Overturning a decision of the presiding officer

[Guest Alex Drake]

I am a college student who is engaged with student government. Recently, there has been a lot of confusion and argument over what decisions of the presiding officer are and are not allowed to be appealed. If the presiding officer decides to restrict certain members of the public from speaking, or to hear a certain piece of legislation on the floor rather than sending it first to committee, are those decisions that can be appealed, even though they are not connected to a specific point of order? If so, how?

[Chris Harrison]

Yes (with a possible exception).  RONR has a whole section dedicated to the Appeal.  See RONR pp. 255-260.  Be aware that only members of the body that is meeting (not members of the public) are allowed to Appeal a ruling.

[Rob Elsman]

Although Guest Drake uses the word "appeal", I think the motion he is really seeking is Point of Order, RONR (11th ed.), §23, p. 247ff.

[Josh Martin]

7 hours ago, Guest Alex Drake said:

Recently, there has been a lot of confusion and argument over what decisions of the presiding officer are and are not allowed to be appealed.

It should first be noted that the presiding officer doesn't actually have the authority to make very many decisions. That is, the presiding officer cannot simply decide, in his own discretion, whether or not the assembly shall take particular actions.

What the presiding officer can do is to make rulings, which are based not on the whims of the presiding officer, but on the rules of the assembly. Pretty much any of these rulings can be appealed from. The only exceptions are:

1) If the chair is ruling on a Point of Order which is raised while an Appeal is currently pending.

2) If there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions on the question.

7 hours ago, Guest Alex Drake said:

If the presiding officer decides to restrict certain members of the public from speaking, or to hear a certain piece of legislation on the floor rather than sending it first to committee, are those decisions that can be appealed, even though they are not connected to a specific point of order? If so, how?

They cannot be appealed (since the chairman has not yet made a ruling), but a member can and should raise a Point of Order that the President lacks the authority to make the decision in question. Then if the presiding officer rules that he does, in fact, have this authority (presumably based upon his interpretation of something in the society's rules, since he won't find anything in RONR to back him up on that), a member would then raise an Appeal from that ruling.

Unless your rules provide otherwise...

The presiding officer does not have the authority to decide, in his discretion, whether members of the public shall be permitted to speak, or which members of the public shall be permitted to speak. Under RONR, no one who is not a member of the assembly has a right to speak. The assembly may, however, permit non-members to speak, by majority vote if no motion is pending or by a 2/3 vote if a motion is pending. The assembly may also have its own rules on this subject, in which event the chair is obligated to follow those rules.

The presiding officer does not have the authority to decide "to hear a certain piece of legislation on the floor rather than sending it first to committee." In the ordinary case, when a motion is made it is indeed heard on the floor of the assembly, however, the assembly may refer the motion to a committee if it wishes to do so. The motion to Commit or Refer is debatable, amendable, and requires a majority vote for adoption. Some organizations adopt special rules of order requiring that certain motions are automatically sent to committee when introduced. If this organization has such rules, the presiding officer is obligated to enforce them.

Edited July 26, 2020 at 01:49 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

Often, college student senates try to emulate the state legislature in the way that bills are handled.  Therefore, it is likely that this body has its own rules that would supersede the common parliamentary law in significant ways.  Truly, without knowing what is the case in this particular situation, I cannot say whether the chair is misusing his authority in deciding to handle a motion on the floor, so to speak, rather than referring it to committee.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Often, college student senates try to emulate the state legislature in the way that bills are handled.  Therefore, it is likely that this body has its own rules that would supersede the common parliamentary law in significant ways.  Truly, without knowing what is the case in this particular situation, I cannot say whether the chair is misusing his authority in deciding to handle a motion on the floor, so to speak, rather than referring it to committee.

 I agree, but even assuming the body has its own rules regarding what motions or bills get referred to a committee and which committee they get referred to, I would say it is quite likely that such a decision by the chair is subject to a point of order and an appeal.

Using my own state legislature as an example, there are rules as to which types of bills get referred to various committees, but the decision of the presiding officer to refer a bill to a certain committee is subject to a  point of order and an appeal that he has referred it to the wrong committee, etc.

edited to add: I suspect the answers to the original poster’s questions depend on large part upon the rules of his student senate. 

Edited July 26, 2020 at 08:22 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Guest Alex Drake]

Thank you all so much for your help!

We do have our own rules of procedure, which the more I learn about Robert's Rules of Order, the more I learn how bad they are. The presiding officer's argument for being allowed to make these decisions is that our rules did not explicitly say whether he could or could not make them, so he believed that he could based on his own interpretation of precedents. Since we could not find a specific point of order to appeal, he wouldn't allow us to overturn the decision. Since their is no rule that specifies it otherwise, I would imagine using the logic that Josh Martin provided would be the best way to handle the situation if it comes up again: 

"They cannot be appealed (since the chairman has not yet made a ruling), but a member can and should raise a Point of Order that the President lacks the authority to make the decision in question. Then if the presiding officer rules that he does, in fact, have this authority (presumably based upon his interpretation of something in the society's rules, since he won't find anything in RONR to back him up on that), a member would then raise an Appeal from that ruling."

Would be the most applicable? 

[Richard Brown]

35 minutes ago, Guest Alex Drake said:

Would be the most applicable? 

In my opinion, yes. I think you’ve got it.  You’ve got to first raise a point of order that he does not have the authority to do what he did.

Edited July 26, 2020 at 09:51 PM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence

[Josh Martin]

17 hours ago, Guest Alex Drake said:

The presiding officer's argument for being allowed to make these decisions is that our rules did not explicitly say whether he could or could not make them, so he believed that he could based on his own interpretation of precedents.

I would add note the the presiding officer might be confused about the meaning of "precedent," since people often are. "Precedent" in RONR does not simply mean "that's how we did it before." That's called a "custom," and a custom falls to the ground if it conflicts with the rules of the assembly, including the parliamentary authority. A "precedent" is created by a ruling of the chair in response to a Point of Order, as well as any subsequent decision by the assembly upon Appeal. A precedent has a bit more weight than custom because it is an interpretation of the assembly's rules. Nonetheless, a precedent which is in error can and should be overturned.

Finally, if your rules do not "explicitly say whether he could or could not make" these decisions, then he can't make them. The presiding officer only has authority explicitly granted by RONR (which is not much) and by the assembly's rules.

"All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 456)-

For more information about the presiding officer, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 448-457.