Point of Order in the Minutes

[Guest Ralph]

I understand that the minutes record only the decisions, not the discussions. But some of our points of order don't make sense unless the reader can see what the point of order was about. For example:

"Member B made a point of order that Member A should be allowed to speak."

if this sentence is by itself it doesn't make sense, so does the secretary include what happened before the point of order was made? Something like:

"The Chair told Member A and said he was off-topic. Member B made a point of order that Member A should be allowed to speak". ?

Also, if the Chair doesn't respond to the point of order but concedes to it, how is this recorded? (In this case, he allowed member B to speak after the point of order was made).

 

[Rob Elsman]

The member who makes the point is given the opportunity to state his point, and both this point, the decision of the chair, and a brief reason for the decision are entered on the minutes.

While it sometimes happens that there must be something of a repartee between the chair and the member if the chair needs clarification about what point is being raised, this should not be entered.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/23/2023 at 8:38 AM, Guest Ralph said:

I understand that the minutes record only the decisions, not the discussions. But some of our points of order don't make sense unless the reader can see what the point of order was about. For example:

"Member B made a point of order that Member A should be allowed to speak."

if this sentence is by itself it doesn't make sense, so does the secretary include what happened before the point of order was made? Something like:

"The Chair told Member A and said he was off-topic. Member B made a point of order that Member A should be allowed to speak". ?

Also, if the Chair doesn't respond to the point of order but concedes to it, how is this recorded? (In this case, he allowed member B to speak after the point of order was made).

 

It seems to me that an appeal would have been more appropriate than a point of order in this case. But anyhow, I agree that the minutes should include enough information to show what the issue involved was, including what the motion was and what type of remarks in debate was considered germane (or not germane) to it.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/23/2023 at 7:38 AM, Guest Ralph said:

I understand that the minutes record only the decisions, not the discussions. But some of our points of order don't make sense unless the reader can see what the point of order was about. For example:

"Member B made a point of order that Member A should be allowed to speak."

if this sentence is by itself it doesn't make sense, so does the secretary include what happened before the point of order was made? Something like:

"The Chair told Member A and said he was off-topic. Member B made a point of order that Member A should be allowed to speak". ?

Yes, sufficient context should be provided so that the point of order, the chair's ruling and reasoning (which should have occurred, but did not in this instance), and any subsequent appeal can serve as a precedent and guide for future chairs in how to respond to similar situations in the future. I actually think the example you provide still does not give enough context. I might suggest something more like the following:

"The Chair ruled that Member A should cease speaking as his comments, that [summary of the content of the comments] were not germane to the motion to [summary of contents of motion]. Member B raised a Point of Order that Member A should be allowed to speak."

I also concur with Mr. Gerber that an Appeal would be more appropriate if such a situation arises in the future.

On 2/23/2023 at 7:38 AM, Guest Ralph said:

Also, if the Chair doesn't respond to the point of order but concedes to it, how is this recorded? (In this case, he allowed member B to speak after the point of order was made).

For future reference, what should happen in this instance is that the chair should either rule the point "well taken" or "not well taken," and in either case explain the reasoning for the ruling, and both the chair's ruling and reasoning are recorded in the minutes.

However, apparently this did not occur. RONR does not specifically address how to record this in the minutes, but I suppose I would say something like "The chair did not respond to the Point of Order, but permitted Member A to continue speaking."

It is unfortunate that neither the member raising this issue nor the chair really explained their reasoning, so I expect that this ruling will have little precedential value even after additional context is added. It is important to express the importance of these matters to the chair and the assembly. Apparently, the Point of Order was simply that "Member A should be allowed to speak." No reasoning for this is provided - did the member disagree with the chair that the comments were off-topic? Did the member agree with the chair that the comments were off-topic, but (incorrectly) believed that off-topic remarks are permitted? Similarly, the chair did not provide a clear ruling, let alone any reasoning. So it's not clear whether the chair had reevaluated their position that the remarks were off-topic, or if they just didn't feel like dealing with the situation.

[Guest Ralph]

 

Thanks to everyone for the points about giving the rationale. I will do that from on if i make a point of order.

For people who say it should be appeal, how do I go about that? Is it the same process as appealing the Chair's decision if he turns down a point of order?  ie. that it goes to a vote?

 

[Rob Elsman]

I am still not clear exactly the objection was. Did the member judge that the chair had erroneously applied the rule requiring remarks in debate be germane, or was he just saying that he thought he and the other members wanted to hear what the speaker was saying, notwithstanding that the remarks were or were not germane?

In the first case, an appeal from the decision of the chair is the proper way to proceed, of course. However, I am not entirely clear that a ruling was actually rendered by the chair.

If, in fact, a ruling was made that the remarks were not germane, any member who prudently judges that the assembly wishes to hear more of what the speaker was saying, notwithstanding that the remarks were not germane, may make an incidental motion, Suspend the Rules, the adoption of which would clear the way for the otherwise impermissible remarks.

What does seem abundantly clear to me is that the proceedings were too loosey-goosey and imprecise for the secretary to accurately minute. And, if the secretary is not clear enough about what happened to know how to minute correctly, all the more certain it is that the members in general are not clear about what happened, either.

Edited February 24, 2023 at 12:46 AM by Rob Elsman

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/23/2023 at 1:20 PM, Guest Ralph said:

For people who say it should be appeal, how do I go about that? Is it the same process as appealing the Chair's decision if he turns down a point of order?  ie. that it goes to a vote?

Appeals are made from the Chair's ruling. The ruling may come about in response to a Point of Order OR the Chair may make a ruling without a member raising a Point of Order, as in the example in your original post

On 2/23/2023 at 8:38 AM, Guest Ralph said:

"The Chair told Member A and said he was off-topic. Member B made a point of order that Member A should be allowed to speak". ?

So, in this example, Member B should have made an appeal from the Chair's ruling that Member A was off-topic. The minutes could say:

"The Chair ruled that Member A's comments regarding x were not germane to the pending motion. On Member B's appeal, the Chair's ruling was sustained."

On 2/23/2023 at 1:20 PM, Guest Ralph said:

Is it the same process as appealing the Chair's decision if he turns down a point of order?  ie. that it goes to a vote?

Yes. 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/23/2023 at 12:20 PM, Guest Ralph said:

For people who say it should be appeal, how do I go about that? Is it the same process as appealing the Chair's decision if he turns down a point of order?  ie. that it goes to a vote?

Yes. The chair had already ruled upon the matter. Essentially, the chair raised the point of order on his own initiative, that the comments were not germane and that the member should cease speaking, and the chair ruled this point well taken.

A member would state "I appeal from the decision of the chair" and, if seconded, the decision would be before the assembly for a vote. The question is stated as "Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?" If there is a majority vote in the negative, the chair's ruling is overturned. Normally, an appeal is debatable, but it would not be in this case, since it "relates to indecorum or a transgression of the rules of speaking" RONR (12th ed.) 24:3(5)

I assume the appeal would be based on the grounds that the member believes that, in fact, the comments were germane to the pending question, although this still has not been clarified.

I concur with Dr. Kapur as to how this matter would be recorded in the minutes. (To be clear, however, the minutes in this instance should record what actually happened.)

Edited February 24, 2023 at 01:45 AM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/23/2023 at 1:20 PM, Guest Ralph said:

 

Thanks to everyone for the points about giving the rationale. I will do that from on if i make a point of order.

For people who say it should be appeal, how do I go about that? Is it the same process as appealing the Chair's decision if he turns down a point of order?  ie. that it goes to a vote?

 

Yes.  Refer to RONR (12th ed.) §24 Appeal