Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Appealing a decision of the Chair


GregoryHofer

Recommended Posts

I'm having trouble interpeting what RONR says on appealing the decision of the Chair.

Is the Chair in order if he denies a members right to appeal his decision if the

requires that a member...

a) not speak about the motives of another members or Officer?

B) avoid speaking adversely on a prior actiion now not pending?

c) speaking more than twice on the same question the same day?

d) to discuss a matter without promptly leading to a motion or question?

I'm thinking these aren't rulings by the Chair so they cannot be appealed.

These are rulings from RONR? Is this correct?

If not can you show me the language in RONR so I can reference it?

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the Chair's jobs is to enforce the rules by making rulings whether the rules come from RONR, the bylaws (or other governing documents), or applicable laws or higher ranking rules (RONR pp. 449-450). There are only two times that an Appeal can be validly disallowed and they are noted on p. 256 ll. 27-36). Whether those two exceptions can be applied to the four examples you gave depends on the parliamentary situation and the rules governing the body meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking these aren't rulings by the Chair so they cannot be appealed.

These are rulings from RONR? Is this correct?

If not can you show me the language in RONR so I can reference it?

Thanks in advance.

The problem you have is the Chair is ruling that what is happening is not allowed by Robert's Rules.

A member can disagree with that.

Every ruling of the chair could be based some ruling of Robert's Rule, but since you will notice we have a forum with hundreds of responses where people disagree about both the application and meaning of RONR there is room for disagreement.

The Chair is never the final word, the body always has the right to say that the chair is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The exception to the appeals process is a question on which there cannot possibly be two points of view. But those are fairly rare.

In your example, if the chair refused to recognize a member who had spoken twice on that question already, and someone raised a point of order that the chair should have recognized the member, the chair should rule the point not well taken, on the grounds that the member had already spoken twice.

That ruling could be appealed if the basis for the appeal was that the chair was mistaken, and the member had actually not spoken twice. That's something that two people might disagree on (though one would be right) and the assembly could be called upon to decide.

But the ruling cannot be appealed if all agree that he spoke twice, but they just want to hear from him again. The rule says what it says, and two does not mean three.

They could, however, move to suspend the rules and hear from that member a third time. That's the proper way to deal with rules that are getting in the way, not by appealing a correct decision of the chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having trouble interpeting what RONR says on appealing the decision of the Chair.

Is the Chair in order if he denies a members right to appeal his decision . . .

I'm thinking these aren't rulings by the Chair so they cannot be appealed.

What was the decision of the chair from which a member attempted to appeal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exception to the appeals process is a question on which there cannot possibly be two points of view. But those are fairly rare.

In your example, if the chair refused to recognize a member who had spoken twice on that question already, and someone raised a point of order that the chair should have recognized the member, the chair should rule the point not well taken, on the grounds that the member had already spoken twice.

The member can (and should) still be recognized if the member wishes to make a motion, as you can't exhaust the right to make motions. However, the chair would certainly be correct to remind the member that he could not speak, he could only make motions, and to call the member to order if he started to debate.

They could, however, move to suspend the rules and hear from that member a third time. That's the proper way to deal with rules that are getting in the way, not by appealing a correct decision of the chair.

Wouldn't that be motion to Extend Limits of Debate, which could (per above) even be made by the member wishing to speak again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The member can (and should) still be recognized if the member wishes to make a motion, as you can't exhaust the right to make motions. However, the chair would certainly be correct to remind the member that he could not speak, he could only make motions, and to call the member to order if he started to debate.

Yes, or rather than simply recognizing him, inquire for what purpose he was seeking recognition, and if it was for the purpose of debate, not do so.

Wouldn't that be motion to Extend Limits of Debate, which could (per above) even be made by the member wishing to speak again?

Yes, Limit or Extend can also apply to the number of speeches, which I have trouble remembering. The motion is a specific case of suspension of the rules which is why it requires a 2/3 vote. And yes, it, or other motions that suspend rules, can be made by the person who would be affected by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...