Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Point of order


Leo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Point of order

In cases where the chair, being in doubt, refers the point of order to the judgment of the assembly, the required vote is not prescribed by standard descriptive characteristic 7.

7   Is normally ruled upon by the chair. No vote is taken unless the chair is in doubt or his ruling is appealed.

Where is the required vote given for determining if the point is well taken or not well taken when referred to the judgment of the assembly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Leo said:

Point of order

In cases where the chair, being in doubt, refers the point of order to the judgment of the assembly, the required vote is not prescribed by standard descriptive characteristic 7.

7   Is normally ruled upon by the chair. No vote is taken unless the chair is in doubt or his ruling is appealed.

Where is the required vote given for determining if the point is well taken or not well taken when referred to the judgment of the assembly?

Good question.  I don't recall seeing it in the book.  However, it seems to me that if the chair is in doubt and "punts" to the assembly, it would take a majority vote to rule that the point of order is well taken.  I think that on a tie vote, the point of order would not be well taken.  It seems the burden should be on those raising a point of order to convince a majority that the point of order is indeed well taken.  A motion, for example, should not be ruled out of order unless found to be out of order by a majority vote.

Others may disagree.  We shall soon know! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Table II gives the answer (Tinted Page 20).

Motion 59.  "is ruled upon by chair (unless he submits question to judgment of majority in assembly)"
Also, the form and example on pages 254-255 describe a voice vote, which is used for votes requiring a majority.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

It seems the burden should be on those raising a point of order to convince a majority that the point of order is indeed well taken.  A motion, for example, should not be ruled out of order unless found to be out of order by a majority vote.

Page 255, lines 6-22. A portion of that citation states, "When a point of order is submitted to a vote of the assembly and the point relates to stopping something from being done, it is usually best to put the question so that an affirmative vote will be in favor of allowing the proceedings to continue as if the point had not been raised. Thus, if a point is made that the chair is admitting a motion which is out of order, the question should be put so that an affirmative result of the vote will mean that the motion is in order ..." [see the full citation to get the full answer, but this portion suffices to support Mr. Brown's statement]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 105, lines 8–12

“It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement even in cases where the effect ofthe motion is to propose that something be done, since members may become confused as to the effectof voting for or against such a motion.”

A similar statement is made on page 105, lines 8–12, and both statements address the issue of putting the question so the affirmative vote will favor allowing the proceedings or allowing that something be done. Neither statement gives the required vote that is typically given in the 7thStandard Descriptive Characteristic.

I believe that an affirmative vote of a majority is required to allowing the proceedings to continue as if the point had not been raised. But, in this case the 7thcharacteristic, unlike others, does not give the vote required, and I can find no other citations that actually give the affirmative vote required to allow the proceedings to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Page 255, lines 6-22. A portion of that citation states, "When a point of order is submitted to a vote of the assembly and the point relates to stopping something from being done, it is usually best to put the question so that an affirmative vote will be in favor of allowing the proceedings to continue as if the point had not been raised. Thus, if a point is made that the chair is admitting a motion which is out of order, the question should be put so that an affirmative result of the vote will mean that the motion is in order ..." [see the full citation to get the full answer, but this portion suffices to support Mr. Brown's statement]

I don't see how. If an affirmative vote means the motion is in order, then a negative vote (including a tie) means the point of order is well-taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as has been noted, what is said on page 255 does not support Mr. Brown's statement that "[a] motion, for example, should not be ruled out of order unless found to be out of order by a majority vote." Just the opposite is true if the question is put to the assembly in the form in which RONR says it should be put on page 255, lines 10-15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, reelsman said:

Mr. Gerber: Let me suggest to you that the second sentence of Standard Characteristic 7 for a Point of Order, RONR, (11th ed.), p. 249be rewritten to clarify that a majority vote is required when the chair is in doubt and puts the question to the assembly.

So what am I, a potted plant?  🙂

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...