Appeals need "two reasonable opinions"?

[grayduck]

A motion was incorrectly called out of order by our Chair and I appealed her decision. Another member stood up and quoted RONR the annotation on p651 that says "an appeal is not allowed from the chair's ruling on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions (p256, II. 34-36). I think I had a reasonable opinion against her decision, obviously.

How does one determine if there are "two reasonable opinions?" Of what? The motion? The Chair's calling a motion out of order?

I suspect this member will stand up every time the Chair declares a motion out of order that they don't like, and the member will tell the membership the appeal is out of order.

[jstackpo]

You appeal the chair's (implicit) ruling on the first point of order, i.e., the assertion that there are not "two reasonable opinions".

This game could go on for a while. Better that the chair not use the "no two reasonable opinions" sledgehammer, but just let the first appeal go to a vote.

[grayduck]

She likes the sledgehammer. Didn't respond to my three calls, call to remove an officer, anything I threw at her. She ignored everything.

How do I prove there are "two reasonable opinions" when she won't even listen?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1 minute ago, grayduck said:

She likes the sledgehammer. Didn't respond to my three calls, call to remove an officer, anything I threw at her. She ignored everything.

How do I prove there are "two reasonable opinions" when she won't even listen?

The fact -- that there was no second to your motion to appeal -- suggests to me that no one other than yourself believed in the reasonableness of your appeal.

 

[grayduck]

There was. Twice. The room had erupted.

[jstackpo]

Time to get a new president.  Or, failing that, put the appeal to the assembly yourself. See p. 650ff.  (Watch out for flying chairs.)

[Dan Honemann]

Read what is said in RONR (11th ed.) on pages 650-654, and then let us know if you have any further questions.

[grayduck]

I have. But how do I deal with the question of proving there are two reasonable opinions? When is there a situation where you can't have two? Could anyone provide a couple examples of when there can't be an appeal because there is only one?

I need to pass some examples on to fellow members to clear up the confusion. Help clarify the intent of this rule.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, grayduck said:

I have. But how do I deal with the question of proving there are two reasonable opinions? When is there a situation where you can't have two? Could anyone provide a couple examples of when there can't be an appeal because there is only one?

I need to pass some examples on to fellow members to clear up the confusion. Help clarify the intent of this rule.

There cannot be two reasonable opinions as to whether or not a motion to Commit takes precedence over a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, and there can't be a reasonable opinion that a motion for the Previous Question is debatable.

I suppose the number of examples may be endless.

 

[grayduck]

Can there be two reasonable opinions about an appeal of the chair for calling a motion out of order?

I think that member was even trying to say that there were not two reasonable opinions about calling that motion out of order.

Here's what happened:

1. She called the motion out of order

2. I called for an appeal of the chair, it was seconded

3. Another member stood up and said that there were not two reasonable opinions for the appeal

4. She didn't respond to the appeal and called the motion out of order

[jstackpo]

Depends, I suppose, on why the chair ruled the original motion out of order.

[grayduck]

She said it contradicted the Constitution when I know it did not. It was very obvious it did not. But she tried to say it did.

[Josh Martin]

7 minutes ago, grayduck said:

She said it contradicted the Constitution when I know it did not. It was very obvious it did not. But she tried to say it did.

Why did this motion allegedly contradict the association's constitution?

[jstackpo]

Well, a difference of opinion relative to an interpretation of your constitution is certainly a reason to appeal a ruling based on one person's interpretation.

But I doubt that we can do much more than say that, other than point out p. 588 (which I suspect you know all about!).

[Rev Ed]

Sounds like the members may wish to read Chapter XX of RONR, or the By-laws of the organization if they contain assistance, on how to remove the President.

 

[Joshua Katz]

If the motion is ruled out of order as contradicting the Constitution or Bylaws, then an appeal should almost never be ruled dilatory, unless there is language directly saying that the action is not allowed (and even then there may be dispute about the ability to suspend/whether or not something is a rule of order, etc.) since the final authority for interpreting those documents is the assembly.