Appeal the Ruling of the Chair

[Wright Stuff]

"The question is, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" (24:10)

"A majority or a tie vote sustains the decision of the chair on the principle that the chair's decision stands until reversed by a majority." (24:3(7))

It's clear that the decision is sustained if there is a majority in favor. However, if the vote is tied, how is the decision sustained? Is it by definition ("the chair's decision stands until reversed by a majority?)"  

[Gary Novosielski]

That's correct.  The presumption is that the decision of the chair was correct.

Although the intent of the motion is to overrule it, the question is reversed, and stated in the affirmative.  So it takes a majority in the negative to overrule the ruling.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/9/2023 at 5:15 PM, Wright Stuff said:

It's clear that the decision is sustained if there is a majority in favor. However, if the vote is tied, how is the decision sustained? Is it by definition ("the chair's decision stands until reversed by a majority?)"  

Yes, this is entirely correct. The chair's decision stands unless reversed by a majority.

I think the reasoning for this is more fully explained in 24:1.

"By electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law. But any two members have the right to Appeal from his decision on such a question. By one member making (or “taking”) the appeal and another seconding it, the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision." RONR (12th ed.) 24:1

When the chair has made a ruling, because of the authority delegated to the chair, that ruling is the decision of the assembly, unless overturned on appeal. A tie vote sustains the status quo. In the case of an appeal, the status quo is upholding the chair's ruling.

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/10/2023 at 12:27 PM, Josh Martin said:

When the chair has made a ruling, because of the authority delegated to the chair, that ruling is the decision of the assembly, unless overturned on appeal. A tie vote sustains the status quo. In the case of an appeal, the status quo is upholding the chair's ruling.

So why shouldn't it be stated as "shall the decision be overruled?"? That would make the tie scenario work naturally. Additionally, it would cause a yes vote to correspond to an action rather than inaction. What's the benefit of stating it the way it is done?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/10/2023 at 1:30 PM, Joshua Katz said:

So why shouldn't it be stated as "shall the decision be overruled?"? That would make the tie scenario work naturally. Additionally, it would cause a yes vote to correspond to an action rather than inaction. What's the benefit of stating it the way it is done?

Coolness. 😎

[Josh Martin]

On 8/10/2023 at 12:30 PM, Joshua Katz said:

So why shouldn't it be stated as "shall the decision be overruled?"? That would make the tie scenario work naturally. Additionally, it would cause a yes vote to correspond to an action rather than inaction. What's the benefit of stating it the way it is done?

I'm not entirely certain. It may be that this wording is viewed by the authors as less confusing for members. It may also simply be that the answer is "this is the way it's been done." Stating the question in this manner appears to date back at least as far as Cushing's Manual, although the wording used is slightly different ("Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the assembly?"). I would guess that, as in most things in parliamentary procedure, it dates back even earlier to traditions in the British Parliament.