Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Point of order question


BabbsJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is it in order to call points of order, partially to show the others just how many rules and how often, are being broken, and also to show that a chair is grossly negligent in their duties of knowing, implementing and enforcing the rules of order?

i have a situation where a person has been a president for nearly ten years, but has made up their own rules and mocks and ridicules RONR.

Unfortunately, this person is influencing the other board members who are very green and following her lead, and do not know that rules are even being broken, but I’m honestly quite tired of it.

Would it be out of order to call points of order on every (or many) violations that are bound to happen,  of decorum and debate limits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Is it in order to call points of order, partially to show the others just how many rules and how often, are being broken, and also to show that a chair is grossly negligent in their duties of knowing, implementing and enforcing the rules of order?

i have a situation where a person has been a president for nearly ten years, but has made up their own rules and mocks and ridicules RONR.

Unfortunately, this person is influencing the other board members who are very green and following her lead, and do not know that rules are even being broken, but I’m honestly quite tired of it.

Would it be out of order to call points of order on every (or many) violations that are bound to happen,  of decorum and debate limits?

A point of order may be raised to demand that a rule be enforced.  While that might, incidentally, "show the others just how many rules and how often, are being broken, and also to show that a chair is grossly negligent in their duties of knowing, implementing and enforcing the rules of order," the purpose is to enforce the rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, J. J. said:

A point of order may be raised to demand that a rule be enforced.  While that might, incidentally, "show the others just how many rules and how often, are being broken, and also to show that a chair is grossly negligent in their duties of knowing, implementing and enforcing the rules of order," the purpose is to enforce the rules. 

Yes, I realize that the purpose is to enforce the rules.

Im saying they almost never get properly enforced, and I’ve had a lot of stress over it...frankly I’m very tired of it, and I find it extremely upsettiing thatvthe person who acts as Chair has been so neglectful, that it has cause actual, real damage to individuals, andvtonthe functionslity of the board I serve on.

I’m venting.

Thank you for your answer, I know it’s correct...I just have to figure out how to deal with this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A member raising a point of order can choose to elaborate somewhat on the rules or background, but I think it would be technically improper to try to use a single point of order to point out many past violations. But I think there are situations where it may be appropriate. Except in a hostile assembly, I would expect that, if asked, an assembly would grant the permission to a member to address the assembly (as a Request for Any Other Privilege) in order to discuss continual rules issues, rather than needing to only bring them up on an individual basis as they continue to occur, which is likely less efficient. Similarly, it would likely be accepted to raise many points of order relating to continuing breaches, such as violations of the bylaws or illegal violations, all at once in succession, rather than expecting the chair to rule on each individually before the next one is raised. I would treat such a motion as being divisible on the demand of any member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, reelsman said:

I have no idea where in RONR you are getting all this, Mr. Hunt.

I am almost exclusively referring to violations of the rules of debate, meaning people interrupting each other, or talking twice before someone else has once, or drowning out another member, or the chair telling the assembly “ok last comment” or some such thing,  or violations of decorum... not by-laws or CC&Rs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alexis Hunt said:

A member raising a point of order can choose to elaborate somewhat on the rules or background, but I think it would be technically improper to try to use a single point of order to point out many past violations. But I think there are situations where it may be appropriate. Except in a hostile assembly, I would expect that, if asked, an assembly would grant the permission to a member to address the assembly (as a Request for Any Other Privilege) in order to discuss continual rules issues, rather than needing to only bring them up on an individual basis as they continue to occur, which is likely less efficient. Similarly, it would likely be accepted to raise many points of order relating to continuing breaches, such as violations of the bylaws or illegal violations, all at once in succession, rather than expecting the chair to rule on each individually before the next one is raised. I would treat such a motion as being divisible on the demand of any member.

I think you should have stopped after your first sentence.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...