Duties of presiding officer - helping members

[Guest SAA]

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 . 

[Richard Brown]

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.

[Gary Novosielski]

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.

[Guest SAA]

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  .

 

 

[Richard Brown]

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. 

[Gary Novosielski]

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.

[Richard Brown]

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.

[Gary Novosielski]

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.

[Richard Brown]

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. 

[Joshua Katz]

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.

[George Mervosh]

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.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

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.

[Guest SAA]

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 

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

Well if he's making relevant but not fully prepared motions, you can just move to refer. 

[Sid Grice]

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.

[Richard Brown]

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

[Gary Novosielski]

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.

[jstackpo]

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

In some organizations, "difficult" means having an opinion.

Or at least one that differs from MY opinion.  😊

[Gary Novosielski]

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.

[Sid Grice]

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.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

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?

[Atul Kapur]

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.

 

[Sid Grice]

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.

 

[Sid Grice]

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.

[Josh Martin]

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 .