Chair Persuaded by Appeal

[pwilson]

If the chair is persuaded during debate on an appeal that his ruling on a point of order was erroneous, may he withdraw the ruling before it becomes precedent, or at least inform the assembly of his change of mind during his second speech at the close of debate?

The former alternative would be analogous to a member withdrawing (or seeking permission to withdraw) a motion, although I can find no reference in RONR that would justify the chair withdrawing a ruling. The latter alternative would be similar to a member arguing against his own motion, which no member is allowed to do. What’s the best way for the chair to handle such a change of mind?

Should the minutes include the reasons the chair gives during an appeal, or just the reasons he gives while ruling on the point of order itself?

[Dan Honemann]

3 hours ago, pwilson said:

If the chair is persuaded during debate on an appeal that his ruling on a point of order was erroneous, may he withdraw the ruling before it becomes precedent, or at least inform the assembly of his change of mind during his second speech at the close of debate?

Although there is nothing in RONR specifically addressing this issue, I think that the chair may request that he be allowed to withdraw his ruling, and such a request can be granted provided that, at the same time, the member who took the appeal indicates his willingness to withdraw his appeal and is granted permission to do so. I remember this happening many years ago at an NAP Convention, and if I recall correctly, both requests were simultaneously granted by unanimous consent.

3 hours ago, pwilson said:

Should the minutes include the reasons the chair gives during an appeal, or just the reasons he gives while ruling on the point of order itself?

Yes, the bylaws minutes should include the reasons the chair gives for his ruling during debate on the appeal.

Edited October 30, 2017 at 03:36 PM by Daniel H. Honemann

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Although there is nothing in RONR specifically addressing this issue, I think that the chair may request that he be allowed to withdraw his ruling, and such a request can be granted provided that, at the same time, the member who took the appeal indicates his willingness to withdraw his appeal and is granted permission to do so. I remember this happening many years ago at an NAP Convention, and if I recall correctly, both requests were simultaneously granted by unanimous consent.

Yes, the bylaws should include the reasons the chair gives for his ruling during debate on the appeal.

1

Perhaps you intended to say that the MINUTES should include the reasons the chair gives for his ruling during debate on the appeal?

[Bruce Lages]

Presumably, by withdraw his ruling you mean that the ruling is actually reversed from what it was originally. I only ask because of the precedent that is set by the chair's ruling on a point of order (p. 251, l.29)

[Dan Honemann]

33 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Perhaps you intended to say that the MINUTES should include the reasons the chair gives for his ruling during debate on the appeal?

Yes, I certainly did. Thanks.  

[Dan Honemann]

30 minutes ago, Bruce Lages said:

Presumably, by withdraw his ruling you mean that the ruling is actually reversed from what it was originally. I only ask because of the precedent that is set by the chair's ruling on a point of order (p. 251, l.29)

No, I at least got the word "ruling" right. 

With both the ruling and the appeal withdrawn, the chair will rule once again on the point of order (if necessary), and it is this new ruling that will appear in the minutes, and not the one that was withdrawn.

[pwilson]

20 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

With both the ruling and the appeal withdrawn, the chair will rule once again on the point of order (if necessary), and it is this new ruling that will appear in the minutes, and not the one that was withdrawn.

Makes perfect sense--thanks!