Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Appeal Stated in the Negative?


Guest F.R.Pond

Recommended Posts

Our bylaws state, "At any meeting at which a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of a majority of those present shall decide any question except the election of Directors presented to the meeting, unless a greater percentage vote is required by law, by the Declaration or by these Bylaws."

I would interpret this to mean that should an appeal be made to a decision of the chair, "a majority of those present shall decide" whether or not the decision of the chair stands (as opposed to a majority of those voting).

Many members are reluctant to vote. If the question is put, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" and "a majority of those present" is not achieved, what is the result of the appeal? Offhand, it would appear that the decision of the chair would not be sustained (is this the consensus of this forum?)... but then, every decision the chair makes could be appealed (and hypothetically overturned) by default, which would make for an extremely long and difficult meeting.

Given this situation, would it ever be proper for the chair to put the question in the negative (e.g, "Shall the decision of the chair be overturned?")? Can the wording (either "...be sustained" or "...be overturned") be put to the Assembly to decide? Could the chair make such a motion if no one else does? Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given this situation, would it ever be proper for the chair to put the question in the negative (e.g, "Shall the decision of the chair be overturned?")? Can the wording (either "...be sustained" or "...be overturned") be put to the Assembly to decide? Could the chair make such a motion if no one else does? Thank you.

"The vote is taken so that the affirmative will be in favor of sustaining the chair's decision". (p.251).

It could be argued that "any question" refers to any main motion, not to incidental motions, but that's for your organization to determine. The solution is to amend your bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our bylaws state, "At any meeting at which a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of a majority of those present shall decide any question except the election of Directors presented to the meeting, unless a greater percentage vote is required by law, by the Declaration or by these Bylaws."

I would interpret this to mean that should an appeal be made to a decision of the chair, "a majority of those present shall decide" whether or not the decision of the chair stands (as opposed to a majority of those voting).

Many members are reluctant to vote. If the question is put, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" and "a majority of those present" is not achieved, what is the result of the appeal? Offhand, it would appear that the decision of the chair would not be sustained (is this the consensus of this forum?)... but then, every decision the chair makes could be appealed (and hypothetically overturned) by default, which would make for an extremely long and difficult meeting.

Given this situation, would it ever be proper for the chair to put the question in the negative (e.g, "Shall the decision of the chair be overturned?")? Can the wording (either "...be sustained" or "...be overturned") be put to the Assembly to decide? Could the chair make such a motion if no one else does? Thank you.

I suppose, in theory, the rules can be suspended by a two-thirds vote to put the question the other way; however, in my opinion, such a thing is exceedingly poor practice to be carefully avoided to prevent confusion and contention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose, in theory, the rules can be suspended by a two-thirds vote to put the question the other way; however, in my opinion, such a thing is exceedingly poor practice to be carefully avoided to prevent confusion and contention.

Actually, as I interpret our bylaws, in our particular case the rules can be suspended by an "affirmative vote of a majority of those present" (not the usual two-thirds), but your point is well taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, as I interpret our bylaws, in our particular case the rules can be suspended by an "affirmative vote of a majority of those present" (not the usual two-thirds), but your point is well taken.

This is much less clear to me than it seems to be to you; but, they're your bylaws, so I leave it to you to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many members are reluctant to vote. If the question is put, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" and "a majority of those present" is not achieved, what is the result of the appeal?

It is up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

Certainly the idea that a minority could overturn the ruling of the chair seems fairly ludicrous, so hopefully the assembly can come to some other reasonable interpretation of that rule.

In the long run, the rule should be amended for clarity, or perhaps removed so that the rules in RONR are controlling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many members are reluctant to vote.

That may be why Robert's Rules of Order considers non-voters who are present as "abstainers" and who count toward neither the affirmative side nor the negative side.

Non-opinions ought not be considered when making a decision.

When you customize a rule in direct contrast to your parliamentary authority, you run the risk of losing out on the logical cohesion which a parliamentary authority offers, via its intricate parliamentary rules.

If the question is put, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" and "a majority of those present" is not achieved, what is the result of the appeal?

The result?

• Under RONR, it takes a majority vote in the negative to overturn the ruling of the chair.

• Under your customized rule, there is no telling, using RONR alone.

But if I had a dictionary, and a book of English grammar, I could interpret your customized rule for you. But my opinion would be my opinion, and be no more authoritative than anyone else's opinion, since it would be based on language skills, and not based on any parliamentary proof.

But RONR mentions a principle:

The ruling of the chair stands, until overturned.

So, if the chair rules "well taken" on some Point of Order, then, to overturn the ruling of the chair, you need a "majority of those present" (per your own customized rule) to vote contrary to the chair's ruling - because the chair's ruling is the judgment of the assembly until overturned.

Thus the need for the contrary vote, per your customized rule.

Given this situation, would it ever be proper for the chair to put the question in the negative (e.g, "Shall the decision of the chair be overturned?")?

No. There is no good reason to deviate from The Book.

Can the wording (either "...be sustained" or "...be overturned") be put to the Assembly to decide? Could the chair make such a motion if no one else does?

No.

The rule in RONR is clear. It does not make sense to change the application of the rule merely based on your customized voting rule. You pay the penalty for abstentions for nearly 100% of all possible motions. To vary from The Book on one motion does not make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many members are reluctant to vote.

When you customize a rule in direct contrast to your parliamentary authority, you run the risk of losing out on the logical cohesion which a parliamentary authority offers, via its intricate parliamentary rules.

Amen, brother!

What I mean to say, of course, is that I concur :). Unfortunately, this was the hand I was dealt and I'm trying to do right with the rules we currently have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...