New/Other Business

[Bell60]

The chair is aware that members are going to bring issues concerning him to the meeting. Can he stop members from coming fourth with thier issues about him? Can he postpone it? Can he stop it?

[jstackpo]

Not all by him/her self.

If he (still) has any friends left, he could coach them (ahead of time) to move to postpone when the issue comes up, presumably in the form of a motion. Or just move to adjourn.

These are only delaying tactics, of course.

[Rev Ed]

Or he could simply rule the motion out of order. In that case, someone will have to appeal the decision. A seconder would be required, as well as a majority vote.

[David A Foulkes]

Or he could simply rule the motion out of order. In that case, someone will have to appeal the decision. A seconder would be required, as well as a majority vote.

It was not my understanding that the chair can just willy-nilly rule a motion out of order without cause. Doesn't it actually have to be out of order?

[Rev Ed]

It was not my understanding that the chair can just willy-nilly rule a motion out of order without cause. Doesn't it actually have to be out of order?

A Chair can always claim a motion is out of order for any cause he/she can think of. It should be reasonable, but that may not always appear to be the case. That is partly why I assume RONR allows the members to over rule the Chairman - i.e. they do not have to accept the Chairman's decision.

[Rob Elsman]

A Chair can always claim a motion is out of order for any cause he/she can think of. It should be reasonable, but that may not always appear to be the case. That is partly why I assume RONR allows the members to over rule the Chairman - i.e. they do not have to accept the Chairman's decision.

The only reason that a chairman can rule a motion out of order is that the controlling rules do not allow the admission of the motion in the current parliamentary situation. Otherwise, he has the duty of his office to state and put every question that legitimately comes before the assembly. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 434, ll. 7-15.

[Josh Martin]

Can he stop members from coming fourth with thier issues about him? Can he postpone it? Can he stop it?

Well, I think we need some clarity about what exactly it means for members to come forth with issues about the chairman. They can't just get up and start talking about their issues with the chairman at random, but the members could make a motion to Censure, for instance. The chairman could not unilaterally do anything about such a motion, and he should relinquish the chair while the motion is under consideration.

A Chair can always claim a motion is out of order for any cause he/she can think of. It should be reasonable, but that may not always appear to be the case. That is partly why I assume RONR allows the members to over rule the Chairman - i.e. they do not have to accept the Chairman's decision.

The chairman may only properly rule a motion out of order on the basis that it violates the rules of the assembly, not "for any cause he/she can think of." For instance, posters occasionally ask if a chairman may rule a motion out of order because, in the chairman's opinion, the motion is not in the best interests of the assembly, and the answer is no. The reason that the ruling of the chairman may be overturned on Appeal is because it is ultimately up to the assembly to interpret its rules.

[Gary Novosielski]

Can he stop members from coming fourth ...?

Make sure there are more than three others ahead of them?

[Gary Novosielski]

A Chair can always claim a motion is out of order for any cause he/she can think of. It should be reasonable, but that may not always appear to be the case. That is partly why I assume RONR allows the members to over rule the Chairman - i.e. they do not have to accept the Chairman's decision.

David and Josh have it right. The chair cannot rule things out of order based on whatever excuse he can dream up. Conversely, the members do have to accept the chair's decision, if it is in keeping with the rules. The fact that appeals are decided by a majority tends to make it appear as though whatever most people want to happen is fine. But that's not the case.

In ruling a motion out of order, the chair must believe that one or more rules would be violated by allowing it (in that form, at that time). And he must explain the ruling in those terms. Furthermore, if both the rule itself and the applicable facts are clear-cut, no appeal is proper.

Making an Appeal should never be a mere expression of displeasure with the ruling, or its effect. Rather, it is an assertion that the chair's ruling is actually, technically, incorrect, because the rule on which it relies does not properly apply, or because some superior rule does. It should have nothing to do with the desired outcome. The question before the assembly is not whether the underlying motion has merit, whether they favor it, or it would be great fun, or troublesome, or expensive, or embarrassing, or whether they like or dislike the chair. It is whether the actual rule applies to the actual situation.

All those other things are irrelevant to the appeal, and should not influence the vote. Once decided, if the motion is determined to be in order, all those other items going to the merit of the proposal become fair game in debate, but not during the appeal.

A chair who routinely makes rulings for reasons other than conformance to the rules is not properly performing the duties of the office, and should be subjected to censure or other discipline.

[Rob Elsman]

David and Josh have it right. The chair cannot rule things out of order based on whatever excuse he can dream up. Conversely, the members do have to accept the chair's decision, if it is in keeping with the rules. The fact that appeals are decided by a majority tends to make it appear as though whatever most people want to happen is fine. But that's not the case.

In ruling a motion out of order, the chair must believe that one or more rules would be violated by allowing it (in that form, at that time). And he must explain the ruling in those terms. Furthermore, if both the rule itself and the applicable facts are clear-cut, no appeal is proper.

Making an Appeal should never be a mere expression of displeasure with the ruling, or its effect. Rather, it is an assertion that the chair's ruling is actually, technically, incorrect, because the rule on which it relies does not properly apply, or because some superior rule does. It should have nothing to do with the desired outcome. The question before the assembly is not whether the underlying motion has merit, whether they favor it, or it would be great fun, or troublesome, or expensive, or embarrassing, or whether they like or dislike the chair. It is whether the actual rule applies to the actual situation.

All those other things are irrelevant to the appeal, and should not influence the vote. Once decided, if the motion is determined to be in order, all those other items going to the merit of the proposal become fair game in debate, but not during the appeal.

A chair who routinely makes rulings for reasons other than conformance to the rules is not properly performing the duties of the office, and should be subjected to censure or other discipline.

That's exactly right. We do periodically see on this forum examples where a slim majority will, in effect, suspend the rules by way of an appeal of the ruling of the chair, but this is incorrect in the proper practice of parliamentary procedure.

[Tim Wynn]

Or he could simply rule the motion out of order. In that case, someone will have to appeal the decision. A seconder would be required, as well as a majority vote.

To come to Rev Ed's defense, I believe if you strike out "simply" from his first sentence and insert in its place "improperly", it would be a better representation of what he intended to say, and I think it was a good idea to prepare the original poster for how to handle such a situation.

[David A Foulkes]

David and Josh have it right. The chair cannot rule things out of order based on whatever excuse he can dream up.

Well..... perhaps he's not supposed to, but a careful search of this site might turn up one or two postings, no doubt representative of a larger problem out there in Guestland, of chairs going rogue in such manner. And that really is the heart of the issue, that a chair can in fact rule a valid motion out of order under some high-falutin' sounding pretense, saying "it's in the rules" as he waves his 1914 edition of RONR in the air. And the only recourse the membership has is an Appeal, which can go either way, with no guarantee of reversing or overturning the chair's ruling, wrong as it may be.

[Rev Ed]

To come to Rev Ed's defense, I believe if you strike out "simply" from his first sentence and insert in its place "improperly", it would be a better representation of what he intended to say, and I think it was a good idea to prepare the original poster for how to handle such a situation.

Thank you - I worded my point incorrectly. There are times when a Chairman may try to improperly rule a motion out of order. The assembly would have to appeal the decision.

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you - I worded my point incorrectly. There are times when a Chairman may try to improperly rule a motion out of order. The assembly would have to appeal the decision.

You're welcome.