What is purpose of appeal

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Is the purpose of an appeal to decide whether or not the decision of the Chair is correct or whether or not one likes the outcome? Does RONR address directly the issue of purposefully voting against a ruling that one knows is the right ruling but doesn't give one the result they wish for?

[Atul Kapur]

12 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Is the purpose of an appeal to decide whether or not the decision of the Chair is correct or whether or not one likes the outcome?

The former (bolded in the quote)

12 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Does RONR address directly the issue of purposefully voting against a ruling that one knows is the right ruling but doesn't give one the result they wish for?

General Robert reportedly said that his rules were intended to be used by honourable people. That assumption is not directly addressed in the book.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

So I presume it would follow that it is not appropriate for a presiding officer to make a correct ruling and then encourage the assembly to overturn the ruling so that they can get their way that cannot be obtained another way?

[George Mervosh]

22 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

So I presume it would follow that it is not appropriate for a presiding officer to make a correct ruling and then encourage the assembly to overturn the ruling so that they can get their way that cannot be obtained another way?

"APPROPRIATENESS OF APPEAL. If a member disagrees with a ruling of the chair affecting any substantial question, he should not hesitate to appeal. The situation is no more delicate than disagreeing with another member in debate. In the case of serious questions when proponents and opponents appear nearly equal, a presiding officer may welcome an appeal from his decision. By relieving the chair of responsibility in a strongly contested situation and placing it on the assembly itself, better relationships are often preserved. "  RONR (11th ed.), p. 258

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Just now, George Mervosh said:

"APPROPRIATENESS OF APPEAL. If a member disagrees with a ruling of the chair affecting any substantial question, he should not hesitate to appeal. The situation is no more delicate than disagreeing with another member in debate. In the case of serious questions when proponents and opponents appear nearly equal, a presiding officer may welcome an appeal from his decision. By relieving the chair of responsibility in a strongly contested situation and placing it on the assembly itself, better relationships are often preserved. "  RONR (11th ed.), p. 258

I am not sure how that answers the questions.  I am asking about the chair doing something such as this:

 

I am going to rule in such a such a way.  You are going to appeal my ruling.  I will not defend my ruling.  A majority of you will overturn my ruling.

 

So that the assembly can  do something that the bylaws clearly do not allow.

[George Mervosh]

2 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I am not sure how that answers the questions.  I am asking about the chair doing something such as this:

I am going to rule in such a such a way.  You are going to appeal my ruling.  I will not defend my ruling.  A majority of you will overturn my ruling.

So that the assembly can  do something that the bylaws clearly do not allow.

Well you didn't say this in your last post and yes it seems to cross the line a bit but I wasn't there.  I see no problem with the chair making a ruling and advising an assembly they may appeal it, but not actually telling them they SHOULD overturn it. Also, a presiding officer may speak in a debatable appeal but he has no obligation to.  The cited passage mentions simply that a presiding officer may indeed welcome an appeal on a hotly contested issue where there is substantial support for both sides. 

[Atul Kapur]

The assembly is the master of itself. It can certainly do as you described. Whether that is "proper" is the term the determination of the majority.

If the action taken is actually in contravention of the bylaws, then this constitutes a continuing breach and a point of order can be raised at any future time as long as the breach continues (RONR 11th ed., p. 251, lines 9-10).

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I think a good presiding officer always tells an assembly they have a right to appeal.  I am talking about a wink, wink situation.  I didn't directly say it before as I was trying to be circumspect in case the situation I am asking about is known to any other members as this was an aberration from the normally excellent presiding ability of the chair whom I respect very much.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

2 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

The assembly is the master of itself. It can certainly do as you described. Whether that is "proper" is the term the determination of the majority.

If the action taken is actually in contravention of the bylaws, then this constitutes a continuing breach and a point of order can be raised at any future time as long as the breach continues (RONR 11th ed., p. 251, lines 9-10).

Okay so that seems to contradict your first statement.  If the assembly can do as it pleases, then it certainly can knowingly overrule a ruling they know is correct, right?

 

But  don't think that is correct because we really aren't talking about the full assembly here but a majority.  This line of thinking tramples the rights of the minority if the majority can simply ignore the bylaws and that be okay as the majority is master?  What am I missing here.  Obviously a majority can always "do" that.  I know they are capable.  I am asking if that is proper under RONR.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

This situation happened a while ago, and on thinking on it - I cannot remember if it was the bylaws that prohibited the thing the assembly wished to do or whether it was RONR that prohibited it.  Our bylaws defer to RONR where they are silent.

[Rob Elsman]

I think you are worrying too much about a majority voting to ignore the bylaws and do what it pleases. Experience demonstrates that assemblies are generally quite dedicated to the observation of their rules, because they realize the instability, rancor, and division that reckless disregard of the rules will cause.

Many Appeals are debatable. Members on both sides are welcome to argue their case. Hopefully, the debate is illuminative and persuasive. Having a full and thoughtful debate will help those who end up on the losing side to accept the result "graciously" and "cheerfully ".

[Atul Kapur]

33 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

The assembly is the master of itself. It can certainly do as you described. Whether that is "proper" is the term the determination of the majority.

If the action taken is actually in contravention of the bylaws, then this constitutes a continuing breach and a point of order can be raised at any future time as long as the breach continues (RONR 11th ed., p. 251, lines 9-10).

 

28 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Okay so that seems to contradict your first statement.  If the assembly can do as it pleases, then it certainly can knowingly overrule a ruling they know is correct, right?

 

But  don't think that is correct because we really aren't talking about the full assembly here but a majority.  This line of thinking tramples the rights of the minority if the majority can simply ignore the bylaws and that be okay as the majority is master?  What am I missing here.  Obviously a majority can always "do" that.  I know they are capable.  I am asking if that is proper under RONR.

There is no contradiction. If the same group is in attendance at a future meeting, then yes they will overturn a ruling that they were incorrect at the first meeting. But, if a different group of members is in attendance, they can correct the error made at a previous meeting.

28 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Obviously a majority can always "do" that.  I know they are capable.  I am asking if that is proper under RONR.

Go back to my comment about honourable people. There is no "RONR police" so the rules can only be self-enforced.

Edited April 21, 2020 at 02:03 PM by Atul Kapur

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Just now, Rob Elsman said:

I think you are worrying too much about a majority voting to ignore the bylaws and do what it pleases. Experience demonstrates that assemblies are generally quite dedicated to the observation of their rules, because they realize the instability, rancor, and division that reckless disregard of the rules will cause.

Many Appeals are debatable. Members on both sides are welcome to argue their case. Hopefully, the debate is illuminative and persuasive. Having a full and thoughtful debate will help those who end up on the losing side to accept the result "graciously" and "cheerfully ".

I am speaking of a situation that actually happened.  I know it is rare.  I am just trying to figure out if the situation was kosher under RONR and just offended my personal sense of right and wrong, or whether it was not allowed by RONR.

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Kapur has apparently forgotten about the services of "Knuckles" Mervosh.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

1 minute ago, Atul Kapur said:

 

 

Go back to my comment about honourable people. There is no "RONR police" so the rules can only be self-enforced.

Of course.  But I am asking if it is indeed a rule to begin with.  I seem to understand  you as saying that it is not an explicit rule but an implicit understanding that RONR assumes that people will not seek to undermine the purpose of protecting both the majority and a significant minority.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes. History shows that continuing interaction in a group requires some kind of a set of customs, commonly agreed to, that will maintain a balance between the competing rights of individuals, various factions, and the assembly taken as a whole. That, in a nutshell, is parliamentary law.

[Gary Novosielski]

8 hours ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I am not sure how that answers the questions.  I am asking about the chair doing something such as this:

 

I am going to rule in such a such a way.  You are going to appeal my ruling.  I will not defend my ruling.  A majority of you will overturn my ruling.

 

So that the assembly can  do something that the bylaws clearly do not allow.

From this we learn that Gen. Robert intended for the rules to be used by honorable people, but doubtless realized that from time to time they fall into the hands of that other sort.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I do not know if I would call the action dishonorable because this presiding officer is honorable.  I think it was giving in to expediency and legitimately believing it was the right thing to do.