, I placed a policy on the agenda for review and approval. It was tabled by one of the Board Members. The same Board member has tabled the policy every meeting for the last 4 meetings. I cannot get the Board President to call for a vote even though he supports the policy. If the policy is tabled again this month, whuch I suspect it will, can I ask that it be removed from the agenda so we can move on to something else? In other words, once something is on the agenda, how can it be removed without being addressed? Thanks.

[hmtcastle]

If the policy is tabled again this month, whuch I suspect it will, can I ask that it be removed from the agenda so we can move on to something else? In other words, once something is on the agenda, how can it be removed without being addressed?

See FAQs #12, #13, and #14.

[Guest Charles]

See FAQs #12, #13, and #14.

Thanks. I had already read the FAQ 12, 13, & 14 as well as the others. They did not answer my question. Thanks for your time.

[David A Foulkes]

I think it's fair to say you are misusing, and misunderstanding, Laying on the Table (LOTT). As FAQ #12 notes, " 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 in order to take up something else of immediate urgency." It is not used to put off consideration of a motion/question until later for the purposes of gathering more information, or just to deal with it at a future meeting. There are appropriate parliamentary steps for such actions.

But -- since you say your Board has 3 members, and the President is in favor of the policy (as no doubt are you), then even a motion to LOTT (which requires a majority vote) would be defeated if both you and the President voted no to the other members motion to LOTT. So why aren't you doing this? And of course, I think the President should rule the motion to LOTT as out of order anyway, his ruling being subject to Appeal, which would not likely be seconded (as required) in your 3 member Board. Then you can get on to business.

[hmtcastle]

then even a motion to LOTT would be defeated

Can we please put these frivolous acronyms to rest?

It was bad enough when someone suggested POO (for Point of Order). But when someone who should know better suggests LOTT, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that I speak out against it.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, I did use standard journalism practice (using the full term initially and indicating the abbreviation I would employ following). Besides, I don't overdo it that much as a rule (this one case excepting, perhaps), and on the occasional basis it's only slightly more frivolous than FAQ, RONR, and the many instances of ES (Executive Session), EC (Executive Committee), BoD (Board of Directors) and so on. But in deference, I will attempt to refrain from acronymizing in the future. FYI. (oh, poo!)

[hmtcastle]

Well, I did use standard journalism practice (using the full term initially and indicating the abbreviation I would employ following).

And I'm certainly not suggesting that wasn't appreciated.