Point of Order Question

[BabbsJohnson]

What is to be done when a chairperson nor the assembly do not know a rule is being broken, and the chair does not know how to handle a point of order?

if they rule “not well taken” is it in order to request information about the ruling?

to ask perhaps if the chair rules against the point because he/she disagrees that a known rule is being broken, or if he/she disagrees there is a  rule that should be followed at all?

[jstackpo]

12 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

if they rule “not well taken” is it in order to request information about the ruling?

Sure, that is what "Appeal" is for.  See p.255 for the next steps.

[BabbsJohnson]

1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

Sure, that is what "Appeal" is for.  See p.255 for the next steps.

So, jsut to clarify why the point was not well taken, before an appeal, is it permissible to make a request for information to the chair?

[jstackpo]

No.  As I said, that is what an appeal is for. The chair gets to, first, explain why he/she made the ruling.

[BabbsJohnson]

44 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

No.  As I said, that is what an appeal is for. The chair gets to, first, explain why he/she made the ruling.

What if they do not explain, and just say "point not well taken" and nothing more?

Are you saying if I say "Appeal!" (and I'm assuming that needs a second) that is when the Chair gets to explain?

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

What is to be done when a chairperson nor the assembly do not know a rule is being broken, and the chair does not know how to handle a point of order?

if they rule “not well taken” is it in order to request information about the ruling?

to ask perhaps if the chair rules against the point because he/she disagrees that a known rule is being broken, or if he/she disagrees there is a  rule that should be followed at all?

It should not be necessary to request information about the ruling, because the chair, as part of ruling on a point of order should explain why the point is or is not well taken. The ruling, as well as the reasoning, should go into the minutes.

If the ruling and reasoning are not satisfactory, any two members (mover, seconder) may raise an Appeal.

[Joshua Katz]

And if the chair chooses not to use his opportunity to present his reasoning, so much the stronger the case on appeal. (Or not - sometimes it is tactically smart to let the members opposing the ruling attack what they think is the basis for the ruling, then make a new argument using the ability to speak last. But that's the dynamics of debate, and an appeal invites the chair into debate.)

[Chris Harrison]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

It should not be necessary to request information about the ruling, because the chair, as part of ruling on a point of order should explain why the point is or is not well taken.

...Though p. 253 ll. 25-27 makes it sound like the explanation is actually a required part of the Chair's response to the Point of Order rather than something that "should" also occur.  If that is the case wouldn't a member have a right to demand the Chair provide his or her rationale for the ruling. 

Of course, upon such a demand the Chair may retort "Because I said so." 

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

What is to be done when a chairperson nor the assembly do not know a rule is being broken, and the chair does not know how to handle a point of order?

Well, the answer to the first part is to raise a Point of Order. As to the second, education, I suppose.

6 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

if they rule “not well taken” is it in order to request information about the ruling?

Yes. The chair is required to provide the reasoning for her ruling.

6 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

to ask perhaps if the chair rules against the point because he/she disagrees that a known rule is being broken, or if he/she disagrees there is a  rule that should be followed at all?

The chair should explain why she is ruling the way she is, which would generally be because there is a different interpretation of the rule in question.

3 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

What if they do not explain, and just say "point not well taken" and nothing more?

Are you saying if I say "Appeal!" (and I'm assuming that needs a second) that is when the Chair gets to explain?

If the chairman says “Point not well taken,” and nothing further, the member should request the reasoning for the chair’s ruling.

An Appeal does require a second and is debatable, so the chair could further explain her ruling at that point.

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

And if the chair chooses not to use his opportunity to present his reasoning, so much the stronger the case on appeal. (Or not - sometimes it is tactically smart to let the members opposing the ruling attack what they think is the basis for the ruling, then make a new argument using the ability to speak last. But that's the dynamics of debate, and an appeal invites the chair into debate.)

If the chair does not explain her reasoning, I think it is in order (and preferable) for the member to request the chair’s reasoning before raising an Appeal.

1 hour ago, Chris Harrison said:

...Though p. 253 ll. 25-27 makes it sound like the explanation is actually a required part of the Chair's response to the Point of Order rather than something that "should" also occur.  If that is the case wouldn't a member have a right to demand the Chair provide his or her rationale for the ruling. 

I agree completely.

1 hour ago, Chris Harrison said:

Of course, upon such a demand the Chair may retort "Because I said so." 

If the only reasoning the chair is able to articulate for a ruling is “Because I said so,” I would suggest that after the Appeal dealt with, the  assembly should get a new chair.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with the previous responses, it seems that requesting that the chair provide the reason for its ruling is really in the nature of a point of order, regardless of whether it is phrased that way.  It would certainly be appropriate to say, "Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.  The rules require that you state the basis of your ruling".  It also seems that a Parliamentary inquiry asking for the basis of the ruling would be in order.  Although the response is itself to a parliamentary inquiry is not appealable, it may provide the information (or lack thereof) necessary to make a determination whether to appeal the chair's initial ruling.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

If the chair does not explain her reasoning, I think it is in order (and preferable) for the member to request the chair’s reasoning before raising an Appeal.

3 hours ago, Chris Harrison said:

Sure, but "watcha gonna do, brother?" You'll raise a point of order, the chair will rule it not well-taken, you'll appeal...or, if forced, the chair can give a persuasive but nonsensical explanation. I don't see what is being accomplished here.

[Richard Brown]

2 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Sure, but "watcha gonna do, brother?" You'll raise a point of order, the chair will rule it not well-taken, you'll appeal...or, if forced, the chair can give a persuasive but nonsensical explanation. I don't see what is being accomplished here.

Well, knowing the basis of the chair's ruling, if it can be determined, lets those dissatisfied with the ruling know how  to argue against it on appeal. 

Edited to add:  And if the chair's stated reason for his ruling is nonsensical, it lets those appealing know exactly how to argue that it was improper.

Edited June 21, 2019 at 05:31 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Weldon Merritt]

27 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Well, knowing the basis of the chair's ruling, if it can be determined, lets those dissatisfied with the ruling know how  to argue against it on appeal. 

Edited to add:  And if the chair's stated reason for his ruling is nonsensical, it lets those appealing know exactly how to argue that it was improper.

Also, knowing the basis for the chair's ruling may be important in deciding whether to appeal. Maybe the explanation will be convincing, and no appeal will be needed.

[Richard Brown]

27 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Also, knowing the basis for the chair's ruling may be important in deciding whether to appeal. Maybe the explanation will be convincing, and no appeal will be needed.

Yes, quite correct. I had intended to say that but left it out.

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Edited to add:  And if the chair's stated reason for his ruling is nonsensical, it lets those appealing know exactly how to argue that it was improper.

Perhaps, but the chair can let you respond to what he said, then speak last and give actual, sensible reasons.

[Josh Martin]

6 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Sure, but "watcha gonna do, brother?" You'll raise a point of order, the chair will rule it not well-taken, you'll appeal...or, if forced, the chair can give a persuasive but nonsensical explanation. I don't see what is being accomplished here.

The chair’s ruling and the reasoning behind it are included in the minutes, to serve as precedent for future rulings. I agree that in the event the reasoning is nonsensical, this is not much of an improvement over no reasoning at all, but it is not known whether the reasoning will be nonsensical until it is offered.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/21/2019 at 10:06 AM, Chris Harrison said:

...Though p. 253 ll. 25-27 makes it sound like the explanation is actually a required part of the Chair's response to the Point of Order rather than something that "should" also occur.  If that is the case wouldn't a member have a right to demand the Chair provide his or her rationale for the ruling. 

Of course, upon such a demand the Chair may retort "Because I said so." 

I should shall correct my sloppy use of the word should.

Edited to add:

Ooops, no can do.  The shot clock on editing has expired for that post.

Edited June 23, 2019 at 05:41 PM by Gary Novosielski
Edited to add things that were added by editing.