Appealed properly?

[cfwheeler]

At a recent meeting of our local organization, a motion was made and seconded to amend the then immediately pending question. The chair ruled the amendment out of order because it was not germane to the main motion. An appeal was made and seconded and debate followed. The chair then repeated the appeal at the end of the discussion but, before calling for a vote, the chair recognized a member who made a motion (seconded) to table the matter to allow the officer of the parent organization to speak before departing.

The chair declared that the motion to table was out of order because the assembly was about to vote on the appeal. Again, an appeal was made and seconded. The chair ruled the appeal regarding the motion to table is out of order because an appeal was pending and a second appeal is not in order at the time.

Was the chair correct by calling the motion to table not in order? The vote on the appeal had not been called for. Up to the moment of taking the vote, the question can be laid on the table (RONR p. 204, l. 29-34).

The chair ruled that an appeal on the motion to table is not in order because a second appeal is not in order, however, nowhere in RONR 10th ed. does it state that an appeal is not in order while an appeal is pending?

[Josh Martin]

Was the chair correct by calling the motion to table not in order?

No. The motion to Lay on the Table was in order at the time and was actually being used properly, which is a pleasant surprise for this forum.

The chair ruled that an appeal on the motion to table is not in order because a second appeal is not in order, however, nowhere in RONR 10th ed. does it state that an appeal is not in order while an appeal is pending?

While RONR does state that an appeal may not be raised regarding the chair's ruling on a Point of Order when an appeal is pending, that's not what happened in this instance. The chair's ruling was in response to the motion to Lay on the Table. It seems to me that an appeal was in order, but it would be undebatable as it related to the priority of business.

[Dan Honemann]

No. The motion to Lay on the Table was in order at the time and was actually being used properly, which is a pleasant surprise for this forum.

While RONR does state that an appeal may not be raised regarding the chair's ruling on a Point of Order when an appeal is pending, that's not what happened in this instance. The chair's ruling was in response to the motion to Lay on the Table. It seems to me that an appeal was in order, but it would be undebatable as it related to the priority of business.

It does appear that the chair's ruling that the motion to Lay on the Table was not in order was erroneous, but I think the chair was correct in holding no appeal could be taken from this ruling since no appeal can be taken from any ruling of the chair made while another appeal is pending (RONR, 10th ed., p. 248, l. 23-27).

[David A Foulkes]

It does appear that the chair's ruling that the motion to Lay on the Table was not in order was erroneous, but I think the chair was correct in holding no appeal could be taken from this ruling since no appeal can be taken from any ruling of the chair made while another appeal is pending (RONR, 10th ed., p. 248, l. 23-27).

Might be me. And I should know better by now, of course, however..... the citation states that an appeal can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that:

"if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair's decision on this point of order....."

After weeding through the original post, this seems to be what happened:

1. Main motion made (already immediately pending as the post begins)

2. Amendment to motion moved, ruled out of order by chair

3. Appeal to ruling, pending

4. Lay on the Table moved, ruled out of order

5. Appeal to ruling, pending

The citation allows for a point of order while an appeal is pending but does not allow for an appeal to the chair's ruling on that point of order. There was no point of order raised from which an appeal of the chair's decision would not be allowed. In this case, there were two appeals made with no intervening point of order. So I'm not seeing how the citation applies.

[Dan Honemann]

Might be me. And I should know better by now, of course, however..... the citation states that an appeal can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that:

"if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair's decision on this point of order....."

After weeding through the original post, this seems to be what happened:

1. Main motion made (already immediately pending as the post begins)

2. Amendment to motion moved, ruled out of order by chair

3. Appeal to ruling, pending

4. Lay on the Table moved, ruled out of order

5. Appeal to ruling, pending

The citation allows for a point of order while an appeal is pending but does not allow for an appeal to the chair's ruling on that point of order. There was no point of order raised from which an appeal of the chair's decision would not be allowed. In this case, there were two appeals made with no intervening point of order. So I'm not seeing how the citation applies.

Just take my word for it, no appeal can be taken from any ruling of the chair made while another appeal is pending.

[David A Foulkes]

Just take my word for it......

Well, I'll try.

[Gary Novosielski]

The motion to Lay on the Table was in order at the time and was actually being used properly, which is a pleasant surprise for this forum.

So close. Soooooo close. And yet...... <sigh>

[Josh Martin]

Just take my word for it, no appeal can be taken from any ruling of the chair made while another appeal is pending.

Fair enough. In that case, I suppose I would have recommended that the assembly adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules to permit the guest to address the assembly at that time, and they could have dealt with the chair's mistake later.

[Rob Elsman]

Might be me. And I should know better by now, of course, however..... the citation states that an appeal can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that:

"if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair's decision on this point of order....."

After weeding through the original post, this seems to be what happened:

1. Main motion made (already immediately pending as the post begins)

2. Amendment to motion moved, ruled out of order by chair

3. Appeal to ruling, pending

4. Lay on the Table moved, ruled out of order

5. Appeal to ruling, pending

The citation allows for a point of order while an appeal is pending but does not allow for an appeal to the chair's ruling on that point of order. There was no point of order raised from which an appeal of the chair's decision would not be allowed. In this case, there were two appeals made with no intervening point of order. So I'm not seeing how the citation applies.

The chair, in effect, raised a Point of Order on his own initiative that the motion, Lay on the Table, was out of order for reasons not given here. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 259, ll. 28-30, "...just as he can...".

I agree with Mr. Honemann that it appears the chair might have ruled in error about the admissibility of the motion, Lay on the Table, since the need for the speaker to depart soon provided the urgency needed to admit the motion; nevertheless, an Appeal from that ruling was not in order under the exception of the regular rule at RONR (10th ed.), p. 248, ll. 23-27.

[Josh Martin]

The chair, in effect, raised a Point of Order on his own initiative that the motion, Lay on the Table, was out of order for reasons not given here. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 259, ll. 28-30, "...just as he can...".

Thank you, that clarifies the issue quite nicely. I had wondered if it might be something like that.

[David A Foulkes]

The chair, in effect, raised a Point of Order on his own initiative that the motion, Lay on the Table, was out of order for reasons not given here. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 259, ll. 28-30, "...just as he can...".

Well, I like to beat a dead horse as much as the next guy [does], but this time around I'll pass with simply saying I don't agree the citation applies. 'Tis a battle not fit for winning, and that I know.

[cfwheeler]

It does appear that the chair's ruling that the motion to Lay on the Table was not in order was erroneous, but I think the chair was correct in holding no appeal could be taken from this ruling since no appeal can be taken from any ruling of the chair made while another appeal is pending (RONR, 10th ed., p. 248, l. 23-27).

[cfwheeler]

It does appear that the chair's ruling that the motion to Lay on the Table was not in order was erroneous, but I think the chair was correct in holding no appeal could be taken from this ruling since no appeal can be taken from any ruling of the chair made while another appeal is pending (RONR, 10th ed., p. 248, l. 23-27).

To prevent a second appeal relative to the same matter that gave rise to the first appeal makes sense.

To prevent an appeal when it is relative to a discrete matter to which the first appeal has yielded seems to me to be counterproductive. Blindly applied, the citation prevents the timely correction of an error made by the chair.

[Josh Martin]

Blindly applied, the citation prevents the timely correction of an error made by the chair.

Yes, it does, but I assume this was deemed to be a small price to pay in contrast to the possibility of a massive chain of appeals. In the situation you have described, I think your best course of action would have been a motion to Suspend the Rules, and you can educate the chair on the precedence of the motion to Lay on the Table later.

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, it does, but I assume this was deemed to be a small price to pay in contrast to the possibility of a massive chain of appeals. In the situation you have described, I think your best course of action would have been a motion to Suspend the Rules, and you can educate the chair on the precedence of the motion to Lay on the Table later.

Or maybe sit down and allow the chair to take the vote on the pending appeal and then move to lay the main motion on the table?

[Josh Martin]

Or maybe sit down and allow the chair to take the vote on the pending appeal and then move to lay the main motion on the table?

Oh yeah... that could work.