Motion to table as cheap trick

The motion “to table” used to kill another motion is out of order. It is also the most common violation of the spirit of Robert’s Rules of Order. And, of cheap tricks, it is king.Get prepared to defend your right to be heard in a deliberative body. Train your assembly about the misuse of the motion “to lay a motion on the table.” You’ll only have to do this once or twice.

Part of the very fabric of Robert’s Rules of Order is fairness to the minority. References to this occur throughout the book. In every place where a limiting or ending of debate is discussed, it is only by a 2/3 vote that an assembly may terminate discussion of a subject while members still wish to speak. This shows the heart of Robert’s Rules.

In contrast, the motion “to table” requires only a majority and no debate on it is allowed. It is therefore explicitly declared as out of order if the intent is to kill a motion.

Here are the facts:

Robert’s Rules devotes section 17 to the motion “Lay on the Table.” The first paragraph defines the use of the motion: It “…enables the assembly to lay the pending question aside temporarily when something else of immediate urgency has arisen [their emphasis]…” (RONR-10th, P.201, L.29-31). An example is given on page 204 (L.2): “Our speaker must catch an early flight.”

Robert’s feels compelled in the second full paragraph of the section to address the abuse of the motion: “This motion is commonly misused in ordinary assemblies—in place of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, to Postpone to a Certain Time, or other motions” (RONR, P. 202, L.4-6). If a motion “to table” is used for any purpose other than the one given above, it “…violates the rights of the minority…” (RONR, P. 202, L.10-11). Therefore, this motion used to kill another motion is “out of order” (RONR, P.202, L.13-14).

The Robert’s Rules website also features the abuse of this motion as one of their top 20 FAQs.

A bold example of this misuse is in the Rules of Order of the House of Deputies (General Convention) of the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.). Rule VII.26.g.8 (There is no parallel in the Bishop’s rules): “If amendment or substitute is laid on table the effect is the same as if it had not been offered.” This rule should be made to conform to the spirit of Robert’s Rules. If there is any place for fairness to a minority, it should be in a church assembly.

But, there are times when a motion needs to be disposed of without going on record voting it down. Suppose that a national, annual meeting of a denomination this month received a resolution from a member asking the body “to urge the government of the U.S. to support the State of Israel in its incursion into Lebanon.” Some in the church body might want an opposite resolution, but a strong majority might believe that they can’t possibly have enough information to make any action-statement to our government. Others in the majority might believe it is not in the church’s sphere to make directive political statements at all.

The proper way to kill a motion is to “postpone indefinitely.” It only requires a majority to pass, but debate is allowed and it may go into the merits of the original motion of substance (RONR, P.122, L.15). Unless a motion to “call the question” is passed immediately (requiring 2/3rds), the minority could still plead the value of the original motion.

In the case above, a simple majority could vote to “postpone indefinitely.” It is the right of the majority to determine the direction of a body. But it always takes 2/3rds to take away the right of the minority to be heard. After a fair period of debate a member could “move the previous question,” seeking to end debate. 2/3rds must agree.

TACTICS FOR FAIRNESS:

In case the stunt is pulled seeking to close debate immediately (“call the question”) after the motion to “postpone indefinitely,” you must act immediately. Be prepared. See point 3 below for a response to this cheap trick by “raising a point of privilege.” It is the best you can do. The hope is that 2/3rds of your fellow-members will not be found to quash your rights to be heard.

In the case of a misuse of the motion to table, you also have to act fast:

1. Immediately stand and raise a “Point of Order” (more on this technique in a later post). Ask the Chair to rule this use of the motion “to table” out of order, having your Robert’s Rules in your hand, flagged and highlighted for the references above. Read just one or two pertinent sentences. Say: “This use of Tabling is against a basic principle of parliamentary law—the right of the minority to a fair hearing.”

In the Episcopal House of Deputies rule noted above, great weight would rest on the word “if.” The Deputies’ rule is an accurate description; it just shouldn’t be used.

2. If the point of order is denied, “respectfully appeal” the Chair’s decision to the body (more on this in another post), hoping that enough members got the point to grant basic fairness.

3. If the appeal is lost, and if the matter being killed is important enough, immediately “raise a question of personal privilege” (affecting your participation in the body). This must be done before the vote is taken on the motion “to table.” More on this in my next full post, but for now, you may rise, address the Chair without being recognized, and say “Point of privilege.” The Chair asks what your point is. Say something like: “The right of the minority to speak is a basic part of Robert’s Rules of Order. If the assembly refuses this right, I must think about my place in this body.”

The point here can be quite grave. If you are not granted the courtesy of a fair hearing, what does this say about your place in the assembly? You may simply make such a statement and keep your place. Your strongest statement, if the overall stance of the body warrants it, would be to remove yourself from the assembly temporarily or permanently. Even here, you might go out for a recess and not come back for a period in order to reflect on your situation. You can only “walk-out” publicly once; the “boy who cried Wolf” syndrome kicks in.

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, but sometimes it does. Those who say we can stay together “no matter what” have not adequately pondered Jesus turning over the tables of the money-changers in the Temple. He was making a radical break with “business as usual” in the place of religious assembly. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, this is properly seen as the provocation of the final plot for his death.

The Church is involved in eternal matters of life and death, and often, church legislative assemblies touch these matters. The right of a minority to be adequately heard is surely a Christian ideal. We should not fear to rock the boat in our assemblies if we are clear that important issues are at stake.