Abuse of Authority by Chair

[Guest SAA]

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

 

 

[Chris Harrison]

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.

[Guest SAA]

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

[Rob Elsman]

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.

[Guest SAA]

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

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

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.

[Chris Harrison]

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

[Chris Harrison]

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.

[Guest SAA]

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

 

 

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

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.

[Guest SAA]

 

 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

 

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

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.

[Gary Novosielski]

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.

[Richard Brown]

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.

[J. J.]

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.