Guest SAA Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:05 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:05 PM Duties of a presiding officer are set out in RONR p. 449-450 .No mention in those 11 duties specifically concerns helping members to prepare the context and wording of their motions . What is the extent of the duty to aid and assist members in motions construction and where in RONR are those guidelines or particulars set out ? If a member attends the meeting and makes only the weakest efforts to shape his /her motion may the Chair take the position that : " I'm willing to assist members who I perceive are doing their share of the work - otherwise we will move onto other matters of business and your attempted motion is out of order ." ? And is the refusal of the Chair to assist a member in constructing a motion an appealable matter ? Thank-you . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:24 PM 16 minutes ago, Guest SAA said: What is the extent of the duty to aid and assist members in motions construction and where in RONR are those guidelines or particulars set out ? The chair may.... and in my opinion should.... assist members with framing motions and with other questions about procedure. Perhaps the statements on pages 34, 293, 395 and 450 will be of some assistance. They all indicate that she chair may or should assist members in such a fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:30 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:30 PM 9 minutes ago, Guest SAA said: Duties of a presiding officer are set out in RONR p. 449-450 .No mention in those 11 duties specifically concerns helping members to prepare the context and wording of their motions . What is the extent of the duty to aid and assist members in motions construction and where in RONR are those guidelines or particulars set out ? If a member attends the meeting and makes only the weakest efforts to shape his /her motion may the Chair take the position that : " I'm willing to assist members who I perceive are doing their share of the work - otherwise we will move onto other matters of business and your attempted motion is out of order ." ? And is the refusal of the Chair to assist a member in constructing a motion an appealable matter ? Thank-you . Some additional duties may be found in other places. For example, under the subheading THE STATING OF THE QUESTION BY THE CHAIR in §4, emphasis added: If a motion is offered in a wording that is not clear or that requires smoothing before it can be recorded in the minutes, it is the duty of the chair to see that the motion is put into suitable form—preserving the content to the satisfaction of the mover—before the question is stated. The chair should not admit a motion that the secretary would have to paraphrase for the record. The chair—either on his own initiative or at the secretary’s request—can require any main motion, amendment (10, 12), or instructions to a committee to be in writing before he states the question. And in §33, under PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, emphasis added: It is the chair’s duty to answer such questions when it may assist a member to make an appropriate motion, raise a proper point of order, or understand the parliamentary situation or the effect of a motion. The chair is not obliged to answer hypothetical questions. There are probably others, as well. When the chair offers assistance, or answers questions, or presumably when he does not, these are not appealable situations because they are not rulings, as such. Only rulings by the chair are appealable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:41 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:41 PM Thank you both for these replies and the references to RONR . And from these responses it is also understood that a Chair does not have an unqualified obligation to assist a difficult member and can cease to assist when assistance seems unreciprocated . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:46 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:46 PM Guest SAA: The reference to page 34 that I gave you and the reference to Section 4 that Mr. Novosielski gave you are to the same provision. Same with my reference to page 293 and Mr. Novosielski's reference to Section 33. My reference to page 395 is in Section 43. My reference to page 450 is in Section 47. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:50 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:50 PM 4 minutes ago, Guest SAA said: Thank you both for these replies and the references to RONR . And from these responses it is also understood that a Chair does not have an unqualified obligation to assist a difficult member and can cease to assist when assistance seems unreciprocated . I suppose it could be said that no duty is completely unqualified, if a sufficiently crafted hypothetical scenario is considered. I'll just say that these are the duties of the chair, and let it go at that. If members are consistently sloppy in stating motions, a requirement that main motions or amendments* be submitted in writing is usually enough to encourage members to consider their wording more carefully. __________ * Or committee instructions; I always forget that third one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:54 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 05:54 PM 44 minutes ago, Guest SAA said: And is the refusal of the Chair to assist a member in constructing a motion an appealable matter ? 19 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said: When the chair offers assistance, or answers questions, or presumably when he does not, these are not appealable situations because they are not rulings, as such. Only rulings by the chair are appealable. I agree with Mr. Novosielski to a point. While the failure or refusal of the chair to provide assistance or answer a parliamentary question is not in and of itself a ruling or appealable matter, such action by the chair could well lead to a member making a point of order that RONR requires the chair to assist members with motions or to respond to a parliamentary inquiry. The chair's ruling on that point of order WOULD be a ruling subject to an appeal. In practice, I suspect that the mere making of the point of order would cause the chair to decide to offer assistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 31, 2018 at 06:02 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 06:02 PM 1 minute ago, Richard Brown said: I agree with Mr. Novosielski to a point. While the failure or refusal of the chair to provide assistance or answer a parliamentary question is not in and of itself a ruling or appealable matter, such action by the chair could well lead to a member making a point of order that RONR requires the chair to assist members with motions or to respond to a parliamentary inquiry. The chair's ruling on that point of order WOULD be a ruling subject to an appeal. In practice, I suspect that the mere making of the point of order would cause the chair to decide to offer assistance. Mr. Brown is perfectly correct The classic example would be a Parliamentary Inquiry, where the member asks if a particular motion would be in order and the chair states unequivocally that it would not. This is an opinion, not a ruling of the chair. The way that a member can make this appealable is to attempt to violate the chair's opinion by moving the motion anyway. When the chair rules it out of order, then the chair''s ruling is subject to an Appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 31, 2018 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 08:21 PM 2 hours ago, Guest SAA said: And is the refusal of the Chair to assist a member in constructing a motion an appealable matter ? Guest SAA: Since you asked and this seems like it might be an issue in your organization, I want to follow up with one more point: Regardless of whether the chair has an actual duty to assist a member with proposing a motion or responding to a parliamentary inquiry, he would be subject to a motion of censure or even possibly removal from office if the membership believes he is not properly performing the duties of his office as expected by the membership. I would think (and hope), though, that such action would not be necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted October 31, 2018 at 08:31 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 08:31 PM While I agree with everything that's been written, I would question the emphasis placed here, and the extremes to which we seem to be willing to go. I suspect that a member who knows how to raise a point of order regarding the chair's obligation to assist, and how to appeal the ruling on that point of order, should also know how to make a motion in the first place. If a member persists in, instead, making indecipherable statements, I question just what obligation the chair has. The citations provided show that the chair must assist 2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: If a motion is offered in a wording that is not clear or that requires smoothing before it can be recorded in the minutes, but what if the motion is so unclear that the chair has no idea how to make it clear? Or is so unclear that it makes more sense to rule it out of order than to smooth it to record in the minutes? It seems that the real obligation being stated in that quote is to not put to the assembly an unclear motion, rather than to clarify it. If the latter, it is limited by the limits of reality. Thus, it seems to me, there is some leeway for a chair to say "figure out what you want to do" rather than taking up the assembly's time asking if the member is trying to refer to committee, or extend time, or one of the dozens of other things the member may be trying to do. (When I've been a member and watched a chair try to help a member who doesn't appear clear on what he wants to do, I've generally jumped in to move to postpone to a time certain, then spoken to the member during a recess to figure out what the heck he wanted to do and tell him how to do it.) There's less leeway, I would think, the more 'urgent' the matter is - i.e. the greater the chance that the member will be permanently unable to do what he wishes if he doesn't do it right now. But members have some obligations, too, to learn how business is conducted, and to make motions in a manner that doesn't unduly delay business. In short, I think there's room for judgment here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 31, 2018 at 08:39 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 08:39 PM 5 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said: While I agree with everything that's been written, I would question the emphasis placed here, and the extremes to which we seem to be willing to go. I suspect that a member who knows how to raise a point of order regarding the chair's obligation to assist, and how to appeal the ruling on that point of order, should also know how to make a motion in the first place. If a member persists in, instead, making indecipherable statements, I question just what obligation the chair has. The citations provided show that the chair must assist but what if the motion is so unclear that the chair has no idea how to make it clear? Or is so unclear that it makes more sense to rule it out of order than to smooth it to record in the minutes? It seems that the real obligation being stated in that quote is to not put to the assembly an unclear motion, rather than to clarify it. If the latter, it is limited by the limits of reality. Thus, it seems to me, there is some leeway for a chair to say "figure out what you want to do" rather than taking up the assembly's time asking if the member is trying to refer to committee, or extend time, or one of the dozens of other things the member may be trying to do. (When I've been a member and watched a chair try to help a member who doesn't appear clear on what he wants to do, I've generally jumped in to move to postpone to a time certain, then spoken to the member during a recess to figure out what the heck he wanted to do and tell him how to do it.) There's less leeway, I would think, the more 'urgent' the matter is - i.e. the greater the chance that the member will be permanently unable to do what he wishes if he doesn't do it right now. But members have some obligations, too, to learn how business is conducted, and to make motions in a manner that doesn't unduly delay business. In short, I think there's room for judgment here. As a practical matter, if there's no way to help without wasting too much time, the chair can demand any motion be put in writing. The chair will not be obliged to sit next to the guy and help him write it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted October 31, 2018 at 09:20 PM Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 at 09:20 PM 3 hours ago, Guest SAA said: And from these responses it is also understood that a Chair does not have an unqualified obligation to assist a difficult member and can cease to assist when assistance seems unreciprocated. I'm curious about the meaning of "difficult member." If it means a member who has a hard time understanding procedure, I think it is incumbent on the chair to be as patient as possible without unduly frustrating the other members. If it means a member who is intentionally obstructive, then the chair should be starting down the path of escalating discipline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted November 1, 2018 at 01:58 AM Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 at 01:58 AM Thanks to all for responses - very helpful . In all I'm influenced and informed by all responses , but I'm persuaded mostly by comments Mr. Katz in the context of : " figure out what you want to do " ,and do your part . The "difficult member" referred to is a member who seems cranky and generally mad at the world any everything it in . Attends meetings and seems to enjoy making things a pain for everyone . Says things like " you are the chair and you have a responsibility to help me put things together - and do things properly " . Rarely does his homework and regardless offer motions that are relevant but always 1/4 baked . Uses up a lot of time and getting it in writing can often take even more time . Seems to have an expectation the Chair will do his work for him . A giant pain in the @*& ! . Seems perhaps that like other things this is just a part of everyone's life - one way or another -this is merely "the meetings part" ??? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted November 1, 2018 at 02:24 AM Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 at 02:24 AM Well if he's making relevant but not fully prepared motions, you can just move to refer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Grice Posted November 1, 2018 at 04:28 AM Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 at 04:28 AM Question: Would P.172 ll. 26-35 and P.173 ll.1-2 be useful? When researching for my own answer to this situation, P.172 ll.33-35 looked promising. From what I seem to understand, the mover can make an incomplete motion, the chair could seek assistance from other members to help make it complete before he states the question on the motion. If I am understanding this correctly, P. 39 ll.33-35 and P.40 ll1-2 claims the chair does have a duty to correct the wording of a motion, if needed, but does not state that he must do it alone. I also am curious about the previous suggestion, and wish for better understanding. If a motion to refer were made, and another member moves the Previous Question, would this still stall the progress of the meeting? Disclaimer: I am still studying the rules, so if any of this is inappropriate, please omit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 1, 2018 at 06:22 AM Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 at 06:22 AM (edited) 2 hours ago, Sid Grice said: Question: Would P.172 ll. 26-35 and P.173 ll.1-2 be useful? When researching for my own answer to this situation, P.172 ll.33-35 looked promising. From what I seem to understand, the mover can make an incomplete motion, the chair could seek assistance from other members to help make it complete before he states the question on the motion. If I am understanding this correctly, P. 39 ll.33-35 and P.40 ll1-2 claims the chair does have a duty to correct the wording of a motion, if needed, but does not state that he must do it alone. . . . Yes, the citations you provided are pertinent and are excellent references. Thank you. In fact, almost all of page 39 is pertinent. Those references all indicate that the chair has a duty, at least in some instances, to help a member get a motion into the proper form. Very good! 2 hours ago, Sid Grice said: I also am curious about the previous suggestion, and wish for better understanding. If a motion to refer were made, and another member moves the Previous Question, would this still stall the progress of the meeting? I'm assuming that when you say "I'm curious about the previous suggestion", you are referring to Mr.Katz's suggestion in his post immediately preceding yours that a motion to refer might be in order. I suppose a motion for the previous question made immediately after the motion to refer could hinder the progress of the meeting, but I think the motion for the previous question would be more likely to speed things up since the motion to refer is debatable. This would be especially so if the members seem inclined to want to simply kill the motion and be done with it. In fact, RONR suggests that option on page 173 at lines 4-13. Perhaps I'm not understanding your concern. BTW, welcome to the forum! Please don't hesitate to chime in and offer suggestions or ask questions. I'm curious: Where in Louisiana are you? I live in Kenner and am the president of the Louisiana Association of Parliamentarians. We might have a local unit or some members near you who can help you with your studies of parliamentary procedure. Edited November 1, 2018 at 06:32 AM by Richard Brown Typographical correction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 1, 2018 at 07:11 AM Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 at 07:11 AM 9 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: I'm curious about the meaning of "difficult member." If it means a member who has a hard time understanding procedure, I think it is incumbent on the chair to be as patient as possible without unduly frustrating the other members. If it means a member who is intentionally obstructive, then the chair should be starting down the path of escalating discipline. In some organizations, "difficult" means having an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 1, 2018 at 10:03 AM Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 at 10:03 AM 2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: In some organizations, "difficult" means having an opinion. Or at least one that differs from MY opinion. 😊 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 1, 2018 at 04:39 PM Report Share Posted November 1, 2018 at 04:39 PM 6 hours ago, jstackpo said: Or at least one that differs from MY opinion. 😊 Exactly. Though there are those who will deprecate a good idea merely because they didn't think of it first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Grice Posted November 2, 2018 at 04:01 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 at 04:01 AM 21 hours ago, Richard Brown said: I'm assuming that when you say "I'm curious about the previous suggestion", you are referring to Mr.Katz's suggestion in his post immediately preceding yours that a motion to refer might be in order. I suppose a motion for the previous question made immediately after the motion to refer could hinder the progress of the meeting, but I think the motion for the previous question would be more likely to speed things up since the motion to refer is debatable. This would be especially so if the members seem inclined to want to simply kill the motion and be done with it. In fact, RONR suggests that option on page 173 at lines 4-13. Perhaps I'm not understanding your concern. Yes, that is the comment I was referring to. Since he is more seasoned that myself, I felt it inappropriate to address him directly. My concern would be that the motion to refer, which is debatable, could lead to a lengthy debate. Then, just before the motion is actually referred, the motion for the previous question could be made, essentially voiding all debate, and time would have been wasted. This may sound like a worse case scenario, but in consideration the potential, I had reservations of using such motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 2, 2018 at 07:50 PM Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 at 07:50 PM 15 hours ago, Sid Grice said: My concern would be that the motion to refer, which is debatable, could lead to a lengthy debate. Then, just before the motion is actually referred, the motion for the previous question could be made, essentially voiding all debate, and time would have been wasted. This may sound like a worse case scenario, but in consideration the potential, I had reservations of using such motion. I don't understand the concern. If a motion to refer has been debated at length, and then, just before the vote to refer, someone moves the previous question, it has virtually no effect. The motion had been fully debated, and the assembly was ready for the question. So whether the previous question is ordered or not makes no difference--the vote on the motion to refer will take place in either case. If it passes, the motion is referred, if not, the motion is still pending before the assembly. Whether it is still debatable or not depends on how the motion for the previous question was phrased. Nothing is voided. The debate was completed, and will inform everyone's decision on whether or not to support the motion to refer, so nothing has been wasted. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted November 2, 2018 at 08:27 PM Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 at 08:27 PM It was a bit confusing but it sounds like Sid Grace is thinking that the ordering of the previous question would cause an immediate vote on the main motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Grice Posted November 2, 2018 at 11:17 PM Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 at 11:17 PM 2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said: It was a bit confusing but it sounds like Sid Grace is thinking that the ordering of the previous question would cause an immediate vote on the main motion. I am still learning, and I apologize for overthinking the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Grice Posted November 2, 2018 at 11:22 PM Report Share Posted November 2, 2018 at 11:22 PM 3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: I don't understand the concern. If a motion to refer has been debated at length, and then, just before the vote to refer, someone moves the previous question, it has virtually no effect. The motion had been fully debated, and the assembly was ready for the question. So whether the previous question is ordered or not makes no difference--the vote on the motion to refer will take place in either case. If it passes, the motion is referred, if not, the motion is still pending before the assembly. Whether it is still debatable or not depends on how the motion for the previous question was phrased. Nothing is voided. The debate was completed, and will inform everyone's decision on whether or not to support the motion to refer, so nothing has been wasted. What am I missing? I misunderstood the original post. What I read was that the chair was not wanting to waste time with having to repeatedly assist a member in properly formatting his motions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 3, 2018 at 12:26 AM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 12:26 AM 1 hour ago, Sid Grice said: I misunderstood the original post. What I read was that the chair was not wanting to waste time with having to repeatedly assist a member in properly formatting his motions. I don’t think you misunderstood at all. That appears to be exactly the situation. On 10/31/2018 at 8:58 PM, Guest SAA said: The "difficult member" referred to is a member who seems cranky and generally mad at the world any everything it in . Attends meetings and seems to enjoy making things a pain for everyone . Says things like " you are the chair and you have a responsibility to help me put things together - and do things properly " . Rarely does his homework and regardless offer motions that are relevant but always 1/4 baked . Uses up a lot of time and getting it in writing can often take even more time . Seems to have an expectation the Chair will do his work for him . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts