Point of Order

[Tim Wynn]

RONR tells us that a Point of Order cannot be reconsidered. When the chair refers a Point of Order to the judgement of the assembly, the rules governing its consideration are similar to those of an appeal, which can be reconsidered.

Would a Point of Order referred to the assembly also share the characteristic of being subject to reconsideration?

[Josh Martin]

RONR tells us that a Point of Order cannot be reconsidered. When the chair refers a Point of Order to the judgement of the assembly, the rules governing its consideration are similar to those of an appeal, which can be reconsidered.

Would a Point of Order referred to the assembly also share the characteristic of being subject to reconsideration?

RONR is not clear on this point, but I think the answer would have to be "Yes." It would seem illogical to prohibit reconsideration simply because of the manner in which the question of order came before the assembly. I suspect the only reason this exception is not included in the text is because it is such a specialized case.

[J. J.]

In many cases, it might be something impossible to undo.

[Rob Elsman]

RONR is not clear on this point, but I think the answer would have to be "Yes." It would seem illogical to prohibit reconsideration simply because of the manner in which the question of order came before the assembly. I suspect the only reason this exception is not included in the text is because it is such a specialized case.

In my opinion, the average reader is going to come away from reading Table II, motion 59, tinted pp. 20, 21, with exactly the opposite conclusion.

[Sean Hunt]

In many cases, it might be something impossible to undo.

The same is true of an Appeal, but this doesn't fundamentally prevent reconsideration - which could also be used to change the established precedent.

[J. J.]

The same is true of an Appeal, but this doesn't fundamentally prevent reconsideration - which could also be used to change the established precedent.

It would be possible to rescind an appeal in those cases. Tinted p. 11 would indicate that an appeal could be reconsidered.

[Josh Martin]

In my opinion, the average reader is going to come away from reading Table II, motion 59, tinted pp. 20, 21, with exactly the opposite conclusion.

I agree, and I hope the issue is clarified in the 11th edition (or perhaps the 12th).

[Dan Honemann]

RONR is not clear on this point, but I think the answer would have to be "Yes." It would seem illogical to prohibit reconsideration simply because of the manner in which the question of order came before the assembly. I suspect the only reason this exception is not included in the text is because it is such a specialized case.

In my opinion, the average reader is going to come away from reading Table II, motion 59, tinted pp. 20, 21, with exactly the opposite conclusion.

I agree, and I hope the issue is clarified in the 11th edition (or perhaps the 12th).

The assumption here seems to be that the average reader won't think too much about it, since if he does, he will most likely arrive at the same conclusion as is expressed in Mr. Martin's initial response.

The 11th edition does nothing to clarify this issue, but if it ever comes up in real life let us know and perhaps we can produce an Official Interpretation to quiet all the anxiety until publication of the 12th.