Guest SAA Posted November 23, 2019 at 03:57 AM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 03:57 AM This is a hypothetical . The Chair rules a main motion out of order on the basis that it violates the bylaws .A member ( "X" ) appeals the ruling . The Chair rules the appeal out of order and not allowed , stating that there could not possibly be two reasonable opinions on the ruling made , and that the appeal was dilatory . Member X then raises a Point of Order . It is asserted by X that the Chair was in error and that the initial ruling was improper and that the appeal was not dilatory . The Chair declares that the point of order is not well taken as the initial ruling on the main motion was correctly made ( and explained ) and so too the ruling of dilatory , on the appeal . 1. If these were the facts what would member "X" do to further her challenge, or did member X go about it improperly in terms of challenge to the Chair's decisions ? 2. Page 650 RONR , Ln 20-35 ,does not appear to help at all in these circumstances . I may ( likely do ) have it all wrong but that content ( p. 650 ) seems to have application to where the Chair ignores a motion, and appeal ,and point of order . Or makes no ruling . In this hypothetical the challenge by X is not ignored and rulings are made . Can anyone help on this . Thanks SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 23, 2019 at 09:53 AM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 09:53 AM If I remember correctly the general opinion of this board in the past is a Chair should be very careful about ruling an Appeal dilatory because there are not two reasonable opinions. A Chair doing so risks 1) having pp. 650-651 implemented and a member stating the question themselves, 2) the assembly taking disciplinary action against the Chair, or 3) both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted November 23, 2019 at 05:34 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 05:34 PM Thanks Mr. Harrison for the response but may I ask for additional explanation . From RONR, p. 256 ,Ln 34-36 it appears to provide that a chair may rule an appeal to be dilatory . There is no caution/mention as to the Chair being careful . Nor can I see it on pages 342-43. And ,if the Chair should be careful - what is it that the chair should be careful of ? And , as noted above in the initial post ,p.650-51 appear to refer to circumstances of where the Chair ignores the member in various ways . In the hypothetical offered the chair does not ignore anything and did rule the main motion ,out of order. This must somehow be a reading error on my part but I cannot seem to identify my place of error . And it seems unlikely to me that a chair can in this way shut out a members challenge . Can anyone clarify . Thanks SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted November 23, 2019 at 05:50 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 05:50 PM Whether the chair acted properly or not depends on the circumstances taken broadly. If these circumstances clearly indicate a pattern of disruption after warnings, the chair acts properly. On the other hand, if the chair is acting in a partisan way to misuse the authority of the chair to prevent a member from making a motion that he has the right to make, the member can put the question on his motion from his chair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted November 23, 2019 at 06:20 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 06:20 PM Thanks Mr. Elsman : But in this hypothetical it was meant that both the Chair and the member consider they are acting properly . Its not a pattern of disruption matter . The chair genuinely considers the motion out of order and that no two reasonable persons would find otherwise . And the finding of dilatory on the appeal is likewise the chairs genuine view - and that seems allowed by RONR ( P. 256). The chair is not ignoring anything . The member considers she has been mistreated and she is also of that genuine view . What lines in RONR apply if the point of order raised by the member is simply ruled as - not well taken . Does she then appeal again from that and the circle goes forward again . Or can she take it out of the chairs hands when the chair rules the point of order not well taken . P. 650 appears to apply to circumstances of ignoring - which is not what the chair has done . ?????? More SOS needed and thanks ! SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted November 23, 2019 at 06:29 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 06:29 PM This is the problem with hypothetical situations. It is impossible for me to see the circumstances, because there aren't any. The experienced presiding officer will apply the rule concerning dilatory appeals with equity. He must balance the right of individual members to make motions with the right of the assembly to transact business without undue disruption. There is nothing unusual about this balancing act. Much of parliamentary procedure has a lot to do with balancing the rights of various competing parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 23, 2019 at 06:31 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 06:31 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, Guest SAA said: From RONR, p. 256 ,Ln 34-36 it appears to provide that a chair may rule an appeal to be dilatory . There is no caution/mention as to the Chair being careful . Nor can I see it on pages 342-43. RONR doesn't caution or mention the Chair being careful though with the clear potential of that rule being abused it would behoove the Chair to use that rule VERY rarely. That is why I said " the general opinion of this board in the past is a Chair should be very careful..." Quote And ,if the Chair should be careful - what is it that the chair should be careful of? With the exception of taking disciplinary action against the Chair later there is really no immediate recourse for the members if the Chair is acting in bad faith other than a member stating the question themselves. Granted there are cases where there cannot be more than one reasonable opinion but, if there is any chance there might be another reasonable argument...even if that chance is very small...the Chair should allow the Appeal. Any time the Chair uses the rule on page 256 he is for all intents and purposes thwarting the will of the assembly by not allowing them to challenge his ruling. That should only be done when it is absolutely...100%...bet your life savings and 401k that you are right...certain that the assembly only has one reasonable way to decide the Appeal. Quote In the hypothetical offered the chair does not ignore anything and did rule the main motion ,out of order. True, though the way I view it is if the Chair rules the Appeal dilatory and won't allow it the effect is the same as if he ignored it. In either case the assembly isn't given the opportunity to consider the Appeal. Edited November 23, 2019 at 06:41 PM by Chris Harrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 23, 2019 at 06:38 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 06:38 PM 5 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said: RONR doesn't caution or mention the Chair being careful... Though RONR p. 456 ll. 9-18 applies to this somewhat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted November 23, 2019 at 07:23 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 07:23 PM Thanks to both of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Elsman . And for sure these responses are indeed helpful - but concern me regardless. And with respect : The use of hypotheticals ( as I understand ) is in many instances an important and useful tool for gathering understanding and testing the validity of various assertions , instructions, conclusions , and premises . This hypothetical is an attempt to get a clear understanding of pp. 256,,342, 650-651, RONR . And the facts are not ( I think at least ) lacking as to needed core circumstances to wrestle with what seem to be ( ? ) insufficient content ( a very dangerous/risky claim ) in RONR. As RONR ,p.650-651, appear to be coined , as literally read , for circumstances where ignoring has taken place . And that's the rub ! Mr. Harrison offers that ..." ...if the Chair rules the appeal dilatory and won't allow it the effect is the same as if he ignored it ..." . But this seems a huge and clear departure from the written text and RONR , if not anything else , is exceptionally detailed and nuanced . If these conclusions by Mr. 's Harrison and Elsman are correct they why would there not be a footnote to indicate as much, as footnotes in RONR often appear to clarify various challenges ( and see, e.g.,p. 651 - footnote). However ,I surrender to expertise of the responders as I see no other way ahead for this . I guess the reader must read in that p.650 applies not just with ignoring but also with not - ignoring ???? BUT -thanks a lot very much for the replies made . It would seem indeed a rare occasion when this would arise . Maybe never ! SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted November 23, 2019 at 07:31 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 07:31 PM As I noted before, it is not uncommon for the chair to be called upon to apply the rules with equity. To do this, he must take into consideration all the circumstances. An experienced presiding officer knows how to do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted November 23, 2019 at 08:51 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 08:51 PM A default to equity is certainly a wholesome proposition . However , clarity in the text would be preferred ( at least for some ) , by far . That disposes of the potential for an arbitrary application of equity . But the resort to equity Mr. Elsman is understood . Thanks SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted November 23, 2019 at 08:59 PM Report Share Posted November 23, 2019 at 08:59 PM I can assure you that the authorship closely examines the posts and responses on this forum for signs or suggestions that the text needs clarification or extension. But, for my part (not being part of the authorship team), I thank you for your observations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 24, 2019 at 03:04 AM Report Share Posted November 24, 2019 at 03:04 AM I think it's fair to say that if the chair and the objecting member are both acting in good faith and can both be considered reasonable, then the fact that they disagree is prima facie evidence that it is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 26, 2019 at 03:36 AM Report Share Posted November 26, 2019 at 03:36 AM On 11/23/2019 at 9:04 PM, Gary Novosielski said: I think it's fair to say that if the chair and the objecting member are both acting in good faith and can both be considered reasonable, then the fact that they disagree is prima facie evidence that it is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the meaning. I agree. I am not at all a fan of the chair refusing to permit an appeal on the basis that his interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation and there cannot be any other interpretation. In the words of Dale Carnegie, that’s not exactly a good way to win friends and influence people. I think that an all but the most extreme cases it is better to simply permit the appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 26, 2019 at 07:13 AM Report Share Posted November 26, 2019 at 07:13 AM I would consider that the appeal of the ruling that the motion violates the bylaws not to be pending at that point in time. We have this scenario: Member make a motion (seconded) Chair rules the motion out of order on the ground that it violates the bylaws. Member appeals the decision of the chair (seconded). The appeal of the bylaw violation point of order is pending. Chair rules that the appeal of the bylaw violation point of order is dilatory and out of order. At this point, the appeal of the bylaw violation point of order is no longer pending. Member appeals the decision (seconded) of the chair that the appeal was dilatory. At this point, only the appeal of the decision that the motion was dilatory is pending. **************************************************** There can be a situation where a point of order might be raised during the consideration of an appeal where the appeal is itself is pending and not decided. I agree with my colleagues that an appeal made in good faith is prima facie evidence that the appeal is valid, and that the member would be justified in putting the motion from the floor. I have expressed this previously as "No motion is dilatory that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is)." It says, in effect, that the determination of if a motion is dilatory ultimately rests with the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts