Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Non-Member Chair -- Vote on Appeal?


jstackpo

Recommended Posts

If a non-member hired gun is brought in to preside at a meeting, he, obviously, obtains  powers pertaining to presiding that a mere non-member guest would not have.  E.g, he can raise a point of order, and/or rule on a member's point of order.

 

Question:  if that ruling on the point of order is appealed, can the chair vote on sustaining the appeal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a non-member hired gun is brought in to preside at a meeting, he, obviously, obtains  powers pertaining to presiding that a mere non-member guest would not have.  E.g, he can raise a point of order, and/or rule on a member's point of order.

 

Question:  if that ruling on the point of order is appealed, can the chair vote on sustaining the appeal?

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a non-member hired gun is brought in to preside at a meeting, he, obviously, obtains  powers pertaining to presiding that a mere non-member guest would not have.  E.g, he can raise a point of order, and/or rule on a member's point of order.

 

Question:  if that ruling on the point of order is appealed, can the chair vote on sustaining the appeal?

 

I agree with Mr. Mt.  Even though it may appear that he has some rights, as you noted in your post, voting is taboo.  I do think he can speak on the appeal like the regular presiding officer as it benefits the assembly to understand the reasons for the ruling before it decides the matter.

 

Edited to add  - J.J. wrote an article on this subject some time ago, but you'll have to email him to ask him when it was published and which organization published it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he can vote to create a tie and thus sustain his decision."  Therefore, if the presiding officer is not a member of the assembly, he cannot vote to create a tie to sustain his decision.

 

I'm afraid that's not a logical conclusion (even though it happens to be true).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RONR (11th ed.), p. 258, ll. 16-18:  "If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he can vote to create a tie and thus sustain his decision."  Therefore, if the presiding officer is not a member of the assembly, he cannot vote to create a tie to sustain his decision.

 

I'm afraid that's not a logical conclusion (even though it happens to be true).

 

It looks logical to me.  How do you figure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks logical to me.  How do you figure?

 

The fact that a president who is a member can vote does not logically mean that a president who is not a member can't vote.

 

What you'd want is a statement to the effect that only a president who is a member can vote. Or, which is what RONR says, that only members can vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RONR (11th ed.), p. 258, ll. 16-18:  "If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he can vote to create a tie and thus sustain his decision."  Therefore, if the presiding officer is not a member of the assembly, he cannot vote to create a tie to sustain his decision.

 

 

I'm afraid that's not a logical conclusion (even though it happens to be true).

 

It is quite a logical conclusion. You seem to be confusing the rules of mathematical logic with the rules of textual interpretation.

 

It is correct that the statements "if the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he can vote to create a tie and thus sustain his decision" and "if the presiding officer is not a member of the assembly, he cannot vote to create a tie to sustain his decision" are not logically equivalent to each other, so it cannot accurately be said that, of necessity, the first mathematically implies the second.

 

Under the principles of interpretation, however, the fact that the words "if the presiding officer is a member of the assembly" are included at all implies that there is some significance to that condition, because otherwise the rule would simply be: "The presiding officer can vote to create a tie and thus sustain his decision."

 

Such an interpretation is an application of principle #4 on pages 589-90: "If the [rules adopted by an organization] authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited." Here, RONR authorizes a member presiding officer to vote to create a tie on an Appeal, thereby implying that a nonmember presiding officer cannot do so.

 

Furthermore, since nonmembers cannot vote in the first place, this rule makes it quite clear that RONR does not grant a nonmember presiding officer any special voting rights relating to an Appeal.

 

All in all, Transpower's citation is spot-on.

 

[Edited to add the underlined words.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mr. Mt.  Even though it may appear that he has some rights, as you noted in your post, voting is taboo.  I do think he can speak on the appeal like the regular presiding officer as it benefits the assembly to understand the reasons for the ruling before it decides the matter.

 

Edited to add  - J.J. wrote an article on this subject some time ago, but you'll have to email him to ask him when it was published and which organization published it.

 

 

My conclusion was no, though a nonmember may object to the consideration of the question (but not vote on it). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...