Ruling of Dilatory /Point of Order / Appeal

[Guest D.Llama]

This is a hypothetical - but arises from  concern over actions that are anticipated .

A member ( X)  makes a motion that the Chair refuses to accept on the basis that it is" dilatory" and  an attempt to unreasonably  delay and frustrate  the legitimate purposes of the meeting . A second  member  ( Y) then raises a "point of order " and when asked  by the Chair to state the point, says :

 "The chair has no right to make such a ruling  as our bylaws are clear - "All questions shall  be decided by a majority vote " - accordingly whether or not the  motion is viable should be decided by the assembly and not the Chair ."

The chair rules that the point of order is not well taken . A third member (Z ) then moves to appeal the decision of the Chair . The Chair likewise rules that motion to  appeal is  "dilatory"  and proceeds on to the next business . 

Would the Chair be correct to make such rulings  - if he/she was  entirely satisfied that the initial motion was clearly improper . 

Any response- very welcome .

 

D.Llama

 

[Alexis Hunt]

Yes, this would be proper. However, the chair should be very certain before denying an appeal. If there is the remotest possibility that X's motion is worth considering, then the chair should allow the appeal to go before the assembly.

[Guest D. Llama]

Thank-you Alexis - your response appears to suggest that regardless of what  bylaws state  as to  authority over " questions " - a Chair has ultimate authority when he /she decides that a matter is dilatory. In that circumstance a Chair has final  authority (?) .

 But can this be so- when RONR ,in numerous instances, identifies bylaws as invariably - superior ground  ? 

 

DL

[SaintCad]

Let's assume the original motion could reasonably be considered dilatory (it's hard to judge that without knowing the motion) then it is correct that the member's Point was not well taken since a dilatory motion is not a question for the assembly*.  However I would think that denying the Appeal was wrong.  The Appeal would not be dilatory if debate were kept strictly to "Shall the ruling that the Point of Order was not well taken be sustained."

 

 

*It is a question for the assembly when the motion is stated by the chair.

[SaintCad]

2 minutes ago, Guest D. Llama said:

Thank-you Alexis - your response appears to suggest that regardless of what  bylaws state  as to  authority over " questions " - a Chair has ultimate authority when he /she decides that a matter is dilatory. In that circumstance a Chair has final  authority (?) .

 But can this be so- when RONR ,in numerous instances, identifies bylaws as invariably - superior ground  ? 

 

DL

looks like you replied before mine got posted.  The assembly has ultimate authority - hence the power of Appeal to veto the Chair (and other powers).  The only two times an Appeal is out of order is specified on p 256.  One is a very technical scenario but to your scenario the only way an Appeal is dilatory is if there cannot possibly be "two reasonable opinions" (l 35).  I would consider an Appeal in order - not necessarily on Appealing the Point of Order but rather that the motion being ruled dilatory.  Assuming the original motion was not obviously dilatory the Appeal should be allowed.  This kind of contradicts what I said above but that's because most people do not understand parliamentary procedure and the Chair can debate on an appeal and explain the proper procedure.

 

[Josh Martin]

22 hours ago, Guest D.Llama said:

This is a hypothetical - but arises from  concern over actions that are anticipated .

A member ( X)  makes a motion that the Chair refuses to accept on the basis that it is" dilatory" and  an attempt to unreasonably  delay and frustrate  the legitimate purposes of the meeting . A second  member  ( Y) then raises a "point of order " and when asked  by the Chair to state the point, says :

 "The chair has no right to make such a ruling  as our bylaws are clear - "All questions shall  be decided by a majority vote " - accordingly whether or not the  motion is viable should be decided by the assembly and not the Chair ."

The chair rules that the point of order is not well taken . A third member (Z ) then moves to appeal the decision of the Chair . The Chair likewise rules that motion to  appeal is  "dilatory"  and proceeds on to the next business . 

Would the Chair be correct to make such rulings  - if he/she was  entirely satisfied that the initial motion was clearly improper . 

Theoretically, yes, but I would be very cautious in isssuing the first ruling, and even more cautious in issuing the second.

"It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the privilege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business. Whenever the chair becomes convinced that one or more members are repeatedly using parliamentary forms for dilatory purposes, he should either not recognize these members or he should rule that such motions are out of order—but he should never adopt such a course merely to speed up business, and he should never permit his personal feelings to affect his judgment in such cases. If the chair only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker of the motion the benefit of the doubt. The chair should always be courteous and fair, but at the same time he should be firm in protecting the assembly from imposition." (RONR 11th ed., pgs. 342-343)

"As further examples, it is dilatory to obstruct business by appealing from a ruling of the chair on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 342)

So in order to rule a motion out of order dilatory, the char should be certain that the motion is being used "merely to obstruct business." In order to also rule the subsequent appeal out of order as dilatory, he should be so certain of the fact that the motion is intended to obstruct business that "there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions" on that subject.

I don't think the member's quotation from the bylaws has anything to do with this.

22 hours ago, Guest D. Llama said:

Thank-you Alexis - your response appears to suggest that regardless of what  bylaws state  as to  authority over " questions " - a Chair has ultimate authority when he /she decides that a matter is dilatory. In that circumstance a Chair has final  authority (?) .

 But can this be so- when RONR ,in numerous instances, identifies bylaws as invariably - superior ground  ? 

I don't think the rule in the bylaws has anything to do with this, because I don't think there is any conflict. Even under RONR, the assembly ultimately has the authority to decide all questions of order.

The chairman's ruling that the motion is dilatory is subject to appeal. If the chairman further rules the appeal out of order as dilatory (which should very rarely be done), a member who wishes to press the matter further may see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-651 for the next steps.

22 hours ago, SaintCad said:

Let's assume the original motion could reasonably be considered dilatory (it's hard to judge that without knowing the motion) then it is correct that the member's Point was not well taken since a dilatory motion is not a question for the assembly*.  However I would think that denying the Appeal was wrong.  The Appeal would not be dilatory if debate were kept strictly to "Shall the ruling that the Point of Order was not well taken be sustained."

*It is a question for the assembly when the motion is stated by the chair.

Without knowing any of the facts about the original motion, I cannot say with any certainty whether the motion or the subsequent appeal should be ruled out of order as dilatory, but I will say that I am highly skeptical of the second.

[Guest D.Llama]

All above responses   are much  appreciated .

I have this question arising for  Mr. Martin and thank-you -  to him in advance  for any response he may provide  .  It is pointed out  ( by Mr. Martin )  that  under RONR  the assembly has ultimate authority and in this instance the bylaws are,    entirely  supportive of that proposition. Indeed ,the bylaws would seemingly   apply even if RONR was equivocal on that score . 

But to get back ,perhaps,  to the core issue -  who has ultimate authority ? It seems that  the presiding officer - on  making a decision , in good faith , that a motion is " dilatory " has the final say . There is no measure - point of order , or appeal - that can undo that determination ( p. 650 " ignores a motion ... that is not dilatory " ), and no way for the assembly to get  underneath that decision- if so made .The Chair rules  its "dilatory"- he /she is showing no signs of illness or bizarre behavior, in intervening  tweets ,or otherwise .  A member has no right (?)  to say/challenge  in such circumstances -  " well ,yes you have the authority to make such a ruling -and its not subject to appeal " , but lets hear and have a full  and better discussion of why you made such a ruling - to see if you were right - your  good character is not in issue - but your analysis  may well be  ".

Do the members have such a right - if so, I cannot see that in RONR - and it therefore  puts in question the subject of ultimate  authority -  does it not- with respect to rulings of "dilatory " ? Over to Mr. Martin .And  thanks- do set me right on this !  .

DL . 

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Guest D.Llama said:

Do the members have such a right - if so, I cannot see that in RONR - and it therefore  puts in question the subject of ultimate  authority -  does it not- with respect to rulings of "dilatory " ? Over to Mr. Martin .And  thanks- do set me right on this !  .

 

You might want to look at pp. 650-651, to which you were referred earlier, and which contain the process for putting a point of order and appeal to the assembly when the chair has (in the view of the member, incorrectly) ruled them dilatory.

[Guest D. Llama]

Thanks J. Katz and  J. Martin, both, -a further review of p. 650 ( lines 31 to 35)  is clearly - that "dilatory" is indeed ultimately  a matter for the members to say-  and not the final call of the Chair at all . Point of order seems the route to take and not otherwise- to  set aside  the ruling of a  chair on the call of "dilatory ". 

As an aside in a recent article on  the dilatory  motion ,  in NP  vol 78 , No 3 , p. 13  there seems  some suggestion of inability to overrule  a  chair on a call of "dilatory ":

"  .( dilatory ).. in contrast to point of order , the assembly has no role in this matter - either by indicating to the chair that the motion is dilatory on its own initiative ,or overruling the chair when he makes his ruling . "

But this may be a misinterpretation of this aspect of the  article  . 

Much Obliged 

D .Llama

 

 

[SaintCad]

One thing about this scenario, the Appeal is to the Point of Order and since PoO is undebatable so is the Appeal.  Also, this means that the Appeal ultimately is on the Point of Order that  All questions shall  be decided by a majority vote.  Since a motion is not a question until stated by the Chair* and there is no reasonable second opinion on this - it's the definition of "the question" I now think the chair ruling on the Appeal was correct as presented.

However, had the Appeal been made to the ruling that the motion was dilatory i.e. no Point of Order then the Appeal is debatable and assuming the motion was not obviously dilatory then there would be a reasonable second opinion and the Appeal is in order.

 

*Feel free to correct me if this is wrong.

[Shmuel Gerber]

9 hours ago, Guest D.Llama said:

This is a hypothetical - but arises from  concern over actions that are anticipated .

A member ( X)  makes a motion that the Chair refuses to accept on the basis that it is" dilatory" and  an attempt to unreasonably  delay and frustrate  the legitimate purposes of the meeting . A second  member  ( Y) then raises a "point of order " and when asked  by the Chair to state the point, says :

 "The chair has no right to make such a ruling  as our bylaws are clear - "All questions shall  be decided by a majority vote " - accordingly whether or not the  motion is viable should be decided by the assembly and not the Chair ."

The chair rules that the point of order is not well taken . A third member (Z ) then moves to appeal the decision of the Chair . The Chair likewise rules that motion to  appeal is  "dilatory"  and proceeds on to the next business . 

Would the Chair be correct to make such rulings  - if he/she was  entirely satisfied that the initial motion was clearly improper . 

Any response- very welcome .

 

D.Llama

 

Seems to me as though both the point of order and the appeal are indeed dilatory or, at the very least, frivolous as well as absurd. If a member believes that the chair's initial ruling is in error, he or she should appeal from the decision of the chair, not make the silly assertion that a rule in the bylaws specifying a voting requirement prevents the chair from ruling a motion out of order.

[Guest D.Llama]

 

Who can ever say what members will get up to - the absurd , the ridiculous and , yes , even the " silly " and this forum is testament to that very reality - members engage in all such . 

Regardless ,  " silly " or not , answers should be  readily available if the set of rules in use are useful. If a scenario arises such as the one offered  above - to  suggest it's "silly " ,does not actually help very much . What helps is to isolate the issues and address each in turn - as J.Martin  did earlier on . 

 

Members cannot be expected to follow the notions  of experts so as to offer the very soundest of motions . The scenario offered above is expected to unfold  somewhat as stated .  A Chair cannot control  or dictate how  various scenarios will unfold or what rationale/ justifications  members will rely on . 

But-  thanks anyway S. Gerber for the observation . 

D.Llama  

 

 

[Rev Ed]

Also, as the assembly has the ultimate final decision, if the Chairman starts denying the right of the assembly to make a final decision on the issue, the assembly could move to have the Chairman removed as the Chair of the meeting.  Plus, further disciplinary action could be taken, if required.

[Dan Honemann]

As I understand the facts, the chair rules that a motion made by member (X) is not in order on the grounds that it is dilatory. No appeal is taken from this ruling by the chair.

Member (Y) then rises to a point of order, and when asked by the chair to state his point of order, says the following:

 "The chair has no right to make such a ruling as our bylaws are clear - "All questions shall  be decided by a majority vote " - accordingly whether or not the  motion is viable should be decided by the assembly and not the Chair ."

It is interesting to note that this point of order does not raise any question as to whether or not the motion made by member (X) was dilatory. Instead, it asserts that the chair has no right to make any ruling as to whether or not a motion is in order because the bylaws provide that "All questions shall be decided by a majority vote." Although I haven't read the bylaws of this organization, I agree with Mr. Gerber that this point of order appears, on the face of it, to be absurd, and I can understand the chair's refusal to entertain any appeal from his ruling that the point of order was not well taken.

 

 

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

7 hours ago, Guest D.Llama said:

 

Who can ever say what members will get up to - the absurd , the ridiculous and , yes , even the " silly " and this forum is testament to that very reality - members engage in all such . 

Regardless ,  " silly " or not , answers should be  readily available if the set of rules in use are useful. If a scenario arises such as the one offered  above - to  suggest it's "silly " ,does not actually help very much . What helps is to isolate the issues and address each in turn - as J.Martin  did earlier on . 

 

Members cannot be expected to follow the notions  of experts so as to offer the very soundest of motions . The scenario offered above is expected to unfold  somewhat as stated .  A Chair cannot control  or dictate how  various scenarios will unfold or what rationale/ justifications  members will rely on . 

But-  thanks anyway S. Gerber for the observation . 

D.Llama  

 

 

I thought that my first sentence addressed your question, since you already know that the chair has the right and indeed the duty to protect the assembly from dilatory, frivolous, or absurd motions, including dilatory, frivolous, or absurd points of order and appeals. RONR is entirely clear and "readily available" on that point. I don't think it takes an expert to realize that a meeting can't be run by a chair who has no power to make rulings and that the (theoretical) member in question is offering a silly rationale for the point of order, and the chair can, politely, explain why.

[Guest D. Llama]

On this  I would agree with you -SG  - a   polite approach  is invariably the better way to go . 

Obliged . 

D. Llama 

[J. J.]

23 hours ago, Guest D.Llama said:

This is a hypothetical - but arises from  concern over actions that are anticipated .

A member ( X)  makes a motion that the Chair refuses to accept on the basis that it is" dilatory" and  an attempt to unreasonably  delay and frustrate  the legitimate purposes of the meeting . A second  member  ( Y) then raises a "point of order " and when asked  by the Chair to state the point, says :

 "The chair has no right to make such a ruling  as our bylaws are clear - "All questions shall  be decided by a majority vote " - accordingly whether or not the  motion is viable should be decided by the assembly and not the Chair ."

.

 

D.Llama

 

 

I think, at this point, the chair should explain to Member Y that he may raise an appeal the chair's decision on Member X's motion; it  might end the back and fourth, even if the chair would rule the appeal dilatory.