Appeal

[Chris Harrison]

I have two unrelated questions (and I can split the questions into two threads if it works better):

1) When an Appeal is pending and the Chair has spoken on the question does the member making the Appeal have preference in recognition over the other members to speak on it. Page 367 seems to suggest that is the case but I am not certain.

2) If the Appeal is based off of the Chair's announcement of the results of a vote (and the ruling on the Point of Order is being Appealed) and the Appeal is laid on the table what would be the status of the motion that is having its results challenged? For example, say that the Chair had announced that the motion to Rescind a previous motion was adopted and a Point of Order was raised that there wasn't enough votes to adopt the motion and the ruling on the Point is Appealed and the Appeal is laid on the table. Would a motion that would conflict with that motion be in order or is it hands off until the Appeal is dealt with?

[tctheatc]

since Lay on the Table places on the table the question itself and everything adhering to it (RONR p 206 l 12), I would think it takes with it the challenged result IF the next item of business had not yet been stated. At that point, the result would be final and the point of order would be too late.

But that's MY guess, not one of an experienced parliamentarian, for those scoring at home.

[Josh Martin]

1) When an Appeal is pending and the Chair has spoken on the question does the member making the Appeal have preference in recognition over the other members to speak on it.

I suppose he would. There is nothing in the sections on Appeal or the rules on assignment of the floor which would suggest otherwise.

2) If the Appeal is based off of the Chair's announcement of the results of a vote (and the ruling on the Point of Order is being Appealed) and the Appeal is laid on the table what would be the status of the motion that is having its results challenged?

The motion would be laid on the table with the Appeal.

Would a motion that would conflict with that motion be in order or is it hands off until the Appeal is dealt with?

A main motion which conflicted with the tabled motion would be out of order, as usual.

[David A Foulkes]

I have two unrelated questions (and I can split the questions into two threads if it works better):

1) When an Appeal is pending and the Chair has spoken on the question does the member making the Appeal have preference in recognition over the other members to speak on it. Page 367 seems to suggest that is the case but I am not certain.

p. 250 ll. 3-5 indicate there is no preference, but that may be how I read that the chair will "ask if there others who wish to speak first."

[Dan Honemann]

The motion would be laid on the table with the Appeal.

I think what Josh means is that, in the example given, the motion to Lay on the Table cannot be separately applied to the appeal, since the appeal adheres to the main motion. The motion would have to be a motion to lay the main motion on the table, which would carry with it the pending appeal.

[Josh Martin]

I think what Josh means is that, in the example given, the motion to Lay on the Table cannot be separately applied to the appeal, since the appeal adheres to the main motion. The motion would have to be a motion to lay the main motion on the table, which would carry with it the pending appeal.

Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks.

p. 250 ll. 3-5 indicate there is no preference, but that may be how I read that the chair will "ask if there others who wish to speak first."

The citation you are referring to is about the end of debate on an Appeal, not the beginning.

[Guest Nancy N.]

[snip]

[DAF: p. 250, lines 3 - 5]

The citation you are referring to is about the end of debate on an Appeal, not the beginning.

Josh, I don't see that. I think if that's what the sentence meant, it could have said "before he concludes the debate" instead of "first," without pushing RONR 10th up much past 800 pages. I don't see how the chair's second speech could terminate any members' right to their only speech, based only on the text. (This is tangential to Chris H's question.)

[Josh Martin]

Josh, I don't see that. I think if that's what the sentence meant, it could have said "before he concludes the debate" instead of "first," without pushing RONR 10th up much past 800 pages. I don't see how the chair's second speech could terminate any members' right to their only speech, based only on the text. (This is tangential to Chris H's question.)

Given that the sentence refers to the chair's "rebuttal," I don't see how it can possibly be referring to anything but the end of the debate. I agree that the text certainly does not suggest that the chair can cut off a member's right to debate.