Who recognizes the Chair? (small boards)

[BabbsJohnson]

In a small board where the adjusted rules for a small assembly are being used (7 people), who recognizes the chair to speak?

If the chair recognizes everyone else, what stops them from talking whenever they want to, in between other speakers, and making inappropriate comments on the discussion of other members?

Inappropriate meanging it's not their turn to speak, they speak more then once before others speak twice, and try specifically to say things that will invalidate what the last person said, or perhaps they rebutt everything a single member says in order to try to dampen any influce the debate may have.

Is it always a point of order that is needed, in such situations?

If this kind of thing happens over and over is a point of order recommended every time?

[Richard Brown]

13 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

In a small board where the adjusted rules for a small assembly are being used (7 people), who recognizes the chair to speak?

The chair himself.

13 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

If the chair recognizes everyone else, what stops them from talking whenever they want to, in between other speakers, and making inappropriate comments on the discussion of other members?

The rules of  decorum which say it is inappropriate.

14 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Is it always a point of order that is needed, in such situations? 

If this kind of thing happens over and over is a point of order recommended every time?

It can be handled by a point of order, which is probably the best way, at least initially.

If the behavior is repeated, stronger action may be required.  Among your options:  repeated points of order, a motion of censure, removal from office and even suspension or expulsion if the membership believes that such drastic action is appropriate.   Another approach is to have either someone the chair respects or a small group of members to sit down with the chair and discuss the situation with him in an effort to change his behavior.

[Josh Martin]

26 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

In a small board where the adjusted rules for a small assembly are being used (7 people), who recognizes the chair to speak?

The chair.

26 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

If the chair recognizes everyone else, what stops them from talking whenever they want to, in between other speakers, and making inappropriate comments on the discussion of other members?

I don’t know that anything prevents the chairman of a small board from speaking in between other speakers (except possibly preference in recognition if another board member wishes to speak, but it is not entirely clear how this rule works under the small board rules). The chairman cannot quite speak whenever they want to, since it is not proper to interrupt a chairman who is speaking. The rules of decorum and other rules of debate apply to the chairman the same as they apply to other members.

I would note that under the small board rules, there is no limit on the number of times a member may speak, which certainly may become an issue if a member (including, but not limited to) the chairman takes full advantage of this. If this becomes a problem, the board is free to adopt a rule limiting the number of times a member may speak in debate, or adopt motions to Limit Debate or for the Previous Question on a case by case basis.

26 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Inappropriate meanging it's not their turn to speak, they speak more then once before others speak twice, and try specifically to say things that will invalidate what the last person said, or perhaps they rebutt everything a single member says in order to try to dampen any influce the debate may have.

It is inappropriate to interrupt a member, if that is what you mean by “not their turn to speak.” RONR does provide that a member who has not yet spoken has preference in recognition over a member who has spoken. Since members may normally only speak twice, the text does not address the question of whether this privilege also applies in cases (such as might arise in committees or small boards) where both members have spoken, but one has spoken fewer times than the other.

No rule in RONR prevents a member from trying “specifically to say things that will invalidate what the last person said, or perhaps they rebutt everything a single member says in order to try to dampen any influce the debate may have.“

30 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Is it always a point of order that is needed, in such situations?

If this kind of thing happens over and over is a point of order recommended every time?

A Point of Order is the appropriate tool for a breach of the rules, followed by an Appeal, if necessary, and some of the things mentioned are breaches of the rules. If a particular violation by the chairman happens “over and over,” then one assumes that, eventually one of the following will occur:

• The chairman will change their behavior.
• The assembly will become fed up with and remove the chairman.
• The assembly will determine that it actually doesn’t like the rule in question and will adopt its own rule on the subject.