Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Chair objecting to consideration of a question


Chris Harrison

Recommended Posts

Say that the Chair objected to the consideration of a question but the assembly voted to consider it anyway. Should the Chair turn over the chair while the question is pending since apparently he has some very strong feelings on the subject and thus his partiality is in question?

Although the motion is explained as being similar to a Point of Order, no where on pgs. 267 - 270 or in the tinted pages does it specifically qualify that chair or anyone else has the right to explain their Objection to the Question to the assembly. So, based on David's explaination, I would say there isn't anything in Roberts that would compel the presider to give up the chair. However, if the assembly felt the presider was impaired by continuing, they would be free to Suspend Rules and remove them.

<edited:19:53>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say that the Chair objected to the consideration of a question but the assembly voted to consider it anyway. Should the Chair turn over the chair while the question is pending since apparently he has some very strong feelings on the subject and thus his partiality is in question?

The answer to this question is no. There is no more reason for the chair to do so in this situation than there is for him to do so when his ruling that a motion is not in order is overturned on appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he should not turn the chair over. He's objecting to it's consideration not taking a position on it.

I am not sure how objecting to the consideration of a question wouldn't mean that he is taking a position on it as well. It would seem to me that if a member is objecting to the question even coming before the assembly it would be extremely unlikely that they would enter into its consideration all the sudden deciding that he wants the motion adopted. Granted the member may throw up his hands and abstain when the motion is voted on but I would argue that anyone who objects to the consideration of a question is going to be in opposition to it at the start of its consideration. If that member is the presiding officer it would seem that he would be partial where the motion under consideration is concerned.

So, based on David's explaination, I would say there isn't anything in Roberts that would compel the presider to give up the chair.

I understand there is nothing in RONR that compels him to give up the Chair but my question is shouldn't he give up the chair anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to this question is no. There is no more reason for the chair to do so in this situation than there is for him to do so when his ruling that a motion is not in order is overturned on appeal.

It seems to me that they are apples and oranges. RONR appears to recognize that the Chair whose ruling is being Appealed is going to be partial on the issue and RONR even gives him the right to debate the question twice as opposed to once for the other members. On any other question where the Chair is presiding he should remain impartial as to it. An Appeal is regarding two members disagreement with the Chair's ruling which is a function of his office and the Chair doesn't have to be partial on the underlying question in order to have made a ruling that someone didn't like. On the other hand, if the Chair had objected to a question's consideration it would seem to logically flow that he is going to be opposed to it at the start of its consideration (if he didn't care one way or another I wouldn't think he would have raised the objection in the first place).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris what if you are just sick and tired of me making the same original main motion and having it go down in flames month after month and wasting time, and you want to get on with the other business because there's a lot to do tonight. If you are doing your job correctly (and I know you would) members wouldn't know (in the meeting at least) whether you agreed with it or not in the past.

There are other valid reasons to object other than not wanting it passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that they are apples and oranges. RONR appears to recognize that the Chair whose ruling is being Appealed is going to be partial on the issue and RONR even gives him the right to debate the question twice as opposed to once for the other members. On any other question where the Chair is presiding he should remain impartial as to it. An Appeal is regarding two members disagreement with the Chair's ruling which is a function of his office and the Chair doesn't have to be partial on the underlying question in order to have made a ruling that someone didn't like. On the other hand, if the Chair had objected to a question's consideration it would seem to logically flow that he is going to be opposed to it at the start of its consideration (if he didn't care one way or another I wouldn't think he would have raised the objection in the first place).

p. 395 ll. 22 - 26:

"In debate on and an appeal (24) or a point of order (23) that the chair has submitted to the judgement of the assembly (pp. 254-255) , the foregoing rule does not apply, and the presiding officer does not leave the chair, since his participation in the debate relates to the function of the presiding."

I don't see where the Objection to Consideration by the chair would not be parallel to a point of order that is submitted to the judgement of the assembly, by the chair.

<edited18:35>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that they are apples and oranges. RONR appears to recognize that the Chair whose ruling is being Appealed is going to be partial on the issue and RONR even gives him the right to debate the question twice as opposed to once for the other members. On any other question where the Chair is presiding he should remain impartial as to it. An Appeal is regarding two members disagreement with the Chair's ruling which is a function of his office and the Chair doesn't have to be partial on the underlying question in order to have made a ruling that someone didn't like. On the other hand, if the Chair had objected to a question's consideration it would seem to logically flow that he is going to be opposed to it at the start of its consideration (if he didn't care one way or another I wouldn't think he would have raised the objection in the first place).

I'm afraid that you may be the one mixing apples and oranges. The question is not whether or not the chair must be impartial in debate on an appeal from his ruling that a motion is not in order. The point is, if his ruling is overturned, he need not then step down while the question he ruled was not in order is being considered. By the same token, he need not step down if his objection to consideration of a question is not sustained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...