Debate on Appeal Decision of Chair

[Guest Hawk]

An amendment is proposed , debated  and carried . Two other proposals are then dealt with. Member  "X" then raises a point of order as to the validity of the chair permitting the amendment  and suggesting the chair was wrong to have done so . The chair  rules the point not well made as being beyond permitted time to raise .Member "X" Appeals the decision of the Chair . The chair then calls the question on the appeal but refuses to allow  member  "X" any debate on the appeal. Is the chair correct concerning  the refusal to allow "X" debate on the appeal .Thank-you.

Hawk

[Gary Novosielski]

No.

Appeals are debatable, but with modified rules.  Members are permitted to speak only once, except that the chair may speak first, and last.

[Guest Hawk]

 Understood GN  - "Chair, members, Chair" , is norm . But since the motion of" point of order" is not debatable does that not allow the Chair to refuse "X" allowance to debate  on the appeal ?

H

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Guest Hawk said:

 Understood GN  - "Chair, members, Chair" , is norm . But since the motion of" point of order" is not debatable does that not allow the Chair to refuse "X" allowance to debate  on the appeal ?

 

Appeals are debatable unless related to indecorum, the priority of business, or made when an undebatable question is immediately pending or involved in the appeal.  It seems you're asking about the final one, since a point of order was pending.  But appeals always follow points of order.  Furthermore, when an appeal is made, the point of order is not immediately pending; it's already been answered by the chair.  It sounds as though nothing was immediately pending at the time of the appeal, so we next see what question is involved in the appeal.  That was an amendment, which was debatable.  Therefore, none of the conditions making it undebatable were satisfied, so it was debatable.

[Richard Brown]

I tend to agree with Mssrs Novosielski and Katz, but this one is still bothering me.  I'm just not certain that this particular appeal is a debatable one per the rule regarding debatability of appeals on pages 257-258.  Here is the key excerpt from the bottom of page 257:

"Is debatable, unless it (a) relates to indecorum or a transgression of the rules of speaking; (b) relates to the priority of business; or (c) is made when an undebatable question is immediately pending or involved in the appeal. "

The chair's ruling was that the point of order was not timely.  That is the ruling from which a member sought to appeal.  It seems to me that it can be argued that the ruling was on either the rules of speaking or the priority of business.....that the point of order itself was not well taken and was out of order because it was too late to make it. 

Could we have a bit more discussion and analysis of this?

[Guest Hawk]

 Missing something here - a point of order is not debatable , p.248/line 18 .The appeal here is on a non debatable motion  (point of order ) .So no debate on the appeal from anyone . Or is it that the rule related to ' debatable vs not- debatable', has no application when point of order grounds the  appeal process and the normal Chair, members , Chair, process applies  .? Not clear ?

H

[Dan Honemann]

4 minutes ago, Guest Hawk said:

 Missing something here - a point of order is not debatable , p.248/line 18 .The appeal here is on a non debatable motion  (point of order ) .So no debate on the appeal from anyone . Or is it that the rule related to ' debatable vs not- debatable', has no application when point of order grounds the  appeal process and the normal Chair, members , Chair, process applies  .? Not clear ?

H

No, the appeal is not from the point of order, it is from the chair's ruling on the point of order.

[Guest Hawk]

Note of Mr Brown seems to identify 5(c) , line 35, p.257 , as applicable ?  If point of order undebatable-  then appeal undebatable -or is this now even more at sea   ?

H

 

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, Guest Hawk said:

 Missing something here - a point of order is not debatable , p.248/line 18 .The appeal here is on a non debatable motion  (point of order ) .So no debate on the appeal from anyone . Or is it that the rule related to ' debatable vs not- debatable', has no application when point of order grounds the  appeal process and the normal Chair, members , Chair, process applies  .? Not clear ?

 

As I said, every appeal is always taken on a point of order.  By this interpretation, there simply would be no such thing as a debatable appeal, rendering all the rules about them pointless.  Additionally, while appeals follow points of order, the point of order is not pending when the appeal is taken, since it has already been answered.  A point of order is only pending until the chair answers it.  So this claim is false both for technical and conceptual reasons.

16 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

The chair's ruling was that the point of order was not timely.  That is the ruling from which a member sought to appeal.  It seems to me that it can be argued that the ruling was on either the rules of speaking or the priority of business.....that the point of order itself was not well taken and was out of order because it was too late to make it. 

 

That's an interesting point.  I don't think it's on the rules of speaking, since the language there suggests that rule is about decorum and priority, not whether or not a motion is timely.  I don't see how it's on priority of business, since debatability is not a part of the priority of business.  I think the best analysis here, although I see where your claim is coming from, is that it "involves" the amendment - although it does not adhere to it.  Or, looking at it another way, I don't think the chair's explanation of his ruling should control the debatability of the appeal.  The point of order concerned the permissibility of amendment, and that, not the ruling that the point of order was not timely, should govern the debatability of the appeal.  

[Guest Hawk]

Mr Honeman to the rescue !  I assume all will concur  -  but does Mr Katz and Mr Brown ?.Thank-you .

H

[Dan Honemann]

16 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I tend to agree with Mssrs Novosielski and Katz, but this one is still bothering me.  I'm just not certain that this particular appeal is a debatable one per the rule regarding debatability of appeals on pages 257-258.  Here is the key excerpt from the bottom of page 257:

"Is debatable, unless it (a) relates to indecorum or a transgression of the rules of speaking; (b) relates to the priority of business; or (c) is made when an undebatable question is immediately pending or involved in the appeal. "

The chair's ruling was that the point of order was not timely.  That is the ruling from which a member sought to appeal.  It seems to me that it can be argued that the ruling was on either the rules of speaking or the priority of business.....that the point of order itself was not well taken and was out of order because it was too late to make it. 

Could we have a bit more discussion and analysis of this?

Well, aside from noting that the general timeliness requirement for taking an appeal from a ruling by the chair has absolutely nothing to do with indecorum, a transgression of the rules of speaking, or the priority of business, I don't know what else there is to say.  

[Guest Hawk]

9 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

As I said, every appeal is always taken on a point of order.  By this interpretation, there simply would be no such thing as a debatable appeal, rendering all the rules about them pointless.  Additionally, while appeals follow points of order, the point of order is not pending when the appeal is taken, since it has already been answered.  A point of order is only pending until the chair answers it.  So this claim is false both for technical and conceptual reasons.

 

  

 

 Mr Katz "Is every appeal always taken on a point of order" ?  I gather this means that every appeal concerns  a point of  order and not that every appeal is launched only after the" motion of point of order "? Thanks 

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, Guest Hawk said:

 Mr Katz "Is every appeal always taken on a point of order" ?  I gather this means that every appeal concerns  a point of  order and not that every appeal is launched only after the" motion of point of order "? Thanks 

I don't know what you're getting at with this distinction, but an appeal is only taken from a ruling of the chair, and the chair only makes rulings upon a point of order - whether their own or someone else's.  If, for example, a motion is made and the chair says "that is out of order," the chair is making a ruling on their own point of order.

[Guest hawk]

On further view of this I see more clearly now that Mr Katz in the initial response answered  fully .Obliged to all responders. 

H

[Richard Brown]

33 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, aside from noting that the general timeliness requirement for taking an appeal from a ruling by the chair has absolutely nothing to do with indecorum, a transgression of the rules of speaking, or the priority of business, I don't know what else there is to say.  

In that case, I agree it doesn't seem that much else needs to be said. 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Guest hawk's mistake (and mine, too, initially) is to think that a Point of Order could be an "immediately pending question." But a Point of Order is not a question for the assembly. I would also point out that the chair may make appealable rulings without a Point of Order having been raised first.

[Joshua Katz]

8 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Guest hawk's mistake (and mine, too, initially) is to think that a Point of Order could be an "immediately pending question." But a Point of Order is not a question for the assembly. I would also point out that the chair may make appealable rulings without a Point of Order having been raised first.

Do you have an example that isn't simply the chair implicitly making their own point of order and then answering it?  Are you referring to, let's say, assigning the floor in debate?  In that case, sure, that's true - but before appealing it, you'd raise a point of order that the floor was assigned incorrectly.

[Shmuel Gerber]

6 hours ago, Guest Hawk said:

 Understood GN  - "Chair, members, Chair" , is norm . But since the motion of" point of order" is not debatable does that not allow the Chair to refuse "X" allowance to debate  on the appeal ?

H

 

5 hours ago, Guest Hawk said:

 Missing something here - a point of order is not debatable , p.248/line 18 .The appeal here is on a non debatable motion  (point of order ) .So no debate on the appeal from anyone . Or is it that the rule related to ' debatable vs not- debatable', has no application when point of order grounds the  appeal process and the normal Chair, members , Chair, process applies  .? Not clear ?

H

 

5 hours ago, Guest Hawk said:

Note of Mr Brown seems to identify 5(c) , line 35, p.257 , as applicable ?  If point of order undebatable-  then appeal undebatable -or is this now even more at sea   ?

H

 

Guest Hawk, a.k.a. Polaris, a.k.a. LLT, a.k.a. D. LLama, a.k.a. we know what your real name is --

Please either post using your real name, or stick to one pseudonym -- and you should register it so that you can edit posts when needed (i.e., when you want to add or clarify something immediately after posting). There's no use in constantly choosing new pseudonyms, and I happen to find it annoying.

[Guest Hawk etc]

Over and out - No wish to annoy!

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/11/2017 at 11:21 AM, Guest Hawk said:

An amendment is proposed , debated  and carried . Two other proposals are then dealt with. Member  "X" then raises a point of order as to the validity of the chair permitting the amendment  and suggesting the chair was wrong to have done so . The chair  rules the point not well made as being beyond permitted time to raise .Member "X" Appeals the decision of the Chair . The chair then calls the question on the appeal but refuses to allow  member  "X" any debate on the appeal. Is the chair correct concerning  the refusal to allow "X" debate on the appeal .Thank-you.

Hawk

On 11/11/2017 at 11:54 AM, Richard Brown said:

The chair's ruling was that the point of order was not timely.  That is the ruling from which a member sought to appeal. .....that the point of order itself was not well taken and was out of order because it was too late to make it. 

That's an interesting idea, but I think the only thing the chair is actually ruling on is whether the point of order is or is not well taken. Presumably, the member had intended that if the point was well taken, then the amendment should be declared invalid; if not, then the amendment will stand. When the chair rules that the point is not well taken because it comes too late, it means that it is too late to invalidate the amendment, and he or she is ruling that the amendment stands for that reason.

It would be different, for example, if the chair ruled that a point of order was not in order because it is unrelated to the business of the assembly, or that it cannot interrupt the member who has the floor because it does not need attention at that time (e.g., it relates to the absence of a quorum and the member who has the floor is merely speaking in debate). In such cases, then I think it could properly be said that an appeal from the decision of the chair involves the Point of Order itself.

Edited November 12, 2017 at 10:43 PM by Shmuel Gerber
Retrieved a "not" from the not hole

[alanh49]

IMO the chair was correct, and the point of order was untimely, but I also think that the appeal was debatable. However, any debate should have been limited to whether or not the point of order was timely and if the chair is overruled the chair would then have needed to rule on the original point of order.    

Edited November 27, 2017 at 03:22 PM by alanh49
fixed word

[Dan Honemann]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 1:25 AM, alanh49 said:

IMO the chair was correct, and the point of order was untimely, ... "

Are you sure?  

[alanh49]

Quote

18 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Are you sure?  

Well, no because we don't know why the OP thought the amendment was out of order and there are cases in which the timeliest rule would not apply.  I was thinking of those cases in which it did apply.

 

 

Well, no because we don't know why the OP thought the amendment was out of order and there are cases in which the timeliest rule would not apply.  I was thinking of those cases in which it did apply.