Admonition

[BabbsJohnson]

Hypothetical:

The President-as-Chair allows violations of decorum or not keeping the limits of debate. 

Let us say that a Point of order is raised, but several rules are been broken in fast succession before the point is acknowledged.

Is it improper to mention each one when asked to state the point?

If the president refuses or seems to be uninformed about the details of their duty, is it improper to ask flat out if the President is willing and able to do their duty, or if they know what their duty entails?

(I plan on giving a cheat-sheet of decorum and debate rules to all at the beginning of the meeting)

[Josh Martin]

8 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Is it improper to mention each one when asked to state the point?

Yes. A Point of Order is used to call attention to a particular breach of order, not to point out a laundry list of issues. (I suppose there might be some degree of latitude if all of the breaches are of a similar nature - for instance, I think a Point of Order regarding multiple instances of a member making improper remarks would be in order, and it would be appropriate to provide a few examples. I do not think it would be proper to combine breaches of different rules into a single Point of Order.)

8 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

If the president refuses or seems to be uninformed about the details of their duty, is it improper to ask flat out if the President is willing and able to do their duty, or if they know what their duty entails?

Yes. Depending on what exactly the chair does (or fails to do), see instead RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 255-260 or pgs. 650-654 for the appropriate course of action.

Edited June 6, 2019 at 01:29 PM by Josh Martin

[Chris Harrison]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes. A Point of Order is used to call attention to a particular breach of order, not to point out a laundry list of issues.... I do not think it would be proper to combine breaches of different rules into a single Point of Order.)

How would a member handle that situation?  Raise a Point of Order on (alleged) Infraction #1, the Chair rules, and the assembly deals with any Appeal?  Then rinse and repeat with all other (alleged) infractions?

Edited June 6, 2019 at 02:31 PM by Chris Harrison

[Atul Kapur]

51 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

Then rinse and repeat with all other (alleged) infractions?

This sounds like a good place to pick your battles. Unlikely, if they're happening in such rapid fashion, that every one of them is violating member's rights. Perhaps pick the most egregious one that is preventing the member from exercising her rights.

10 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

is it improper to ask flat out if the President is willing and able to do their duty, or if they know what their duty entails?

Mr. Martin has stated it's improper. I agree and would add that it is almost certainly going to be ineffective, as well. Assuming, that is, that the intent is to improve the performance of the presiding officer  rather than just antagonize them.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Chris Harrison said:

How would a member handle that situation?  Raise a Point of Order on (alleged) Infraction #1, the Chair rules, and the assembly deals with any Appeal?  Then rinse and repeat with all other (alleged) infractions?

Assuming the Points of Order regarding the other infractions remain timely at that point, I think this would generally be the correct course of action, although some additional facts would be desirable to say for sure. If a situation arises in which “Let us say that a Point of order is raised, but several rules are been broken in fast succession before the point is acknowledged,” the procedures on pgs. 644-648 and pgs. 650-654 may also be relevant, since (assuming that these are not points of a “purely technical character” as discussed on pg. 250), it would seem that something has gone very wrong.

I concur with Mr. Kapur, however, that there are also practical and political considerations to take into account, and it may therefore be beneficial to raise Point(s) of Order regarding only the most critical matters.

Edited June 6, 2019 at 04:48 PM by Josh Martin

[BabbsJohnson]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Assuming the Points of Order regarding the other infractions remain timely at that point, I think this would generally be the correct course of action, although some additional facts would be desirable to say for sure. If a situation arises in which “Let us say that a Point of order is raised, but several rules are been broken in fast succession before the point is acknowledged,” the procedures on pgs. 644-648 and pgs. 650-654 may also be relevant, since (assuming that these are not points of a “purely technical character” as discussed on pg. 250), it would seem that something has gone very wrong.

I concur with Mr. Kapur, however, that there are also practical and political considerations to take into account, and it may therefore be beneficial to raise Point(s) of Order regarding only the most critical matters.

Issues are almost always people talking over each other, interrupting each other, and then also some people wait with their hand raised while other people talk without being recognized

several people will talk without being recognized, while the one person just sits there with their hand raised, waiting

Chair will often wait for all the other people to stop talking before they call on the person with a raised hand,  and sometimes they even have to be reminded to do this or the person with the raised hand hast to waive their hand before the chair starts talking themselves or attempts to move on.

The person who raises their hand is usually the only one who does this, because they are interested in following the rules, and are not the kind of person to just blurt out their comments (but everyone else is, and  the chair never ever calls them to order, or tells them to stop doing what they are doing).

The person who raises their hand and waits has been bullied by the chair. The chair has told each of the board members privately not to speak to or respond in any way to the person who has been bullied, and to only speak to them at meetings,.

[BabbsJohnson]

Would it be improper to say to the chair: 

“Madame President... it is customary to require people to raise their hand in order to be recognized, and then for you to recognize them in order for them to obtain the floor. Please correct those who do not, and bring them to order. These are a primary part of your duties, and you are not doing them. “

Edited June 6, 2019 at 07:24 PM by .oOllXllOo.
Add words

[Rob Elsman]

The form you have illustrated is not the proper form for a Point of Order.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Would it be improper to say to the chair: 

“Madame President... it is customary to require people to raise their hand in order to be recognized, and then for you to recognize them in order for them to obtain the floor. Please correct those who do not, and bring them to order. These are a primary part of your duties, and you are not doing them. “

Yes, for a few reasons. First, you are not the President's supervisor with the power of correction. Secondly, in a formal setting, you would never address the chair as "you" and "your" — far too personal. Third, when the rules are not being followed, there is already a mechanism of enforcement, and that is the Point of Order, which includes calling other members to order if necessary.

[BabbsJohnson]

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

Yes, for a few reasons. First, you are not the President's supervisor with the power of correction. Secondly, in a formal setting, you would never address the chair as "you" and "your" — far too personal. Third, when the rules are not being followed, there is already a mechanism of enforcement, and that is the Point of Order, which includes calling other members to order if necessary.

The group insists on first names only. They do not like any semblance of formality.

[BabbsJohnson]

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

Yes, for a few reasons. First, you are not the President's supervisor with the power of correction. Secondly, in a formal setting, you would never address the chair as "you" and "your" — far too personal. Third, when the rules are not being followed, there is already a mechanism of enforcement, and that is the Point of Order, which includes calling other members to order if necessary.

 I imagine the following would happen:

 I raise a point of order citing the fact that people are talking without being recognized and that typically when weights with their hand raised in order to be recognized .

 Instead of rolling on the point of order I am Magine the president would look around the room and say does everybody want to do that do you want to raise your hand and wait to be recognized?

 Maybe they will just say yes or no out loud, or perhaps she would put it to a vote.

 If they voted to not wait to be recognized she would simply look at me and say “I guess that’s not what the group wants to do “

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Would it be improper to say to the chair: 

“Madame President... it is customary to require people to raise their hand in order to be recognized, and then for you to recognize them in order for them to obtain the floor. Please correct those who do not, and bring them to order. These are a primary part of your duties, and you are not doing them. “

Yes. The member should instead say “Point of Order.” The chairman would then tell the member to state her point, and the member would then say “Madame President, a number of members have spoken without seeking recognition, which is in violation of our rules.” There is no need to say anything further.

22 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

 I imagine the following would happen:

 I raise a point of order citing the fact that people are talking without being recognized and that typically when weights with their hand raised in order to be recognized .

 Instead of rolling on the point of order I am Magine the president would look around the room and say does everybody want to do that do you want to raise your hand and wait to be recognized?

 Maybe they will just say yes or no out loud, or perhaps she would put it to a vote.

 If they voted to not wait to be recognized she would simply look at me and say “I guess that’s not what the group wants to do “

Just to be clear, if the majority in fact wishes to do this (and especially if 2/3 wishes to do this), then this is ultimately what is going to happen regardless of what procedures are used. I have cited the appropriate pages above for the steps to follow if the chair fails to rule on a Point of Order. Essentially, they involve eventually stating the question on the Point of Order yourself and letting the assembly decide.

Let us suppose, however, that the chair actually ruled on the Point of Order, and ruled that seeking recognition was not necessary. You could then Appeal from that ruling, and the assembly might decide to uphold the chair’s ruling.

Even supposing the assembly acknowledged that the rules require members to seek recognition , the assembly may suspend this rule by a 2/3 vote, or adopt a special rule of order superseding it by a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board).

The bottom line is that if the board wants its meetings to be run in this manner, then that’s how they are going to be run. There is no solution to this except to persuade the board members to change their minds (which doesn’t seem to be going very well so far) or to elect new board members. There is no magic wand to wave to make the assembly follow the rules. It is ultimately up to the assembly to enforce its own rules.

Edited June 6, 2019 at 10:14 PM by Josh Martin

[BabbsJohnson]

Thanks to everyone.

 

[Atul Kapur]

46 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Instead of rolling on the point of order I am Magine the president would look around the room and say does everybody want to do that do you want to raise your hand and wait to be recognized?

 

24 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Let us suppose, however, that the chair actually ruled on the Point of Order, and ruled that seeking recognition was not necessary. You could then Appeal from that ruling, and the assembly might decide to uphold the chair’s ruling.

As I recall that the OP seeks to explore all nuances, I'll just add that the Chair is explicitly allowed to refer the point of order to the judgment of the assembly, as is imagined above, instead of ruling. In that case, there is no Appeal from the judgment of the assembly. See §23 - Point of Order.

[Josh Martin]

18 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

As I recall that the OP seeks to explore all nuances, I'll just add that the Chair is explicitly allowed to refer the point of order to the judgment of the assembly, as is imagined above, instead of ruling. In that case, there is no Appeal from the judgment of the assembly. See §23 - Point of Order.

I agree that the Chair is permitted to refer the Point of Order to the assembly for its judgment, and that there is no appeal from the judgment of the assembly, but I do not think what is “imagined above” is quite in accord with this procedure. We are told that the OP anticipates that, upon the OP raising the Point of Order, the chair would ask “does everybody want to do that do you want to raise your hand and wait to be recognized?” The appropriate wording, in my view, would be more like the following: “Mrs. X raises a point of order that multiple members have spoken without seeking recognition, and that the rules require members to seek recognition in order to speak in debate. The chair is in doubt and submits the question to the assembly. The question is, "Are members required to seek recognition in order to speak in debate?”

The question before the assembly on an Appeal or a Point of Order is not what the assembly wants to do, but is regarding the assembly’s interpretation of what the rules presently require. If the assembly wants to do something other than what the rules presently require, there are other motions for that.

(I would also note that if the chairman is in doubt on such a basic point as whether recognition is required to speak in debate, this is a bit of a problem.)

Edited June 7, 2019 at 05:23 PM by Josh Martin

[BabbsJohnson]

14 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

(I would also note that if the chairman is in doubt on such a basic point as whether recognition is required to speak in debate, this is a bit of a problem.)

I would tend to agree, because to me it raises the next obvious question, of if people are not going to have a way to be recognized, how will they be obtaining the floor?

Talk loudest? Talk before anyone else can?  ¯\_(👁)_/¯ 

[Josh Martin]

Just now, .oOllXllOo. said:

I would tend to agree, because to me it raises the next obvious question, of if people are not going to have a way to be recognized, how will they be obtaining the floor?

Talk loudest? Talk before anyone else can?  ¯\_(👁)_/¯ 

I don’t know. Ask the people who want that to be the rule.

[BabbsJohnson]

9 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I don’t know. Ask the people who want that to be the rule.

I’m going to hope it doesn’t come to that.

The authors of our governing documents felt confident enough to name RONR as our parliamentary rules, and IMHO it would be awfully selfish of this temporary assembly to change the by-laws just because they don’t want to bother with RONR.

It would impact every board beyond this one, and every piece of business deliberated on.

[Josh Martin]

10 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

I’m going to hope it doesn’t come to that.

The authors of our governing documents felt confident enough to name RONR as our parliamentary rules, and IMHO it would be awfully selfish of this temporary assembly to change the by-laws just because they don’t want to bother with RONR.

It would impact every board beyond this one, and every piece of business deliberated on.

Okay. You can speak against the proposed rules change in debate, if and when this occurs, although I would leave out the part where you call the other members selfish.