Tabling an Appeal to the Decision of the Chair?

[Guest Jimm]

Is it in order to take up a motion to Table a Motion Appealing the Decision of the Chair?   Suppose the Chair decides on a parliamentary issue and someone immediately Appeals that ruling, then before that appeal is taken, someone else makes a motion to TABLE the motion to appeal the decision.   Would it be in order for the Chair to then take up the motion to Table the decision without debate and the vote taken to table the appeal is immediately taken up without debate and passed with a simple majority?   Doesn't that simply deny the right to appeal, allowing things to move on without the decision and without the right to debate the decision?

Would that be an appropriate parliamentary maneuver?

[George Mervosh]

5 minutes ago, Guest Jimm said:

Is it in order to take up a motion to Table a Motion Appealing the Decision of the Chair?   Suppose the Chair decides on a parliamentary issue and someone immediately Appeals that ruling, then before that appeal is taken, someone else makes a motion to TABLE the motion to appeal the decision.   Would it be in order for the Chair to then take up the motion to Table the decision without debate and the vote taken to table the appeal is immediately taken up without debate and passed with a simple majority?   Doesn't that simply deny the right to appeal, allowing things to move on without the decision and without the right to debate the decision?

Would that be an appropriate parliamentary maneuver?

This sounds like an improper use of the motion to lay on the table.  See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 215-217 "MISUSES OF THE MOTION."

Oh, and if you're asking because you saw this on TV this morning like I did, they don't follow RONR in the House.

Edited December 12, 2019 at 03:10 PM by George Mervosh

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

Are you perhaps watching the House Judiciary Committee hearing this morning, where that just happened?

The obvious point of the "maneuver," as you call it, was to keep from debating the appeal. RONR makes it clear that such is not the purpose of the motion; however, RONR isn't the parliamentary authority for the House of Representatives, and regardless, since the Chair accepted the motion and no one objected, it stood.

 

[Richard Brown]

I agree with the comments by my friends George Mervosh and Greg Goodwiller.  I'm confident Guest Jimm is watching the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings.  It would be improper per RONR, but the U.S. House of representatives does not use RONR as its parliamentary authority.   It's a maneuver the majority uses to keep from having to deal with points of order and other motions from the minority that the majority does  not want to deal with.

[Guest Jimm]

30 minutes ago, Greg Goodwiller said:

Are you perhaps watching the House Judiciary Committee hearing this morning, where that just happened?

The obvious point of the "maneuver," as you call it, was to keep from debating the appeal. RONR makes it clear that such is not the purpose of the motion; however, RONR isn't the parliamentary authority for the House of Representatives, and regardless, since the Chair accepted the motion and no one objected, it stood.

 

 

Yes, that is where I saw it, and cringed when I did.

Even if someone stood, that appeal would have been tabled without debate also I'm sure.   

Why have an Appeal motion that includes a right to debate if all it takes is a motion to table it without debate to kill it?  [rhetorically meant]   Seems our Congress is without ethical order if this is how they conduct business. 

Anyway, I was curious if this was proper IAW RONR rules and it seems you guys concur that it is not appropriate.

 

Thanks,

 

Jimm

[Guest Jimm]

FWIW, I went to the the U.S. Governments Congress Procedures webpage and found this regarding such Appeals.   Seems a motion to table is in order, according to the rules, despite not being very founded since it seems to simply provide waiver to the proper appeal procedure itself.  My guess is that the reason most appeals are not overruled is because the committee is party split, with the Chair a member of the majority party....   If he rules, nobody will vote against even with good arguments made in debate.  This simply dispenses with the need to even debate it.   Likely, not true in most general societies needing RONR....

 

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-307.html

Appeals

In most cases, any Member who disagrees with the Speaker's ruling can challenge it and ask Members to decide (by majority vote) whether the House will agree to be bound by that ruling. Clause 5 of House Rule I states in part that the Speaker shall "decide all questions of order, subject to appeal by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner." Anyone wishing to invoke this right simply stands and announces, before any other business has taken place, that he or she appeals the ruling of the chair.

Most appeals are debatable under Rule I, but it is unusual for there to be much debate on an appeal.⁸ Debate is under the one-hour rule in the House and under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. However, the House can end the debate on an appeal by voting to order the previous question (or by voting to close debate if in Committee of the Whole). Alternatively, a motion to table an appeal is in order in the House (but not in Committee of the Whole). The Speaker puts the appeal to a vote by phrasing the question in the following way: "The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House [or the Committee]?" Those supporting the ruling vote "aye"; those opposing it vote "no."  [Emphasis added]

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest Jimm said:

Is it in order to take up a motion to Table a Motion Appealing the Decision of the Chair? 

Under the rules in RONR, if the Appeal is in reference to a pending motion, then if the motion to Lay on the Table is adopted, it is not possible to lay the appeal alone on the table. The main motion could be laid on the table, in which event the appeal (which “adheres” to the main motion) is laid on the table with it. If the appeal does not relate to a pending motion, it may be laid on the table alone.

In either case, it should be noted that the purpose of the motion to Lay on the Table in RONR is to temporarily set aside a motion in order to take up some other urgent business, and the motion is then generally taken from the table after that business is disposed of. It is not proper to use the motion to Lay on the Table to kill a motion.

3 hours ago, Guest Jimm said:

Would it be in order for the Chair to then take up the motion to Table the decision without debate and the vote taken to table the appeal is immediately taken up without debate and passed with a simple majority?   Doesn't that simply deny the right to appeal, allowing things to move on without the decision and without the right to debate the decision?

Would that be an appropriate parliamentary maneuver?

No, as explained above, this is not an appropriate parliamentary maneuver under the rules in RONR, for several reasons.

2 hours ago, Guest Jimm said:

Yes, that is where I saw it, and cringed when I did.

Even if someone stood, that appeal would have been tabled without debate also I'm sure.   

Why have an Appeal motion that includes a right to debate if all it takes is a motion to table it without debate to kill it?  [rhetorically meant]   Seems our Congress is without ethical order if this is how they conduct business. 

Anyway, I was curious if this was proper IAW RONR rules and it seems you guys concur that it is not appropriate.

As has been noted above, the procedure described is not proper under the rules of RONR. The US House of Representatives, however, does not use Robert’s Rules of Order as its parliamentary authority. Instead, it uses Jefferson’s Manual, plus many pages of special rules of order and a few centuries of precedents. I am not an expert on the rules of the US House of Representatives, but it would not surprise me if the maneuver in question is in order under the House’s rules. Generally, the US House’s rules tends to give greater authority to the majority than RONR does, particularly in regards to limiting debate and otherwise swiftly disposing of motions.

Whether our Congress is “without ethical order” due to the manner in which they conduct business is a discussion which is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

Edited December 12, 2019 at 06:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Under the rules in RONR, if the Appeal is in reference to a pending motion, then if the motion to Lay on the Table is adopted, it is not possible to lay the appeal alone on the table. The main motion could be laid on the table, in which event the appeal (which “adheres” to the main motion) is laid on the table with it. If the appeal does not relate to a pending motion, it may be laid on the table alone.

Since Mr. Martin was good enough to direct the discussion back to RONR (rather than USHoR), a small addition: the motion Lay on the Table cannot be applied to an undebatable appeal that does not relate to (aka "does not adhere to") the main motion.

So, to summarize:
- Adhering appeals: Can Lay the main motion on the Table and adhering appeals go with it
- Non-Adhering appeals - Debatable: Can be Laid on the Table by itself
                                           - UNDebatable: Cannot be Laid on the Table.