Motions out of order

[Guest Jim C]

Can the chair, president rule a motion out of order?

Thanks

Jim

[jstackpo]

Yes, presuming he/she has good reason(s) to do so.

However, any such ruling is subject to appeal (p. 255 ff.) to the assembly, who (which?) makes the final decision on the ruling.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you..a motion came before our assembly, that if passed, would have directed our members to perform an illegal work action.

[jstackpo]

Actually... a motion like that is not out of order. "Out of Order" applies only to parliamentary considerations (see p. 111 ff.), not the possible legal consequences of adopting and carrying out such a motion.

The motion may be unwise, but dumb motions get adopted all the time.

[Guest Edgar]

Thank you..a motion came before our assembly, that if passed, would have directed our members to perform an illegal work action.

As Mr. Stackpole suggests, nothing in RONR prevents, for example, a municipal employees' union from voting to go on strike even if the law prohibits municipal employees from striking.

[jstackpo]

Another example, with substantial social ramifications, would be a motion adopted by a black church group, or NAACP Chapter, to go to the local restaurant and start sitting down at the counter.

Clearly illegal (at the time and place) yet not out of order at the decision making meeting.

(Of course, I have no idea if anything like a formal RONR-style meeting was held on the question, but it makes the point.)

[J. J.]

Actually... a motion like that is not out of order. "Out of Order" applies only to parliamentary considerations (see p. 111 ff.), not the possible legal consequences of adopting and carrying out such a motion.

The motion may be unwise, but dumb motions get adopted all the time.

Unless this was statute and was worded in such a way that it was a procedural rule of law. It's unlikely, but possible.

[Guest Learning]

Perhaps it was outside of the object of the organization?

[jstackpo]

Perhaps, but but see This Thread for how to handle that.

[Guest Edgar]

Perhaps, but but see This Thread for how to handle that.

Though I think the chair should (at least initially) rule it out of order. Whether he then suggests a remedy (and I wouldn't) is up to him.

a9bGfd

[jstackpo]

Though I think the chair should (at least initially) rule it out of order. Whether he then suggests a remedy (and I wouldn't) is up to him.

a9bGfd

Well, referring back to Post #3, if the illegality of the proposed action was the only thing "wrong" with the motion, then it would NOT be proper for the chair to rule it out of order (or for anyone else to raise a point of order).

[Guest Edgar]

Well, referring back to Post #3, if the illegality of the proposed action was the only thing "wrong" with the motion, then it would NOT be proper for the chair to rule it out of order (or for anyone else to raise a point of order).

I agree. I was responding to your reply to post #8.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks for all the info..the motion would have violated state statute....the presidents' ruling was not appealed by the membership and his decision stood.

JC

[Guest Edgar]

. . . the motion would have violated state statute . . .

Yes, but the critical question is whether it was a procedural (i.e. parliamentary) statute (e.g. you were going to allow proxies when the statute prohibits proxies) or whether it was something else (e.g. a law prohibiting municipal employees from striking or, in a more unfortunate place and time, a law prohibiting some citizens from sitting at some lunch counters).

[Gary Novosielski]

Thank you..a motion came before our assembly, that if passed, would have directed our members to perform an illegal work action.

Not the same thing.

If the law had contained some procedural rule (essentially a rule of order) that applies to meetings of groups like yours, then those rules supersede RONR.

But deciding to do something that violates the law is not out of order, as long as the rules of order in coming to that decision are followed in the decision making process..