Chair rejects all appeals with claim that any opinion other than his is not reasonable

[Big George]

Our organization is struggling.  Our chairman is elected county-wide for a two year term while the members are elected from 100+ precincts within the county.  The chair greatly abuses his position as chair, but whenever one of his rulings is appealed, he cites RRONR 24:3(2)(b) and declares that there cannot be an opinion different from his that is reasonable.  The chair is opposed by a majority of the members, but not by the 2/3rds necessary to suspend the rules and remove him for the duration of the meeting.  So, needless to say, our meetings are a disaster.

Any thoughts on how to address this situation?

[Josh Martin]

On 12/22/2022 at 11:26 AM, Big George said:

Any thoughts on how to address this situation?

I don't see any resolution other than getting a new chair.

Technically, RONR does have a few other options for dealing with a rogue chair, but it would be very tedious to do that all the time. They are generally intended to deal with one-off issues or as a temporary measure until the assembly can get a new chair, not as a permanent solution. See RONR (12th ed.) 62:2-9 for more information.

Edited December 22, 2022 at 05:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Big George]

On 12/22/2022 at 11:39 AM, Josh Martin said:

I don't see any resolution other than getting a new chair.

Technically, RONR does have a few other options for dealing with a rogue chair, but it would be very tedious to do that all the time. They are generally intended to deal with one-off issues or as a temporary measure until the assembly can get a new chair, not as a permanent solution. See RONR (12th ed.) 62:2-9 for more information.

Thanks.  Our chair could be removed by our state organization, but he has threatened to sue them if they do, and they have decided not to get involved.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

A member could put the question from the floor.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/22/2022 at 12:15 PM, Big George said:

Thanks.  Our chair could be removed by our state organization, but he has threatened to sue them if they do, and they have decided not to get involved.

As I have suggested in your other thread, I am getting the sense that your organization's problems may be beyond the scope of RONR and this forum. Your organization needs some combination of a professional parliamentarian, an attorney, and/or a mediator.

Edited December 22, 2022 at 06:23 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 12/22/2022 at 1:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

A member could put the question from the floor.

I agree.  A truly recalcitrant chair cannot be permitted obstruct business.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/22/2022 at 12:15 PM, Big George said:

Thanks.  Our chair could be removed by our state organization, but he has threatened to sue them if they do, and they have decided not to get involved.

I suppose, at the very least, it is worth trying the procedures in RONR (12th ed.) 62:2-9 and seeing what happens next.

[Big George]

On 12/22/2022 at 12:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

A member could put the question from the floor.

I am resurrecting this thread because we are having a Special Meeting and it is likely that this issue will once again be raised.

When you say a member could put the question from the floor, are you saying that a member could put the question of "whether or not the chair's ruling that an appeal of the chair's ruling is out of order because there cannot possibly be two opinions" to a vote by the body?  That makes sense because RONR 39 begins by stating that "39:1 A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation."  In our case it is the chair who is being dilatory in seeking to thwart the will of the assembly, not those raising the appeal.

62:6 seems to require that any appeal that is seconded must be placed before the body.  This is where things go off track in our meetings, as the chair insists the appeal  is out of order because there cannot possibly be two opinions, even when a majority of the body disagrees with him.

We would need to be prepared to move on to 62:9 and put it directly to a vote by the assembly.

We are unlikely to be able to remove the chair, as they are not pro tem.  And while those who do not support the chair constitute a majority, they are unlikely to constitute the 2/3rds necessary to suspend the rules and remove the chair.  

I know it is a mess and RONR were designed to help people who want to work together do so efficiently and effectively.

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful suggestions.

[Rob Elsman]

It is really the responsibility of the society as a whole to ensure the proper functioning of its board.  So, if the society wants a factious board with a chairman who repeatedly abuses the authority of the chair, that is likely what it will get.  As soon as it wants something better for itself, that is also likely what it will get.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/4/2023 at 4:54 PM, Big George said:

When you say a member could put the question from the floor, are you saying that a member could put the question of "whether or not the chair's ruling that an appeal of the chair's ruling is out of order because there cannot possibly be two opinions" to a vote by the body?

Not exactly. I think you'd put the question on the chair's original ruling you were appealing from. The question is put as "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?"

"Likewise, if the chair ignores an appeal appropriately made and seconded, a member can repeat the appeal and if, despite its being seconded, the chair ignores it again, the member can repeat it a third time and if it is again seconded but still ignored by the chair, the member can immediately, standing in his place, put the appeal to a vote without debate. The question may be put as: “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?”" RONR (12th ed.) 62:9

For that matter, what is the underlying ruling which is anticipated in this case?

On 8/4/2023 at 4:54 PM, Big George said:

We are unlikely to be able to remove the chair, as they are not pro tem.  And while those who do not support the chair constitute a majority, they are unlikely to constitute the 2/3rds necessary to suspend the rules and remove the chair.  

I really don't envision this process going well if you don't have the votes to remove the chair, especially considering this is not a one-off issue but an ongoing problem. Suppose you get the votes to overturn the chair's ruling. Then what? Will the chair and his supporters suddenly start listening to reason? Or will they just ignore that too? As a practical matter, it would seem to me that the procedures in 62:9 are best used as a prelude to removing the chair, and are not really feasible as a solution on their own.

I suppose it's worth a shot, but frankly, I think your organization is doomed until it gets a new chair.

Edited August 5, 2023 at 11:19 AM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

You could censure the chair for his actions taken at that meeting.  It may be done by a majority vote.