Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Can the Chair rule points of order disruptive?


BabbsJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

1. If the Chair becomes irate hearing someone call points of order, like if they are not used to it, or have not made it their business to know how to respond, or doesn't want to rule on points of order, can they claim it is merely someone being disruptive, even if the points are being called for actual rules being broken?

2. If the Chair refuses to rule, and a board member raises an appeal, do they have time to explain why the appeal is necessary before a second is needed. or would that explaination be when they explain the point of order? In case the rest of the board is not familar with the rules being broken?

3. Is it possible for the other members to just say things like "this is stupid" or "this is a waste of time" and other such things when points of order are raised?

If the Chair fails to rule that a rule is in fact being broken, and an appeal is not successful, can something else be done, perhaps a request that the action be added to the minutes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The presiding officer can make any claim he/she wants in response to a Point Of Order. It is the assembly's discretion to interpose an Appeal if the explanation seems insufficient.

2. The only time a chairman could refuse is if the same situation has occurred in the past and the chairman has rendered a ruling and no Appeal has reversed his decision. This is the reason why these things should be recorded in the minutes. The member interposing an Appeal does have a right to only one single speech after the motion has been declared by the chairman unless the Appeal is undebatable, "if it (a) relates to indecorum or a transgression of the rules of speaking; (b) relates to the priority of business; or (c) is made when an undebatable question is immediately pending or involved in the appeal." RONR 11th edition page 257. Again, no. The Point Of Order itself is not debatable.

3. No. Outbursts such as these are a breach of decorum and it is the responsibility of the chairman to suppress them.

X. If the chair rendered a ruling and regardless whether an Appeal followed, standard procedure is for the Point Of Order or both of these items to be recorded in the minutes, no request is needed. If these events are not being recorded then at the next meeting when the minutes are being approved you should suggest an amendment to include them.

I would urge you to get a copy of this book. Finding many of the answers will be somewhat quicker with the hardcopy in hand. Besides, it is something you can take to the meeting with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

1. The presiding officer can make any claim he/she wants in response to a Point Of Order. It is the assembly's discretion to interpose an Appeal if the explanation seems insufficient.

2. The only time a chairman could refuse is if the same situation has occurred in the past and the chairman has rendered a ruling and no Appeal has reversed his decision. This is the reason why these things should be recorded in the minutes. The member interposing an Appeal does have a right to only one single speech after the motion has been declared by the chairman unless the Appeal is undebatable, "if it (a) relates to indecorum or a transgression of the rules of speaking; (b) relates to the priority of business; or (c) is made when an undebatable question is immediately pending or involved in the appeal." RONR 11th edition page 257. Again, no. The Point Of Order itself is not debatable.

>>Ok, so if let’s say, I get inturrupted by the Chair during my speech, and so call point of order, and explain why I’m raising it, and she reacts like she doesn’t know what to do next, 1) do I have to explain what she’s supposed to do? And 2) what if she rules “not well taken” because she just wants me to stop talking... let’s say the appeal does not fly... does that mean I cannot call a Point of order for being inturrupted again, since she ruled as she did, and the appeal did not overturn her ruling?

3. No. Outbursts such as these are a breach of decorum and it is the responsibility of the chairman to suppress them.

>>So, if the Chair does not suppress them, but instead let’s them speak to illustrate how “stupid” or a “waste of time” it is, then asks for the assembly to vote on letting me continue speaking or not instead of ruling on the point? (I could honestly see this happening) 

X. If the chair rendered a ruling and regardless whether an Appeal followed, standard procedure is for the Point Of Order or both of these items to be recorded in the minutes, no request is needed. If these events are not being recorded then at the next meeting when the minutes are being approved you should suggest an amendment to include them.

>>The secretary-assistant is not at all used to recording a point of order. Is there an example of how they should be recorded in the minutes in RONR?

I would urge you to get a copy of this book. Finding many of the answers will be somewhat quicker with the hardcopy in hand. Besides, it is something you can take to the meeting with you.

>>I have a copy, just not sure where to look for some of this stuff...

also, if a point of order is called, and I need time to look up the exact wording of the rule, how is that handled?

Edited by .oOllXllOo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

1. If the Chair becomes irate hearing someone call points of order, like if they are not used to it, or have not made it their business to know how to respond, or doesn't want to rule on points of order, can they claim it is merely someone being disruptive, even if the points are being called for actual rules being broken?

There are rules concerning dilatory motions, including Points of Order, but no, the chairman obviously cannot rule a Point of Order out of order (or ignore it) as “disruptive” simply because she does not feel like dealing with it.

8 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

2. If the Chair refuses to rule, and a board member raises an appeal, do they have time to explain why the appeal is necessary before a second is needed. or would that explaination be when they explain the point of order? In case the rest of the board is not familar with the rules being broken?

You can’t appeal if the chair refuses to rule, because with no ruling there is nothing to appeal from. If the chairman refuses to rule on a Point of Order, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-651 for information on Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting.

in any event, the explanation would be when the member makes the Point of Order.

8 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

3. Is it possible for the other members to just say things like "this is stupid" or "this is a waste of time" and other such things when points of order are raised?

It is not in order for members to say anything when they do not have the floor. (Regardless, if such comments are raised, properly or otherwise, this says something about whether you are likely to be successful in persuading the other members to follow the rules.)

8 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

If the Chair fails to rule that a rule is in fact being broken, and an appeal is not successful, can something else be done, perhaps a request that the action be added to the minutes?

The Point of Order, the chair’s ruling and reasoning, and the appeal should already be recorded in the minutes. Even if you mean in debate on the appeal, I would be inclined to rule such comments out of order as not germane.

6 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

2. The only time a chairman could refuse is if the same situation has occurred in the past and the chairman has rendered a ruling and no Appeal has reversed his decision.

I disagree. This is not a proper reason to refuse to rule on a Point of Order. The chair could point to the precedent as a reason for the ruling, but could not simply refuse to rule on this basis.

5 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

also, if a point of order is called, and I need time to look up the exact wording of the rule, how is that handled?

You don’t. You’ll have to settle for a paraphrase or learn to look things up quickly. The assembly is not required to sit around while you flip through the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...  I may have asked this in another way before but I’m not sure if I got an answer.

 Say I call a point of order for being interrupted and the chair rules it not well taken even though I was interrupted while I had the floor.

 Let’s say I moved to appeal, and the appeal did not over all of the chair’s ruling.

 Does that mean I could not raise further points in order for being interrupted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

So...  I may have asked this in another way before but I’m not sure if I got an answer.

 Say I call a point of order for being interrupted and the chair rules it not well taken even though I was interrupted while I had the floor.

 Let’s say I moved to appeal, and the appeal did not over all of the chair’s ruling.

 Does that mean I could not raise further points in order for being interrupted?

I think you still could (within reason, at least), but unless there is some reason to believe the outcome would be different (such as if the facts are slightly different, or if the chair or the members have changed since the last time), I’m not sure what the point would be.

If you were to repeatedly, within the same meeting, raise a Point of Order regarding the same situation, when the assembly has already made clear it disagrees with your interpretation, then I think further Points of Order on that issue (within the same meeting) could be ruled out of order as dilatory.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

If you were to repeatedly, within the same meeting, raise a Point of Order regarding the same situation, when the assembly has already made clear it disagrees with your interpretation, then I think further Points of Order on that issue (within the same meeting) could be ruled out of order as dilatory.

This is what I was thinking about when I said "refuse." I just failed to explain myself more carefully. Thank you Mr. Martin for catching this.

10 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

I have a copy, just not sure where to look for some of this stuff...

There is a fairly good index in the back of the book. In the meantime, keep reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think you still could (within reason, at least), but unless there is some reason to believe the outcome would be different (such as if the facts are slightly different, or if the chair or the members have changed since the last time), I’m not sure what the point would be.

If you were to repeatedly, within the same meeting, raise a Point of Order regarding the same situation, when the assembly has already made clear it disagrees with your interpretation, then I think further Points of Order on that issue (within the same meeting) could be ruled out of order as dilatory.

What if, on the off chance, I try an experiment and interrupt someone else, to see if the Chair rules consistently, and they do not

(like if someone else raises a point of order from my interruption, and the chair rules it well taken?)

Would it be within my rights to asks that the specific inconsistency be recorded as such? Seems that would illustrate a special kind of discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

What if, on the off chance, I try an experiment

What would be the purpose of the experiment?

If it's to prove a point, then how does that benefit anyone?

If it's to change behaviours that we have heard about on various threads, how does this experiment lead to changing it? Unless you have the intention of consulting an attorney and going a court, then the group polices its own behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, reelsman said:

I think your experiment is intemperate. Over several posts, now, you've been looking for ways to gun down the presiding officer. That's not what parliamentary procedure is for.

Not exactly.

I have observed a specific disregard for the rules, and I would say even a disdain for them,  that has resulted in actual harm to some individuals.  

I want the president who acts as chair, simply to do the job that they’ve been placed in that position to do...  problem is they have been told for years now from someone in authority who should’ve known better, that we didn’t actually have to pay attention to,  or use RONR,  it has created a culture of disregard and contempt for the rules.

In reality, the president’s only role in meetings is to act as the chairperson, and RONR defines the role and duties of the chair.

 I really want is them to fully understand and respect that fact and for them to respect the role they are fulfilling, and to adhere to what their duties are.

If you were to observe our meetings, you would see that everyone in the meeting except for one person typically interrupts each other talks over each other speaks without recognition, as many times as they please, regardless of who has and has not yet spoken,  and one person is just sat waiting with their hand in the air while 2..3...4 people talk, one after another,  & the chair does absolutely nothing to stop it...and in fact participates in it.

So the person patiently waiting, feels like a bit of a fool for trying to follow the rules when nobody else wants to.

It’s extremely discouraging to the point sometimes that this person  experiences extreme despair and hopelessness over. 

Some people have resigned & vowed not to come back while this person is president ...talented people that the board could’ve benefitted from.

Recently I have found out about straight up unethical things being done that have also caused real injury to at least one person.

If I sound salty, or snarky, or like I’m trying to “gun down”  the presiding officer (an extreme thing to refer, to which I don’t agree with...) this is why.

My ultimate goal is for this person to understand the depth of their role and responsibilities, and to either embrace it, or resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

What would be the purpose of the experiment?

If it's to prove a point, then how does that benefit anyone?

If it's to change behaviours that we have heard about on various threads, how does this experiment lead to changing it? Unless you have the intention of consulting an attorney and going a court, then the group polices its own behaviour.

 It would simply be to illustrate inconsistency in applying the rules and possibly showing discrimination towards some members, and favoritism towards others.  Ultimately the experiment would be to create ammunition and grounds for removing this person as president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

What if, on the off chance, I try an experiment and interrupt someone else, to see if the Chair rules consistently, and they do not

 (like if someone else raises a point of order from my interruption, and the chair rules it well taken?)

In such an event, it is possible the chair is applying the rules inconsistently. It is also possible there is some difference in the two situations which explains the difference in rulings. Even under RONR, there are limited circumstances in which a member may interrupt a speaker.

In any event, I concur with my colleagues that such “experiments” may be counterproductive to your goals. I certainly do not think such tactics will be helpful in persuading the President to change her behavior or to resign, since it seems to me they would only serve to irritate the President.

Even for the goal of gathering “ammunition” for the President’s removal, I think you run a risk of the President using such instances as part of her defense in the event there ultimately is a motion to remove her. A person in such a position might make a claim that such instances are evidence of a “plot” against her as a method of diverting attention from her own actions.

In short, I don’t know that it is helpful to purposely break the rules in an attempt to engineer some sort of “evidence” against the President. It seems to me you have plenty of naturally occurring instances to use as evidence, and if they aren’t sufficiently persuasive for the assembly, I don’t think the tactics outlined here will tip the scales in your favor.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If no one takes the rules in this book seriously it seems difficult to believe that any illustrations will lead to any change. I get the impression that you have an education problem and not a parliamentary problem. And we have to face the fact that the problem may be bigger than all of us put together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2019 at 5:34 PM, .oOllXllOo. said:

If I sound salty, or snarky, or like I’m trying to “gun down”  the presiding officer (an extreme thing to refer, to which I don’t agree with...) this is why.

 

On 6/26/2019 at 5:35 PM, .oOllXllOo. said:

Ultimately the experiment would be to create ammunition and grounds for removing this person as president.

Hmm, isn't ammunition that stuff they use in guns?

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...