Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'appeal'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

There are no results to display.


Found 12 results

  1. If the chair is persuaded during debate on an appeal that his ruling on a point of order was erroneous, may he withdraw the ruling before it becomes precedent, or at least inform the assembly of his change of mind during his second speech at the close of debate? The former alternative would be analogous to a member withdrawing (or seeking permission to withdraw) a motion, although I can find no reference in RONR that would justify the chair withdrawing a ruling. The latter alternative would be similar to a member arguing against his own motion, which no member is allowed to do. What’s the best way for the chair to handle such a change of mind? Should the minutes include the reasons the chair gives during an appeal, or just the reasons he gives while ruling on the point of order itself?
  2. Hi. Does anyone have a reference in Robert's Rules of Order concerning the timely filing of an appeal to election results?
  3. Hello, I was listening to a meeting where the person acting as the parliamentarian gave advice that I had never heard in researching appeals. A member of the body tried to appeal, the chair asked the parliamentarian if the member could appeal, and the parliamentarian (not a real parliamentarian) said NOTE: THE ORIGINAL QUOTE I POSTED IS WRONG. I listened to a different audio recording and it doesn't say "inquiry", it says: "It would be out of order for councilmember to appeal the decision of the chair when the decision of the chair is based on a matter of decorum or ruling of decorum" What? Is there any basis or citation for that advice?
  4. Under traditional circumstances, I am aware that an appeal from the decision of the chair requires a majority vote. However, one of RONR's fundamental concepts is that a majority cannot infringe on a right that protects a minority larger than the existing minority (I phrased that weirdly but I'm sure you understand which concept I'm referring to). Using those two ideas, what would occur in the following scenario? A motion to limit debate is made and a member raises a point of order that the vote to limit debate requires a majority vote. The chair (correctly) rules that the point is not well taken and the member who raised the point of order appeals from the decision of the chair. Would this appeal require a majority vote? I would think it requires a 2/3 vote to pass the appeal or whatever the vote required to pass the motion in question would be. On a slightly related note, in a scenario like above, when RONR clearly has the answer to the question that is being appealed why is it up to the membership to decide a matter of parliamentary procedure rather than simply consulting RONR?
  5. Board consists of four members which resulted in a tie vote. Appeal was called and the board was told that the president had to abstain from voting on the appeal. The president had been against the motion so when he abstained it caused the motion to pass. Was this handled correctly, or if not how should this have been handled?
  6. Strange rule re appeals

    A nine member board has a rather strange rule regarding appeals from rulings of the chair. This board has no constituent membership and is a public body, but I don't believe that is of any significance for the purpose of this discussion. The board has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority. The board's special rule regarding the vote required on an appeal from a ruling of the chair reads as follows. (The Board calls its special rules "policies" and "rules of protocol"). Pay particular attention to the last sentence: "The presiding officer of any meeting shall conduct such meeting in accordance with the Rules of Protocol and shall have authority to make rulings on interpretation of these Rules of Protocol and any other matter or question which may arise with regard to conducting the meeting, including recognition of speakers, whether a speaker is out of order, etc." "The decision of the presiding officer shall be final unless appealed by a Board member or committee member to the entire Board or committee as set forth herein below. Any member who disagrees with a decision of the presiding officer may appeal such decision to the total Board or committee. Such appeal may be taken by a statement to that effect and no second is required. The presiding officer shall immediately call for a vote on the question of whether or not the ruling of the presiding officer shall be sustained. Upon a favorable vote of a majority of those Board or committee members present and voting including the presiding officer, the rules of the presiding officer shall be sustained." What is the opinion of others on here as to the effect of a tie vote on an appeal? RONR says it takes a majority vote to reverse a decision of the chair and that a tie vote sustains the chair, but this rule says "upon the favorable vote of a majority of those board or committee members present and voting including the presiding officer, the rules (ruling??) of the presiding officer shall be sustained." Does that mean that on a tie vote the ruling of the chair is reversed?
  7. Changing Ruling of the Chair

    I am a member of a local Yacht Club in Washington State and have made a few inquiries of this Forum. This experience has been very rewarding and your answers have helped me a lot. My current question concerns a ruling made by the Chair of our organization at the September 2014 general meeting (first meeting of our September to June 2014/2015 season). The Chair's action summarily put an end to a long standing tradition of our Club where members were invited to contribute quarters to a container at every meeting with the previous meeting's contributions awarded to a member through a drawing (with all members included in the drawing). If the drawn member was present, they received the booty from the previous meeting's contributions. Obviously on the surface, this would seem like a petty complaint to this chair's singular ruling (without announcement or debate) to eliminate a long standing tradition however this was the beginning of a long list of items orchestrated by this Chair to change traditions and rules for our organization. In regard to the "money drawing tradition", a member inquired of the Chair later in that September meeting, what had happened to the passing of the "hat" for the drawing. The Chair responded with something like "Oh, I have decided to discontinue this drawing". The questioning member then asked how the Chair had come to that decision and was simply told that "as Chair, I felt this tradition was tacky and simply did not wish it to continue". This did not sit well with several members and further inquiries after this meeting reportedly resulted in the Chair's response "I am 'Commodore' and can do whatever I wish when I feel something is not in the best interest of the Club". Even though this may be considered a small thing, it was a very long standing tradition of our Club and enjoyed by many. My question (sorry for drawing this out): Is there any remedy for this summary ruling by the Chair? I must point out that the ruling was only verbalized after the member spoke up, indicating the Chair had no intention of commenting about his elimination of this tradition, if no one had questioned it. I understand there is a timeliness rule in RONR (p 257-30) however would like to know if there is a method to reinstate a tradition such as this without an appeal to the Chair after this length of time. Thank you
  8. I was at a Town Council Board of Zoning appeals meeting where the majority of people were against a property being zoned a multi-family home even though a judge had ruled the property a multi-family home more then 30 years prior. The person heading the meeting claimed the Board used Roberts Rules to conduct their meeting. Initially time was not mentioned, but since only the homeowner was for the zoning change he needed to present his case. Those opposed each had an opportunity to talk as well as having a lawyer talk for them. The Board would not allow a person to speak more then once. The question is although Roberts Rules says a speaker should be given 10 minutes to talk and then a second 10 minutes after everyone else has had a chance to speak, in the case of an official town meeting where presenting one's case may take more then 10 minutes should the person be allowed more time under Roberts Rules and if they are should they be given equal time as the complainants? Should the person be allowed to challenge statements made by other presenters?
  9. Motion to Appeal

    What is the next course of action if the chair fails or refuses to act on a proper motion to appeal, seconded?
  10. Discipline

    Recently we had a member take action which required disciplinary actions. Having never been through a trial process before, we did the best we could thanks to RRoO. It ended in a unanimous expulsion vote. Does the accused member have a right to appeal this? Second can this member reapply in a year as if they were a new member or id the expulsion final? We have realized due to this our bylaws need to be revised.
  11. Point of Order

    I need help! What if someone keeps saying "Point of Order" about things that are not parliamentary in nature? --- ex: she thinks something should have been included in a handout, etc. As presiding officer do I still need to rule on this? if I say the point is not well taken, and explain she needs to state which parilamentary rule someone has broken), she says "oh, it's a rule all right -- it's in there someplace", and then wants to appeal the decision. Do I really need to take an appeal vote on something that is obviously not even a point of order (and waste everyone's time)? This member is very loud, agressive and abrasive, and members are rolling their eyes. She says she knows her rights and her Robert's Rules (ah....a little knowledge....) Many of our members are older and meek, and she has steam-rolled over them for years. Now I've joined, and she resents my leadership. Many of our older members do not even understand "point of order" ....I don't think they could even follow what is involved in an "appeal" (a majority vote in the "negative" is beyond some of their comprehension). So please --- how do I handle this? give me some wording to use with her. Or if I am in the wrong, plese explain why.
  12. I am wondering if there are any specific grounds for appealing and overturning a moderator's ruling of something being out of order. I have recently experienced a moderator's ruling being overturned when his grounds for declaring the motion out of order were based on out constitution. I'm certain that the political will of the assembled body cannot trump the constitutional requirements, but I am not sure how to deal with this on RONR specific grounds
×