Role of Chairperson

[Guest Tom]

Recently in a members' meeting, a motion was put forth that contravened the statutes of the organization. The motion was on the approval of the application of a new member. The statute that was being contravened is related to the restrictions for membership. 

The Chairperson indicated that she did not have the responsibility of determining the legality of the motions put forth to the members, reason for which she could not declare the motion out of order. 

Given that one of the the Chairperson's role is to enforce the rules according RRONR, should the Chairperson have ruled the motion out of order?

 

[Guest Tom]

One important additional piece of information. The Chairperson of the meeting is not a member or officer of the organization. It is elected to only preside over the meeting.

 

[Josh Martin]

35 minutes ago, Guest Tom said:

Recently in a members' meeting, a motion was put forth that contravened the statutes of the organization. The motion was on the approval of the application of a new member. The statute that was being contravened is related to the restrictions for membership. 

The Chairperson indicated that she did not have the responsibility of determining the legality of the motions put forth to the members, reason for which she could not declare the motion out of order. 

Given that one of the the Chairperson's role is to enforce the rules according RRONR, should the Chairperson have ruled the motion out of order?

Yes. The chairperson was mistaken. It is indeed her responsibility to determine if a motion conflicts with the organization’s rules and, if it does, to rule the motion out of order. The chair’s decision in this matter may be appealed, so this is ultimately the responsibility of the membership, but it is still the chair’s responsibility to enforce the organization’s rules. Indeed, it seems that this may be a continuing breach (although we’d need additional facts to say for sure), so it may still be possible to raise a Point of Order and, if necessary, an Appeal regarding this matter.

“It is the duty of the presiding officer of an assembly:

4) To state and to put to vote all questions that legitimately come before the assembly as motions or that otherwise arise in the course of proceedings (except questions that relate to the presiding officer himself in the manner noted below), and to announce the result of each vote (4); or, if a motion that is not in order is made, to rule it out of order.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 449-450)

“Motions that conflict with the corporate charter, constitution, or bylaws of a society, or with procedural rules prescribed by national, state, or local laws, are out of order, and if any motion of this kind is adopted, it is null and void.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 343)

Frankly, enforcing the society’s rules is such an important duty of the presiding officer that if the presiding officer is unable or unwilling to perform this duty, you should get a new presiding officer. See FAQ #20.

[Guest Tom]

Thank you Josh for your clear response. Very helpful.

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes. The chairperson was mistaken. It is indeed her responsibility to determine if a motion conflicts with the organization’s rules and, if it does, to rule the motion out of order.

Well, I certainly agree with that, but:

 

2 hours ago, Guest Tom said:

Recently in a members' meeting, a motion was put forth that contravened the statutes of the organization.

 

2 hours ago, Guest Tom said:

The Chairperson indicated that she did not have the responsibility of determining the legality of the motions put forth to the members, reason for which she could not declare the motion out of order. 

Is this a statute as in something passed by a legislature, or are we talking about a rule of the organization? If the former, in my opinion, the chair should only declare the motion out of order if the statute in question is procedural, rather than substantive. 

If the latter, out of curiosity, what does this presiding officer think her role is?

[Josh Martin]

22 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, I certainly agree with that, but:

Is this a statute as in something passed by a legislature, or are we talking about a rule of the organization? If the former, in my opinion, the chair should only declare the motion out of order if the statute in question is procedural, rather than substantive. 

If the latter, out of curiosity, what does this presiding officer think her role is?

The wording “statutes of the organization” (and the subject matter of the rule) led me to believe this was a rule of the organization. If “statute” does indeed refer here to applicable law, then I agree that the chair could only rule the motion out of order if the rule was procedural in nature.