Abuse of authority by the chair

[mikalac]

A. Point of Order.

 

Suppose I raise a POO about an improper motion made by another member. Suppose that the chair ignores me, so I repeat the POO twice more as required on p. 650 and then turn to the members and say, "Is the point of order well taken?" (p. 650-651). The members won't know what I mean nor what to say, so a Great Silence will occur. What do I do now?

 

B. Appeal.

 

Suppose I appeal a decision of the chair, but he ignores it. I repeat it twice more as required on p. 651, each time it being seconded as required. I turn to the members and say, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" The members won't know what I mean nor what to say, so a Great Silence will occur. What do I do now?

 

Thanks for your help.

[Guest Zev]

If a member initiates disciplinary proceedings against the chair and is ignored by the assembly it seems fairly obvious that they do recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate.

[Richard Brown]

. . .  it seems fairly obvious that they do recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate.

 

Guest Zev, is that what you meant to say?

[Guest Zev]

Guest Zev, is that what you meant to say?

Maybe not. Here is the rest of what I would have said, now that you ask.

 

If an improper motion has been stated in spite of protests, and before any debate, a motion for the Objection to the Consideration of a Question can be made. If the motion is nevertheless adopted you can vote with the majority and then move to Reconsider. If the improper motion was debatable you can then seek the floor and explain why you think the motion should be voted down. In lieu of the motion to Reconsider you could move a main motion to censure the chair. If all this fails you can move to Rescind, however, a motion to Rescind at the same meeting that has voted down a motion to Reconsider is unlikely to have much success. The absolute last ditch is to move to Suspend The Rules and consider the chair vacant and hope that any new presiding officer will act differently. I have no hope in this regard since the assembly was willing to overlook the chair ignoring the Point of Order and the Appeal.

 

Perhaps none of this is correct, in which case I will gladly stand corrected.

[mikalac]

If a member initiates disciplinary proceedings against the chair and is ignored by the assembly it seems fairly obvious that they do recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate.

Sorry, but I don't understand this sentence at all. I'm the member making the appeal and ignored by the assembly. That much I understand. They recognize me as doing anything legitimate? That's what I don't understand.

[mikalac]

Maybe not. Here is the rest of what I would have said, now that you ask.

 

If an improper motion has been stated in spite of protests, and before any debate, a motion for the Objection to the Consideration of a Question can be made. If the motion is nevertheless adopted you can vote with the majority and then move to Reconsider. If the improper motion was debatable you can then seek the floor and explain why you think the motion should be voted down. In lieu of the motion to Reconsider you could move a main motion to censure the chair. If all this fails you can move to Rescind, however, a motion to Rescind at the same meeting that has voted down a motion to Reconsider is unlikely to have much success. The absolute last ditch is to move to Suspend The Rules and consider the chair vacant and hope that any new presiding officer will act differently. I have no hope in this regard since the assembly was willing to overlook the chair ignoring the Point of Order and the Appeal.

 

Perhaps none of this is correct, in which case I will gladly stand corrected.

This is definitely over my head and would certainly be over the heads of the multitude.

[Guest Zev]

Sorry, but I don't understand this sentence at all. I'm the member making the appeal and ignored by the assembly. That much I understand. They recognize me as doing anything legitimate? That's what I don't understand.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear. In my opinion the silence of the assembly to the ignored Point Of Order is a signal that they do not wish to deal with it. If the chair rules on the Point Of Order and then ignores the Appeal, and the assembly is silent, this seems to me to also be a signal that they do not wish to deal with the Appeal. You move an Appeal and no one seconds it. Then what? The exact same thing as all motions that require second and do not get them. They die.

 

This is definitely over my head and would certainly be over the heads of the multitude.

Informing the other people in this assembly of what is proper parliamentary procedure is part of the uphill battle you are facing. Its going to take a lot of work. Purchase some copies of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief and pass those around to those you feel would be more receptive. I don't know what else to tell you that would slip past the moderator's Unrelenting Nickel-plated Steel Hammer of Discipline and Order.

 

[Guest Nancy N.]

This is definitely over my head and would certainly be over the heads of the multitude.

 

I don't think Guest Zev was directly addressing your question.

 

A.  I think here is where a judicious application of "-a few words of explanation,-" guided by that rare quality, common sense, much like that proposed by Richard Brown elsewhere in The Annotated Norm Mikalac Chronicles earlier today, would work wonders.  And note that the middle few words in the last line on p. 650 are not, "The member must phrase the question exactly as follows or we will feed his body parts to crocodiles and then beat him up"; those words are "The question may be put as [emphasis mine]."  I don't think it would be unreasonably out of line to translate the question into English, for an assembly to which parliamentary forms and terms are alien, such as, "I raised a point of order, which calls attention to a violation of the rules that protect the members, and the chair is obliged to address it; he has no right to ignore it, which he did.  So I have to do it myself, since the chair shirked his duty, flouting the rules and spitting in the eye of his responsibility to the membership.  So the question we vote on now is, was the point of order  which said that [such-and-such, the originally asserted violation] violates the rules, or was there no violation?  To vote in favor, saying 'aye,' means that the point of order was well-taken [inserting the proper, archaic term] and that there was a violation; while, to vote against, saying 'no,' means that the point of order was wrong, and that there was no violation.  All in favor, slay 'aye' ...  "

 

Actually I can't see what you could trim of all that, but maybe you better find something, because not only does that speech strain the definitions of "a few words of explanation" -- it's likely to get poor Norm's allies streaming to the exits (and maybe some windows) again.

 

 B.  Again, I maybe heretically assert you can't say "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?"  See p. 454, line 34 - 455, line 2, and p. 456,lines 13 - 18, and note that while it says, "president," it also applies to the member discussed on p. 650 - 651.

[Richard Brown]

Guest Zev, it is this sentence in your first post that has us scratching our heads.  "it seems fairly obvious that they do recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate".   It seems fairly obvious that they do recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate???  That sentence doesn't make sense.  Did you perhaps intend  to  say that "they do not recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate???  Read it carefully.  Is that really what you meant to say?  If so, then I'm afraid that I'm lost, too.

[Guest Zev]

Guest Zev, it is this sentence in your first post that has us scratching our heads.  "it seems fairly obvious that they do recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate".   It seems fairly obvious that they do recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate???  That sentence doesn't make sense.  Did you perhaps intend  to  say that "they do not recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate???  Read it carefully.  Is that really what you meant to say?  If so, then I'm afraid that I'm lost, too.

I apologize profusely. I though my first quote was correct when in fact it should have said "it seems fairly obvious that they do not recognize the member as doing anything that is legitimate". Some additional explanation might have said something to the effect that some assemblies are reluctant to take any queues from anyone except the chair, which may account for their silence. Keyboard foibles. Yuk. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Josh Martin]

A. Point of Order.

 

Suppose I raise a POO about an improper motion made by another member. Suppose that the chair ignores me, so I repeat the POO twice more as required on p. 650 and then turn to the members and say, "Is the point of order well taken?" (p. 650-651). The members won't know what I mean nor what to say, so a Great Silence will occur. What do I do now?

 

B. Appeal.

 

Suppose I appeal a decision of the chair, but he ignores it. I repeat it twice more as required on p. 651, each time it being seconded as required. I turn to the members and say, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" The members won't know what I mean nor what to say, so a Great Silence will occur. What do I do now?

 

I would suggest educating as many members as possible about these tactics before the meeting. Otherwise, I suppose you'll need to do your best to explain the rules on this subject (and possibly also the rules regarding an Appeal or a Point of Order which is considered by the assembly) during the "Great Silence."

 

I apologize if I did not make myself clear. In my opinion the silence of the assembly to the ignored Point Of Order is a signal that they do not wish to deal with it. If the chair rules on the Point Of Order and then ignores the Appeal, and the assembly is silent, this seems to me to also be a signal that they do not wish to deal with the Appeal. You move an Appeal and no one seconds it. Then what? The exact same thing as all motions that require second and do not get them. They die.

 

It's entirely possible that the assembly's silence indicates that they do not wish to deal with the Point of Order or Appeal, but considering that the average member is probably not familiar with the material on pgs. 650-651, it's also possible their silence simply indicates that they don't have the slightest idea how to handle this situation.

[Guest Nancy N.]

.... In my opinion the silence of the assembly to the ignored Point Of Order is a signal that they do not wish to deal with it. If the chair rules on the Point Of Order and then ignores the Appeal, and the assembly is silent, this seems to me to also be a signal that they do not wish to deal with the Appeal.

 

 

("Is the point of order well taken?" (p. 650-651). The members won't know what I mean nor what to say, so a Great Silence will occur....

 

"Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?"  The members won't know what I mean nor what to say, so a Great Silence will occur....

 

 

Zev, given what Norm says about the assembly, you really think their silence means they don't want to deal with it?

 

 

You move an Appeal and no one seconds it. Then what? The exact same thing as all motions that require second and do not get them. They die.

 

 

 

each time it being seconded as required.

 

 

Zev, Norm did say it was seconded.

 

 

Informing the other people in this assembly of what is proper parliamentary procedure is part of the uphill battle you are facing. Its going to take a lot of work. Purchase some copies of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief and pass those around to those you feel would be more receptive. ...

 

 

Well said.  But, while Norm can't educate them then-and-there (a parliamentary pundit pointed out, the meeting is not the time to teach parliamentary procedure), the witty aphorism "You snooze, you lose" will not work for Norm, because it means the assembly's snoozing, and Norm losing.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Or what Josh said.

[mikalac]

Here's what I distill from all these excellent posts: I can't use RR indiscriminately. I have to take into account the current knowledge of the members. In the two scenarios I described in my first post, I would have painted myself into a corner. Stated differently, some violations of Robert have to be ignored because of the current knowledge of the members. The time for education is between meetings, not at them.

[Josh Martin]

Here's what I distill from all these excellent posts: I can't use RR indiscriminately. I have to take into account the current knowledge of the members. In the two scenarios I described in my first post, I would have painted myself into a corner. Stated differently, some violations of Robert have to be ignored because of the current knowledge of the members. The time for education is between meetings, not at them.

 

Yes, I'd say the knowledge of the members must be taken into account. A successful Appeal (let alone the strategies you describe), requires a majority vote. So if most of the members have no idea what you're talking about, such motions would seem unlikely to succeed. Education could be done during meetings, but you have a lot more time available between meetings.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Here's what I distill from all these excellent posts: I can't use RR indiscriminately. I have to take into account the current knowledge of the members. In the two scenarios I described in my first post, I would have painted myself into a corner. Stated differently, some violations of Robert have to be ignored because of the current knowledge of the members. The time for education is between meetings, not at them.

 

Or, better, what Josh said.

  ..

... Stated differently, some violations of Robert have to be ignored because of the current knowledge of the members....

 

If something I said corrupted poor Norm to this depth of iniquity, I wish I hadn't, and hope nobody notices.