Chairs Ruling is the Decision of the Assembly

[Roman.76]

Can someone please point out to me when is RONR it says that a chair's ruling is, in essence, the decision of the assembly (considering it is not appealed).  Thank you!

[Guest Zev]

"Ruling" is mentioned forty-seven times and nowhere do I find where the assembly's acquiescence with the chairman's ruling is equated with a "decision of the assembly." The act of the ruling is sometimes called a "precedent" but not a decision of the assembly.
 

Quote

 

PRECEDENT. The minutes include the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling (see p. 470, ll. 15-17). The ruling and its rationale serve as a precedent for future reference by the chair and the assembly, unless overturned on appeal, the result of which is also recorded in the minutes and may create a contrary precedent. When similar issues arise in the future, such precedents are persuasive in resolving them -- that is, they carry weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course -- but they are not binding on the chair or the assembly. The weight given to precedent increases with the number of times the same or similar rulings have been repeated and with the length of time during which the assembly has consistently adhered to them.

If an assembly is or becomes dissatisfied with a precedent, it may be overruled, in whole or in part, by a later ruling of the chair or a decision of the assembly in an appeal in a similar situation, which will then create a new precedent. Alternatively, adoption, rescission, or amendment (35) of a bylaw provision, special rule of order, standing rule, or other motion may alter the rule or policy on which the unsatisfactory precedent was based.

 

RONR 11th edition page 251-252.

As you can see the ruling itself is not binding so it cannot be called a decision. Appealing the ruling and overturning it, however, would be a decision.

[Dan Honemann]

5 hours ago, Roman.76 said:

Can someone please point out to me when is RONR it says that a chair's ruling is, in essence, the decision of the assembly (considering it is not appealed).  Thank you!

I doubt that this is said anywhere in RONR, but why do you ask? 

[Gary Novosielski]

12 hours ago, Roman.76 said:

Can someone please point out to me when is RONR it says that a chair's ruling is, in essence, the decision of the assembly (considering it is not appealed).  Thank you!

There is no such statement in RONR.  In fact, the contrary is true: if a ruling of the chair is appealed, then the outcome of that vote, whether to sustain or to overrule, is the decision of the assembly.  If it is not appealed, it is simply the decision of the chair.

[Transpower]

RONR (11th ed., pp. 224-228), paraphrasing:  A member can raise a question of privilege of the assembly ("I rise to a question of privilege of the assembly.").   The chair then directs the member to state his question of privilege.  The chair must then rule whether the request or motion is in fact a question of privilege and, if so, whether it is urgent enough to interrupt the pending business.  If so, the chair may request that the member make a motion covering his question of privilege, and another member may second it.  The chair then proceeds as with any other main motion.  On the other hand, the chair could "assume" the motion, state it, and take the vote directly if he senses there will be no opposition.  In that case, the decision of the chair would, in fact, be the same as that of the assembly.