Appeal and preference in recognition

[Chris Harrison]

After replying to a posting earlier regarding Appealing the Chair's ruling two questions come to mind:

 

1) After the ruling has been Appealed the Chair asserts his right to speak first in debate.  After he is finished would the member who made the original Appeal have any preference in recognition to speak next per RONR p. 379 ll. 10-13?

2) At the end the Chair indicates he wishes to rebut and asks if anyone else wishes to speak first.  If after making his rebuttal speech a member wishes to "rebut the rebuttal" (and he hadn't already spoken) would he have any right to speak?  If not, could the assembly utilize  Extend Limits of Debate in order to allow the further speech?

[jstackpo]

1)  Makes sense that the appellant has first dibs, but I don't think the book says so explicitly anywhere.  I suppose if you consider the appeal and its associated debate  a "motion" to which p. 379 applies, then the answer would be "Yes" for sure.  But what is a tad troubling is the absence of rules for recognition for debate on appeal in the list in lines 15-26.   Does that mean, per p. 589, line 33ff., that appeal is not covered by the "who's on first" rule?

 

2)  I'd say it would require a "suspend the rules and..." to allow the appellant to speak at all AFTER the president has had his second say.   Requires 2/3, just as "extend the debate" would, but the latter would open up further debate for everyone, not just the appellant doing a (second) rebuttal.

[George Mervosh]

1)  Makes sense that the appellant has first dibs, but I don't think the book says so explicitly anywhere.  I suppose if you consider the appeal and its associated debate  a "motion" to which p. 379 applies, then the answer would be "Yes" for sure.  But what is a tad troubling is the absence of rules for recognition for debate on appeal in the list in lines 15-26.   Does that mean, per p. 589, line 33ff., that appeal is not covered by the "who's on first" rule?

 

 

An appeal is an incidental motion so I don't know why anyone would consider it anything else.  The exceptions to the rule on p. 379 #2, and other rules governing debate is clearly listed on pp. 257-258 in SDC #5.  If there were further exceptions, they'd certainly be noted.  I think the answer to Mr. Harrison's question 1 is clearly, yes.

[Dan Honemann]

As to question 2, the member who had not spoken in debate would have no right to speak, and the subsidiary motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is precisely the proper motion to use in order to grant him (or anyone else) the right to do so.

[Sean Hunt]

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Mervosh's answer about speaking on an appeal.

What about on a point of order that is submitted to the assembly, though? Does the member making the point of order have the right to preference in recognition?

[George Mervosh]

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Mervosh's answer about speaking on an appeal.

What about on a point of order that is submitted to the assembly, though? Does the member making the point of order have the right to preference in recognition?

 

"If the chair submits the point to a vote of the assembly, the rules governing its debatability are the same as for an Appeal (see p. 254; see also Standard Characteristic 5, pp. 257–58)."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 249

 

If that rule stands without exception, and it appears to me it does, the Chair will still have the opportunity to speak first.

[Dan Honemann]

"If the chair submits the point to a vote of the assembly, the rules governing its debatability are the same as for an Appeal (see p. 254; see also Standard Characteristic 5, pp. 257–58)."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 249

 

If that rule stands without exception, and it appears to me it does, the Chair will still have the opportunity to speak first.

 

There seems to be no doubt but that the chair has the right to speak first (p. 254, ll. 24-29).