Appeal the ruling of the chair

[Guest Mario Yoong]

In a recent convention meeting, the chair ruled a Resolution under Rule 39 that the Resolution/motion was "Dilatory & Improper" . An Appeal was immediate made by a member and duly seconded. The chair refused to allow the Appeal stating that he had ruled the Resolution as dilatory and improper and there will be not discussion allowed. He didn't explain why it was ruled dilatory or improper.

My question is: can the chair disallow the Appeal? He claimed that it was "dilatory and improper" and therefore also will not allow the Appeal.

Whether it was dilatory or improper is debatable. But he still ruled out or order and disallow Appeal behaving like a dictator.

[Chris Harrison]

There are only two legitimate reasons why the Chair can disallow an Appeal:

1) If an Appeal is already pending the ruling on a Point of Order cannot be Appealed at that time.

2) There cannot be two reasonable opinions on the question.

See RONR p. 256 ll. 27-37.

Since the Chair improperly disallowed the Appeal a member could have put the question standing in his place. See RONR p.651 ll. 7-14.

[Tim Wynn]

What is Rule 39?

Anyway, any two members have the right to appeal from the decision of the chair on questions of parliamentary law. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 255, ll. 26-29.

When the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed. However, this rule is sometimes misused; in fact, I've only seen it misused. If there were no possibility of a second reasonable opinion, I imagine only unreasonable persons would complain.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you so much Hail Skins!! for the very quick response.

I am just asking for clarification : Can the "dilatory and improper" ruling by the chair under Rule 39 be considered as "2) There cannot be two reasonable opinions on the question" so the chair disallowed the Appeal?

Sorry if question sounded silly. I am an amateur and not too familiar with Parliamentary Procedures.

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you so much Hail Skins!! for the very quick response.

I am just asking for clarification : Can the "dilatory and improper" ruling by the chair under Rule 39 be considered as "2) There cannot be two reasonable opinions on the question" so the chair disallowed the Appeal?

Sorry if question sounded silly. I am an amateur and not too familiar with Parliamentary Procedures.

I believe the other reasonable opinion would be that the motion is not dilatory and is in order.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you Tim for your reply.

Rule 39 is "Dilatory & Improper motions".

The chair in the meeting used that to rule "out of order" the Resolution that had satisfied all the conditions and placed as an item in the agenda, and he also disallowed the Appeal (duly seconded) because it was considered by him to be dilatory and improper. The chair also disallowed any discussion and autocratically refused to bring the matter for consideration by the assembly.

Is the chair allow to do that?

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you Tim for your reply.

Rule 39 is "Dilatory & Improper motions".

The chair in the meeting used that to rule "out of order" the Resolution that had satisfied all the conditions and placed as an item in the agenda, and he also disallowed the Appeal (duly seconded) because it was considered by him to be dilatory and improper. The chair also disallowed any discussion and autocratically refused to bring the matter for consideration by the assembly.

Is the chair allow to do that?

Oh, section 39 of RONR, I see. What was the motion, by the way?

[Chris Harrison]

Can the "dilatory and improper" ruling by the chair under Rule 39 be considered as "2) There cannot be two reasonable opinions on the question" so the chair disallowed the Appeal?

I agree with Mr. Wynn that #2 is almost never properly applied and in my opinion is invoked most when the Chair simply doesn't want to have his ruling challenged or doesn't understand that an Appeal is a proper tool for the members to use and I would almost certainly state the question myself if the Chair tried pulling that tactic on me.

In my opinion that rule is only to be used when the ruling and rule cited is black-and-white. For example, say a member moved the Previous Question (putting a stop to debate and almost all other motions and puts the question to an immediate vote) and when the Chair ruled the motion lost because it didn't get the 2/3 vote a Point of Order was raised that only a majority vote is required. The Chair should rule the Point Not Well Taken because per RONR p. 193 ll. 5-8 a 2/3 vote is required to order the Previous Question and any Appeal should be disallowed because p. 193 is quite clear on the subject (of course this is assuming that the organization has no custom rules that would darken the clarity).

[Guest Edgar]

The chair also disallowed any discussion and autocratically refused to bring the matter for consideration by the assembly.

Sounds like it's time for a new chair. See p.651.

qerSTD

[Guest Guest]

A candidate need to be endorsed as candidate for an election to be held in June 2014.

An endorsement election was scheduled for the convention April 2012. (already passed)

The Resolution (Motion) was tabled to postpone that endorsement election scheduled for April 2012 to the next convention in April 2013.

That Resolution was ruled by the chair as dilatory and improper and the chair also ruled to disallow the Appeal.

We consider the chair had not acted fairly and impartially and had been autocratic in his chairing of the meeting.

[Guest Lynn]

Is it correct that if the chair refuses to allow a vote on a properly seconded motion to appeal a ruling of the chair, the member making the motion can call for a vote? thanks

[David A Foulkes]

Is it correct that if the chair refuses to allow a vote on a properly seconded motion to appeal a ruling of the chair, the member making the motion can call for a vote? thanks

Please start a new question with your new question. You'll find the new question screen here. This is Guest_Mario's thread.

[Josh Martin]

A candidate need to be endorsed as candidate for an election to be held in June 2014.

An endorsement election was scheduled for the convention April 2012. (already passed)

The Resolution (Motion) was tabled to postpone that endorsement election scheduled for April 2012 to the next convention in April 2013.

That Resolution was ruled by the chair as dilatory and improper and the chair also ruled to disallow the Appeal.

We consider the chair had not acted fairly and impartially and had been autocratic in his chairing of the meeting.

I don't see anything from the facts presented which would suggest that the motion was dilatory and improper (and certainly nothing that would suggest it was so clearly dilatory that an appeal would also be dilatory).

[MarioY]

Thank you Josh Martin for your most valuable reply. You have been most helpful.

Some members in the assembly also held that same view and so an appeal was made on the chair's ruling.

The chair just refused to yield to the appeal and would not allow any discussion at all.

That had caused a great of unhappiness and dissatisfaction, and has resulted in a member lodging a complaint against the chair.

This is now being handled by the "Dispute Resolution Committee" which is provided in our association. Thank you again.

[Shmuel Gerber]

There are only two legitimate reasons why the Chair can disallow an Appeal:

1) If an Appeal is already pending the ruling on a Point of Order cannot be Appealed at that time.

2) There cannot be two reasonable opinions on the question.

See RONR p. 256 ll. 27-37.

Since the Chair improperly disallowed the Appeal a member could have put the question standing in his place. See RONR p.651 ll. 7-14.

Is it correct that if the chair refuses to allow a vote on a properly seconded motion to appeal a ruling of the chair, the member making the motion can call for a vote? thanks

Please start a new question with your new question. You'll find the new question screen here. This is Guest_Mario's thread.

I think Lynn was just asking if what Chris H. said is true. The answer is obviously yes, otherwise he wouldn't have said it. :-)

But anyone who doubts it can look up RONR p.651 ll. 7-14 for himself or herself.

[MarioY]

Thank you Tim Wynn, Chris H., Josh Martin, Shmuel Gerber for your replies which had been quite enlightening and useful. I am beginning to understand the Parliamentary procedures a little.

However under Appeal there are listed 2 exceptions which under which Appeal will not be allowed. This first one is quite straight forward but the second exception “When the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed” is not quite clear for a newbie like me.

I know both Tim Wynn & Chris H had tried to answer this exception and gave examples, but I am still not clear when such exception can be applied. Besides what had been said, can anyone please elaborate the situations "during which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions".

I must admit, to really understand RONR is not easy at all. Thank you in advance.

[Chris Harrison]

It is doubtful that you would ever see a legitimate case of the 2nd exception because truthfully there is very little in parliamentary procedure and all of its complexities that is so clear cut you wouldn't be able to find room for a reasonable difference of opinion if you were so inclined (the Previous Question example I gave is the only case I can come up with off hand).

In my opinion, if a Chair legitimately believes that his ruling is perfectly correct and there can't be any reasonable opinions other than his own he most likely isn't being all too reasonable himself. Part of being a member of a deliberative assembly means that the assembly deliberates on questions before it so there is bound to be differing opinions on how the assembly should proceed. While it is possible for that lone voice or two to be unreasonable in their opinions it is better IMO to allow the Appeal where the Chair can quickly and concisely explain why he is correct, the assembly orders the Previous Question, and then they vote to uphold the Chair's ruling all inside of 2 minutes or so rather than the Chair unilaterally deciding that his ruling is the only correct one and disallowing the Appeal thus not even giving the assembly a chance to decide whether they agree with the ruling.

As for elaborating on those situations and when they could be applied I would challenge you to try to come up with a fact that would remain true and unchanged no matter what the circumstances are and that fact would have to be so universally accepted that you wouldn't be able to find another reasonable person whose opinion on the fact would differ from yours (or anyone else). I would imagine you would be incredibly hard pressed to come up with a fact that would fit that criteria as I would think that we would be incredibly hard pressed to come up with a scenario where the 2nd exception would apply.

[David A Foulkes]

Perhaps a too-simplistic example, but say the bylaws specify the quorum as 20. 20 members arrive at the meeting, the chair keeping a count in his head on this as he greets them each and all, and finally calls the meeting to order. Unbeknownst to the chair (while he was pulling his Grand Poobah robe over his head and searching in his Eddie Bauer tote bag for his gavel ["Dammit Marge, I told you to put it -- oh, here it is"]), Gus fell ill and left without telling anyone, nor anyone noticing. Shortly after Fred raises a Point of Order about being inquorate. The chair takes a count (only 19 now), agrees, and rules the point of order well taken. Murray rises to Appeal (with Mr. Schmenkman [Petey to his friends] as his second) and the chair denies the appeal on the grounds of exception #2 above.

[Chris Harrison]

I think that is a pretty good example. However, playing devil's advocate couldn't it be possible that Murray and Petey not having seen Gus slip out reasonably believe that a quorum was still there and the Chair had miscounted? Their Appeal would be based on their belief that the Chair had miscounted and thus erred in his ruling that there was no longer a quorum which would seem to be a reasonable opinion (and if a second count were held the Chair's ruling and Ms. Magpie's [the Chair's first grade teacher] mad skills in teaching how to count would be vindicated). Now, if Murray and Petey actually believed that 19 is equal to or greater than 20 and thus there still was a quorum that (I think) would qualify as an exception #2 and Ms. Magpie should have those two in an intensive counting boot camp (for the next six hours watching Sesame Street and The Count teach them how to count to 20).

[Dan Honemann]

I think that is a pretty good example. However, playing devil's advocate couldn't it be possible that Murray and Petey not having seen Gus slip out reasonably believe that a quorum was still there and the Chair had miscounted? Their Appeal would be based on their belief that the Chair had miscounted and thus erred in his ruling that there was no longer a quorum which would seem to be a reasonable opinion (and if a second count were held the Chair's ruling and Ms. Magpie's [the Chair's first grade teacher] mad skills in teaching how to count would be vindicated). Now, if Murray and Petey actually believed that 19 is equal to or greater than 20 and thus there still was a quorum that (I think) would qualify as an exception #2 and Ms. Magpie should have those two in an intensive counting boot camp (for the next six hours watching Sesame Street and The Count teach them how to count to 20).

I'm not sure if any part of this response is intended to be serious, but I suppose it won't hurt to note that the chair's declaration that 19 is 20 (or that 20 is 19) is not a ruling subject to appeal.

[MarioY]

This is a hypothetical question:

If a motion is tabled and the chair found the motion to have contravened and gone against the association's Constitutional & By-Laws and thus ruled that motion "out of order" as it is unconstitutional and improper.

This was immediately "Appealed" and duly seconded. The chair refused to accept/yield to the appeal and rule the "Appeal" out of order as the motion was unconstitutional and also dilatory.

Question:

Can the chair's ruling be acceptable under "exception #2" of the appeal?

Since no member is allowed to contravene the Constitution & By-Laws, would it be considered that both the unconstitutional motion and appeal produced a situation where "There cannot be two reasonable opinions on the question"?

Your valuable input will be great appreciated. Thank you.

[Chris Harrison]

This is a hypothetical question:

If a motion is tabled and the chair found the motion to have contravened and gone against the association's Constitutional & By-Laws and thus ruled that motion "out of order" as it is unconstitutional and improper.

This was immediately "Appealed" and duly seconded. The chair refused to accept/yield to the appeal and rule the "Appeal" out of order as the motion was unconstitutional and also dilatory.

Question:

Can the chair's ruling be acceptable under "exception #2" of the appeal?

Since no member is allowed to contravene the Constitution & By-Laws, would it be considered that both the unconstitutional motion and appeal produced a situation where "There cannot be two reasonable opinions on the question"?

Just because the Chair believes and has ruled that a motion has "contravened and gone against the association's Constitutional & By-Laws" doesn't mean that the other members can't reasonably opine otherwise. So given your sparse on all of the details hypothetical I would say that the Chair would be invoking exception #2 improperly. Of course, the details if they were fleshed out might be so clear-cut and black-and-white that exception #2 might be applicable but I wouldn't take the Chair's word for it .

[MarioY]

Thank you so much Chris H. for the most valuable input.

I fully agree with you that "exception #2" under Appeal would be very difficult to justify unless the situation so very clear cut as in "black & white", which would be very difficult to come by under most circumstances.

Once again thank you so much for your kind and valuable response and opinion.

[Gary c Tesser]

I'm not sure if any part of this response is intended to be serious, but I suppose it won't hurt to note that the chair's declaration that 19 is 20 (or that 20 is 19) is not a ruling subject to appeal.

I am in awe.

I perhaps have never before seen such blithely perverse surreal art.

This beyond-brilliant classic needs to be bronzed somewhere. Everybody, come look.