Moderator issues

[guest_cbc]

Attended a business metting last evening and after all regular business was handled, the moderator asked if there was other business to be handled and someone stood to address an issue and tried to make a motion? The moderator kill the motion as out of order and then the was a back and forth issues. I didn't think the motion could be killed outright.

[jstackpo]

Kinda depends on the motion and the context.

Did the "back and forth" include a formal appeal (p. 255) of the ruling of the chair that the motion was out of order?

That is the proper way to deal with this sort of thing.

[guest_cbc]

I not sure what you mean, the motion was concerning the hiring of an employee by the church and the way it was done. There was concerns about the process and this motion was to clarify the process and the job description. I thought the moderator was the one to handle the meeting and not to speak for or against a motion unless they step away from position and not just end the motion.

[Guest Edgar]

I thought the moderator was the one to handle the meeting and not to speak for or against a motion unless they step away from position and not just end the motion.

If the moderator thought the motion was out of order he was obligated to say so . . . and give his reason. As Mr. Stackpole suggested, his ruling could have been appealed. In the end, it's the assembly, not any one person (not even the moderator) that decides what's "right".

[Josh Martin]

I thought the moderator was the one to handle the meeting and not to speak for or against a motion unless they step away from position and not just end the motion.

You are correct that the moderator should not speak to a motion unless he relinquishes the chair, but the moderator has the duty to rule a motion out of order if it conflicts with the assembly's rules.

Did the moderator say why the motion is out of order? He should. "I don't like it" is not an acceptable reason.