Silencing a biased chair

[Guest Julie]

Hi, all! I'm part of an organization in which the chair insists he knows and follows RONR/Parliamentary Procedure. That's all fine and dandy, but he takes over discussions and repeats "statements of fact" because he believes it is a loophole that allows him to speak all he wants as long as he doesn't give his opinion (though it is obvious what his opinions are). Is there a procedural way to get him to shut up so he doesn't throw the Rules back in our faces? I'm familiar with RONR, but not THAT familiar.

 

Thanks!

[Josh Martin]

Is there a procedural way to get him to shut up so he doesn't throw the Rules back in our faces?

 

Not really. If he's a member, he has the right to speak, but he shouldn't do so while presiding.

 

There is a way to remove him from the chair, so you can have someone who will preside impartially. See Official Interpretation 2006-2 for something temporary, and FAQ #20 for a more permanent solution.

[J. J.]

If appropriate, raise a point of order and appeal.

 

If you can get a 2/3 vote, suspend the rules and elect someone else to serve for that meeting (pp. 453-4).

[g40]

Nominate and support someone else for the position. My experience is that such folks almost never change this behavior.

[Tom Coronite]

...he believes it is a loophole that allows him to speak all he wants...

 

 

Generally speaking there are limits to a member's rights to speak on a particular pending motion.  Maybe that's an angle to pursue. If he wants to exercise his right to speak as a member (despite being chair) it should be noted he doesn't get extra rights because he's chair.

[Gary Novosielski]

And making "statements of fact"  doesn't give you any additional rights either.  In debate, one member's fact may be another member's fiction.