Opposing an appeal

[Tomm]

If the Chair makes a decision that is appealed, and seconded, by the assembly, is it mandatory that the Chair allow a vote, or can he/she simply call the appeal out of order and allow his decision to stand?

[Atul Kapur]

An appeal "Can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that:
a) if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair’s decision on this
point of order, although the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the
case; and

b) when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." SDC 2 of Appeal RONR (12th ed.) 24:3(2)

[George Mervosh]

13 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

An appeal "Can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that:
a) if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair’s decision on this
point of order, although the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the
case; and

b) when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." SDC 2 of Appeal RONR (12th ed.) 24:3(2)

Since it's quiet around here, can someone post an example of such a motion?  Yes, I need to get out more.   

[Tomm]

Yes, with all due respect, I too would appreciate a little more clarification! Example please!

[George Mervosh]

On 3/10/2021 at 10:41 PM, Atul Kapur said:

An appeal "Can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that:
a) if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair’s decision on this
point of order, although the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the
case; and

b) when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." SDC 2 of Appeal RONR (12th ed.) 24:3(2)

No takers on a real life example of this motion?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/11/2021 at 11:59 AM, George Mervosh said:

On 3/10/2021 at 10:41 PM, Atul Kapur said:

An appeal "Can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that:
a) if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair’s decision on this
point of order, although the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the
case; and

b) when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." SDC 2 of Appeal RONR (12th ed.) 24:3(2)

Since it's quiet around here, can someone post an example of such a motion?  Yes, I need to get out more.   

I don't have a good answer for you, and I think the answer has changed since the time General Robert first wrote this rule. Maybe @Daniel H. Honemann can help. 🙂

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't have a good answer for you, and I think the answer has changed since the time General Robert first wrote this rule.

I doubt that the rule on this matter has changed, but I could be wrong. Perhaps a reading of the last paragraph on page 153 of Parliamentary Law may shed some light on this subject.

[Dan Honemann]

9 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't have a good answer for you, and I think the answer has changed since the time General Robert first wrote this rule. Maybe @Daniel H. Honemann can help. 🙂

You mean maybe I might remember what he told me about why he wrote it?

[Rob Elsman]

I might be all wet, but I  have always interpreted the phrase to mean that the assembly could later adopt a motion or resolution to disavow the ruling of the chair.  The purpose of such an action would be to vacate the precedent set by the ruling in case the situation arose again.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

I might be all wet, but I  have always interpreted the phrase to mean that the assembly could later adopt a motion or resolution to disavow the ruling of the chair.  The purpose of such an action would be to vacate the precedent set by the ruling in case the situation arose again.

I have interpret that was, but I think it goes further.  The ruling could be a subject for disciplinary action. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/10/2021 at 10:41 PM, Atul Kapur said:

An appeal "Can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that:
a) if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair’s decision on this
point of order, although the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the
case;

 

On 3/11/2021 at 11:59 AM, George Mervosh said:

Since it's quiet around here, can someone post an example of such a motion?

 

On 3/17/2021 at 12:36 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't have a good answer for you, and I think the answer has changed since the time General Robert first wrote this rule. Maybe @Daniel H. Honemann can help. 🙂

Here's what I think:

Suppose a point of order is raised concerning a question as to the germaneness of a motion which was made to amend a pending main motion, and an appeal has been taken from the decision of the chair. While this appeal is pending, Mr. X is recognized by the chair to speak in debate and a point of order is raised that Mr. X is not currently a member of the assembly based upon some ambiguous rule that the assembly has adopted. The chair rules this point of order not well taken, and allows no appeal from this ruling.  A counted vote is eventually taken on the pending appeal, and the ruling of the chair is sustained by a vote of 10 in favor and 10 opposed, including Mr. X's vote in favor. The chair announces that the ruling of the chair has been sustained. At this point, I think that a point of order can be raised to the effect that the ruling of the chair has not been sustained because Mr. X was not entitled to vote, the chair's previous ruling being in error in this regard.

I think I can make this assertion because Mr. Gerber is right; the rule has changed since the time General Robert included it in all three editions of ROR (on p. 81). General Robert said that:

"While an appeal is pending, a question of order may be raised, which the chair decides peremptorily, there being no appeal from this decision.  But the question as to the correctness of the ruling can be brought up afterwards when no other business is pending."  (Emphasis supplied)

In all six editions of RONR, the phrase "the correctness of the ruling can be brought up afterwards when no other business is pending" has been changed to "the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the case."  (Emphasis supplied) 

 

 

 

[Guest Zev]

Thank you for this. Tracking some of the differences between the 1951 edition and the 1970 edition is difficult.

If I understand the practical effect of this change it would be that the previous rule would require a main motion covering the case but the newer rule would allow any legitimate motion covering the case. Would this assessment be fair, or did I miss another detail?

[Dan Honemann]

10 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Thank you for this. Tracking some of the differences between the 1951 edition and the 1970 edition is difficult.

If I understand the practical effect of this change it would be that the previous rule would require a main motion covering the case but the newer rule would allow any legitimate motion covering the case. Would this assessment be fair, or did I miss another detail?

Well, I don't think it entirely accurate to conclude that the phrase "when no other business is pending" limits the manner in which a question as to the correctness of the ruling can be brought up to the introduction of a main motion.

[George Mervosh]

I'm not sure I'll ever see this in real life but I really appreciate the responses.