Can the Chair refuse a valid motion?

[Aileen]

I have looked in 2 versions of Robert's Rules and cannot find this statement in relation to the Chair ruling motions out of order:  "However, there is no requirement for the chair to take a regular motion, so he or she can refuse for any reason or none at all."

If it is in the Rules, please let me know where I could find it.

thanks, Aileen

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

Is someone alleging to you that the quoted text is in Robert's Rules?  It's hard to PROVE a negative, but no, there is not such a sentence in Robert's Rules.

All I can offer you as proof is actual quotes from Robert's Rules which contradict that alleged quote.  I would suggest starting in 12th edition, 47:7 which is a section titled, "Duties of the presiding officer of the assembly."  A list of duties is given including:

"4) To state and put to vote all questions that legitimately come before the assembly as motions or that otherwise arise in the course of proceedings (except questions that relate to the presiding officer himself in the manner noted below), and to announce the result of each vote (4); or if a motion that is not in order is made, to rule that it is not in order (although this may be avoided if the chair can suggest an alternative that is in order which the maker agrees to offer instead; see 4:16-18)."

There are circumstances in which a chair can refuse to recognize a motion, if you keep reading that same list to numbered item 5 to see the chair is to protect the assembly from dilatory motions, but the chair needs a valid reason to refuse a motion.  Either it's dilatory, or it violates some other rule, etc.  But the chair is not free to refuse a motion "for any reason or none at all."

If a chair is simply refusing to recognize valid motions, see section 62 of 12th edition Robert's Rules, which includes remedies for dereliction of duty in office, specifically starting in 62:3 which states (underline added for emphasis):

"For example, some important rules of parliamentary procedure are (a) that the chair must recognize any member who seeks the floor while entitled to it (see 42); (b) that after a member has properly made a motion that is not dilatory (see 39), the chair must either state the question on it, or else rule it out of order for a specified valid reason, require that the wording be clarified or be submitted in writing, or declare that it is not before the assembly for lack of a required second (see 4); and (c) that the chair cannot hurry through the proceedings so quickly as to deprive the members of their rights to debate and to introduce secondary motions (see 43:7)."

The same section goes on to describe what to do if a chair fails in these duties.

[Aileen]

Thanks Alicia for your prompt and informative response.

And sorry to all that my post appeared twice - as a newbie I thought my first attempt had not been posted.

Aileen

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Alicia!  Your presence is sorely missed at the LNC.  I hope you are well.

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Aileen said:

I have looked in 2 versions of Robert's Rules and cannot find this statement in relation to the Chair ruling motions out of order:  "However, there is no requirement for the chair to take a regular motion, so he or she can refuse for any reason or none at all."

I concur completely with Ms. Percell that this statement is entirely false and does not appear in Robert's Rules of Order. The chair may not simply "refuse" a motion. The chair may rule a motion out of order due to the motion violating some parliamentary rule, but the chair must provide the reasoning for this ruling.

In addition to the statement being incorrect in regards to the chair "refusing" a motion, I also am not entirely certain what the statement means by a "regular motion." This is not generally a term that RONR uses. (The only exception is in connection with the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes, in which the term is used to distinguish this motion from the "regular motion" to Reconsider.) So I don't quite know what a "regular motion" is or what motions are or are not supposed to be "regular motions," although the statement is incorrect in any event.

It may be that this statement refers to the special rules of order of a particular organization, or it may be that the people who wrote this statement simply have no idea what they are talking about.

[Guest Jeff]

In reading the responses it appears that the chair must entertain ALL motions, or make a ruling that it is out of order, which can be challenged.

What if the motion is outlandish, let's say that every member in the meeting gets $1000, and the motion is seconded, then MUST that motion be entertained???

Also, can someone just holler out that they second the motion, without the chair asking for a second? Then is it discussed and voted on?

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/12/2022 at 1:27 PM, Guest Jeff said:

In reading the responses it appears that the chair must entertain ALL motions, or make a ruling that it is out of order, which can be challenged.

What if the motion is outlandish, let's say that every member in the meeting gets $1000, and the motion is seconded, then MUST that motion be entertained???

No, the chair should rule that it is out of order.

"Any main or other motion that is frivolous or absurd or that contains no rational proposition is dilatory and cannot be introduced."  RONR (12th ed.) 39:3

On 2/12/2022 at 1:27 PM, Guest Jeff said:

Also, can someone just holler out that they second the motion, without the chair asking for a second?

Yes. One does not need to be recognized by the chair in order to second a motion.  RONR (12th ed,) 4:9 

On 2/12/2022 at 1:27 PM, Guest Jeff said:

Then is it discussed and voted on?

Are you referring now to a motion that the chair has not ruled out of order but, instead, has placed before the assembly by stating the question on it?  If so, the answer is yes, if the motion is a debatable motion it can then be discussed and voted on (or otherwise disposed of), although any member can raise a point of order if he thinks the motion is not in order.

[Guest Nicci Ruijs]

Say a chair refuses to bring a motion to the floor with no valid reason, what should a member do then. I had this happen last week. His response to my motion was, "we are not going to do that".  What do Roberts Rules suggest a member should do, during that meeting or better after that meeting. I was kind of surprised by his refusal, as was the majority of the membership, that nobody reacted to his refusal.

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/3/2022 at 9:33 PM, Guest Nicci Ruijs said:

What do Roberts Rules suggest a member should do, during that meeting or better after that meeting.

After the meeting is too late. If the chair has not acted according to the rules, a point of order can be raised -- but it has to be raised in a timely manner. If you let yourself be paralyzed by shock, you'll get run over (both when crossing the street and when participating in a meeting).

Now, one option is to make the same motion at the next meeting. But this time prepare yourself and as many allies as you can beforehand so that you are ready and know what to do if the same thing happens again, or something similar. 

[Guest Nicci Ruijs]

Thank you for your reply, this is very helpful. 

 

[Richard Brown]

On 5/3/2022 at 8:33 PM, Guest Nicci Ruijs said:

Say a chair refuses to bring a motion to the floor with no valid reason, what should a member do then. 

Agreeing with the answer above by Dr. Kapur, if you believe the chair has improperly ruled your motion out of order, you can appeal from the ruling of the chair. The appeal requires a second and is usually debatable, but subject to special rules. Appeals from the ruling of the chair are covered in section 24 of RONR (12th ed.) 

[Gary Novosielski]

If a motion is moved and seconded, it is the duty of the chair to state the motion, placing it before the assembly. The only exceptions would be if the chair determines that the language of the motion is unclear, in which case you should be given an opportunity to clarify it, or if the chair rules that it is out of order for some reason; the reason must be stated in the ruling.

So if the chair simply ignores your seconded motion, you can raise a Point of Order that the chair failed to state your motion as required.  If the chair ruled your motion out of order, you can Appeal, as @Richard Brown noted.

If your motion is not seconded (and if seconds are required in this context), then you do not have the above rights, and the chair can state (and the minutes should reflect) that the motion died for lack of a second.  If the chair customarily asks if there is a second, but does not do so for your motion, other members may sit there waiting, until the chair simply moves on.  So it's best if you think this may happen to arrange with another member to second your motion--there is no need to wait for the chair to inquire, and frankly it wastes time.