Guest Monika Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:03 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:03 PM A board member made a motion. the motion was seconded. There was discussion. Someone made another motion, another board member said we need to deal with the first motion and asked the person who made the motion to withdraw it. They declined. Everyone voted on the 2nd motion which was to table the item to next month. After the meeting a board member said the first motion was not handled correctly. Please advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:15 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:15 PM It's a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion may be pending at a time. RONR, p. 56 and p. 255. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:16 PM Although "table" should have been "postpone", the main motion - the first one - and the subsidiary motion to postpone consideration of the main motion until next month were both handled correctly.Next month the chair, if he brushes up on his Robert's Rules and does things right, will bring the main motion up automatically as a "General Order", right after committee reports and before any New Business. You can then do what you please with that main motion. The "after meeting board member" was not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:23 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:23 PM Although "table" should have been "postpone", the main motion - the first one - and the subsidiary motion to postpone consideration of the main motion until next month were both handled correctly.Next month the chair, if he brushes up on his Robert's Rules and does things right, will bring the main motion up automatically as a "General Order", right after committee reports and before any New Business. You can then do what you please with that main motion. The "after meeting board member" was not correct.No, he won't bring it up automatically. Though improperly, the main motion was laid on the table by the adoption of the second motion. So, to the table it went; and, there it lies. The proper procedure is for any member to obtain the floor when no other question is pending and move to take the motion from the table. If this motion is adopted, then the main motion will be before the assembly again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joneuman Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:24 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:24 PM Just an added comment as this is one of my pet peeves, people incorrectly use the motion to lay on the table when what they really want to do is postpone discussion to another meeting. You can only lay a motion on the table IF there is something else more pressing that must be dealt with first. For example, you are having a long debate on a motion and your guest speaker has a specific time that they need to leave by, you could move to lay the motion on the table, let the speaker do their thing, and then recall the motion from the table to continue debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:50 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 06:50 PM No, he won't bring it up automatically. Though improperly, the main motion was laid on the table by the adoption of the second motion. So, to the table it went; and, there it lies. The proper procedure is for any member to obtain the floor when no other question is pending and move to take the motion from the table. If this motion is adopted, then the main motion will be before the assembly again.I agree that the second motion was stated improperly, but if (as Monika stated), it included "to next meeting," it seems pretty clear that it was an improperly worded motion to Postpone Definately, and not in fact a motion to Lay on the Table. As such, I agree with Dr. Stackpole that it should come up automatically as a General Order. Insisting that it be treated as a proper motion to Lay on the Table elevates form over substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 6, 2011 at 07:15 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 07:15 PM A board member made a motion. the motion was seconded. There was discussion. Someone made another motion, another board member said we need to deal with the first motion and asked the person who made the motion to withdraw it. They declined. Everyone voted on the 2nd motion which was to table the item to next month. After the meeting a board member said the first motion was not handled correctly. Please advise.Were these two different main motions, or was this a main motion, and then a motion to put the first motion off till next month?If the second motion was actually a subsidiary motion to set aside the first motion, then, while clumsily handled, nothing improper was done. In ordinary societies, the motion to Lay on the Table is rarely needed, and therefore seldom in order. You would not suffer much if you simply forgot it existed. And, in fact, if you really did include the words "to next month" then it was not a motion to Table, since that motion cannot be so qualified. Whether anyone realized it or not, what you actually did was to Postpone the question until next month.That's a perfectly proper action to take, and whoever told you it was not handled correctly is wrong. Maybe the terminology wasn't kosher, but the intent and actions taken were in line with RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted January 6, 2011 at 08:07 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 08:07 PM I agree that the second motion was stated improperly, but if (as Monika stated), it included "to next meeting," it seems pretty clear that it was an improperly worded motion to Postpone Definately, and not in fact a motion to Lay on the Table. As such, I agree with Dr. Stackpole that it should come up automatically as a General Order. Insisting that it be treated as a proper motion to Lay on the Table elevates form over substance.I'm not elevating form over substance as if the two were competing against one another. I'm simply saying that the intent of the assembly is known by the motion's words. The motion says that the question is "tabled", so, it's "tabled". Postponing has nothing to do with the table, in the parliamentary sense. So, when the motion says the question is tabled until the next meeting, it's tabled until the next meeting. No one raised a Point of Order about the matter at the time, so what was decided is exactly what is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 6, 2011 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 08:38 PM I'm not elevating form over substance as if the two were competing against one another. I'm simply saying that the intent of the assembly is known by the motion's words. The motion says that the question is "tabled", so, it's "tabled". Postponing has nothing to do with the table, in the parliamentary sense. So, when the motion says the question is tabled until the next meeting, it's tabled until the next meeting. No one raised a Point of Order about the matter at the time, so what was decided is exactly what is done. But there is no such thing as a motion to Lay on the Table Until a Definite Time. It only makes sense as a motion to Postpone. The chair should have stated it as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted January 6, 2011 at 08:50 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 08:50 PM But there is no such thing as a motion to Lay on the Table Until a Definite Time. It only makes sense as a motion to Postpone. The chair should have stated it as such.The chair can help a member frame a motion in the correct form, and he can also rule out of order a motion that is not in a proper form; but, he does not have the power to state the question on a motion that the maker did not make. The fact is, the motion was admitted in the form that it was, and no one seems to have raised a Point of Order about it at that time, so the words actually used in the motion are the words that were adopted as the judgment of the assembly. One is not at liberty to choose to chop out "tabled" or "the next meeting" to determine the correct meaning of the motion. All the words were adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted January 6, 2011 at 11:06 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 11:06 PM The chair can help a member frame a motion in the correct form, and he can also rule out of order a motion that is not in a proper form; but, he does not have the power to state the question on a motion that the maker did not make. The fact is, the motion was admitted in the form that it was, and no one seems to have raised a Point of Order about it at that time, so the words actually used in the motion are the words that were adopted as the judgment of the assembly. One is not at liberty to choose to chop out "tabled" or "the next meeting" to determine the correct meaning of the motion. All the words were adopted.I disagree. At least with regard to an improperly qualified motion to Lay on the Table, the chair not only has the right, but the duty, to process it as a motion to Postpone Definately. "If a time for resuming consideration is specified in making the motion, it can be admitted only as a motion to Postpone . . . ." RONR, p. 202, ll. 14-16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.