Interruptions of Credential Committee Report at Convention

[Catharine Littlefield]

I recently was chairwoman of a three-woman credential committee, selected during a GOP County Convention. (never having done this before) We were directed to a small room - with a door - to make our count.  I was provided no materials for a written report.  There was a split in the committee, with two of us putting the number at 39 and the other insisting it should only be 36.  Before we could discuss it and after less than 3 or 4 minutes, the Convention Chairwoman and a mass of other people flooded in to our room saying we had to hurry.  If I had had my wits about me, I would have folded my arms and said we can do nothing until all of you leave this room, but I was flustered.  Left alone, I think we could have brought the other lady around to agree.

I went to the podium and to make my verbal report that 39 were deemed eligible to vote. As I spoke there were two interruptions - one from our local County Council Chairman who called "Out of Order."  I was stunned and did not know what to do.  Then the minority member of our committee, without being recognized by the Chair yelled out that she did not agree with the report.  The Convention Chairwoman then put a vote on the floor to let people vote between 36 voters and 39.  I felt that to be totally wrong - eligible voters had not even been named yet!  36 voters won narrowly, but I had never even been able to give our rationale for why the other three should be allowed to vote.

At this point, I realized that our Guest Chairwoman did not know RONR, and I did not have my authorities with me.  I made a Parliamentary inquiry, and she just said "We have no Parliamentarian present."

Realizing then that I could not win, even if i was (mostly) right.  I took my seat, knowing I probably looked like a trouble maker. 

When the vote for a New Chairman came to the floor, none of the three in the back voted, but 38 votes were cast.

What should a person in my situation do when those leading a convention do not seem to know the rules?

Edited September 20, 2023 at 08:13 PM by Catharine Littlefield
clarity

[Gary Novosielski]

If they really don't know them, try to educate them.

If they really know them and don't care, take the temperature of the group to see how many others you could get to support your efforts in a struggle, if it came to that.

If it appears that things will never get better, leave.  Life is too short to waste time beating your head against a wall.

Edited September 20, 2023 at 08:30 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Catharine Littlefield]

You are right!  But besides my not having my authorities at hand, did I do anything wrong?

If I am in a group who is clueless to the rules, should I just keep my powder dry until another day?

I am definitely adding allies.... added one between starting this thread and now!

Edited September 20, 2023 at 09:06 PM by Catharine Littlefield

[Josh Martin]

On 9/20/2023 at 2:26 PM, Catharine Littlefield said:

Before we could discuss it and after less than 3 or 4 minutes, the Convention Chairwoman and a mass of other people flooded in to our room saying we had to hurry.  If I had had my wits about me, I would have folded my arms and said we can do nothing until all of you leave this room, but I was flustered.  Left alone, I think we could have brought the other lady around to agree.

I would note for future reference that the work of the Credentials Committee should start well in advance of the convention.

On 9/20/2023 at 2:26 PM, Catharine Littlefield said:

I went to the podium and to make my verbal report that 39 were deemed eligible to vote. As I spoke there were two interruptions - one from our local County Council Chairman who called "Out of Order."  I was stunned and did not know what to do.  Then the minority member of our committee, without being recognized by the Chair yelled out that she did not agree with the report.  The Convention Chairwoman then put a vote on the floor to let people vote between 36 voters and 39.  I felt that to be totally wrong - eligible voters had not even been named yet!  36 voters won narrowly, but I had never even been able to give our rationale for why the other three should be allowed to vote.

The proper method for handling credentials challenges is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 59:24.

"Unless there is debate or proposed amendment, the chair, before taking the vote on the adoption of the report, asks, “Are there any questions on the report?” If seat(s) are contested, an amendment can be offered substantially in this form: “To amend by adding ‘provided that the name of George J. Morse be added to the roll of delegates as submitted, as a delegate from the state of Missouri.'” The name of the rival delegate can then be offered in a secondary amendment, for example, “to strike out ‘George J. Morse' and insert ‘Frank Norton.'” Whether or not a contest is reported, it is in order to move such amendments or even to move to substitute an entirely different set of delegates for any delegation in the reported list, but no such amendment is permitted to include more names than those of a single challenged delegate or delegation all of whom are challenged on the same grounds, together with any claimants involved. On an amendment proposing changes in the list of delegates, none of the delegates involved in the case can vote. Those seated by the committee, though contested in a case not yet reached, can vote on all cases except their own. On the question of adopting the Credentials Committee's report or on motions connected with its consideration, only those persons whose names are on the list of voting members reported by the committee (as this list stands after any amendment already approved by the convention) are entitled to vote." RONR (12th ed.) 59:24

So the proper means for a member to address this matter, if a member disagreed with the report, was to offer an amendment to strike the names of the persons in question. If all three persons were from the same delegation and were challenged on the same grounds, this could be handled as one amendment, otherwise, it would need to be handled as separate amendments. Amendments to the report of the Credentials Committee are debatable, and the chair of the Credentials Committee and others would be able to speak on this matter. After debate, the convention would then take a vote on the amendment, and would proceed to the next amendment, and so forth until the final vote on adoption of the report.

This procedure is important not only to afford an opportunity for debate, but also so members know what they're voting on. From the facts presented, we are told the assembly voted on whether there were 39 delegates or 36 delegates. Presumably, the intent of this was to strike three members from the Credentials Committee's report, but which three? And why? This is not sufficient information for the assembly to make a decision on this matter.

The one caveat I would add is that political parties frequently have their own rules on these subjects, and those rules will take precedence over RONR.

On 9/20/2023 at 2:26 PM, Catharine Littlefield said:

At this point, I realized that our Guest Chairwoman did not know RONR, and I did not have my authorities with me.  I made a Parliamentary inquiry, and she just said "We have no Parliamentarian present."

The fact that a parliamentarian is not present is immaterial. The chair's duty is to respond to parliamentary inquiries. If the chair does not have a parliamentarian and is not certain of the response herself, she might wish to seek advice from other knowledgeable persons before responding.

On 9/20/2023 at 2:26 PM, Catharine Littlefield said:

When the vote for a New Chairman came to the floor, none of the three in the back voted, but 38 votes were cast.

Assuming no supplemental credentials report had been submitted prior to this time, this would appear problematic, since this suggests that more votes were cast than there were delegates registered and entitled to vote. Or the tellers counted wrong.

On 9/20/2023 at 4:05 PM, Catharine Littlefield said:

You are right!  But besides my not having my authorities at hand, did I do anything wrong?

If I am in a group who is clueless to the rules, should I just keep my powder dry until another day?

I am definitely adding allies.... added one between starting this thread and now!

Well, what I think this shows is that more leg work is needed outside of the meeting, in order to explain to members the rules and the reasoning behind them. People are often not in the mood for a parli-pro lesson in the moment at a meeting (and understandably so). The time to work on such matters is prior to the meeting. So to the extent there is hope for this group, members should take to heart the lessons from this last convention and work on how best to educate members prior to the next convention.

Edited September 20, 2023 at 09:27 PM by Josh Martin

[Catharine Littlefield]

Agreed.  Thank you for your good advice!

[puzzling]

I think overall you tried your best.

Some minor point:

On 9/20/2023 at 8:26 PM, Catharine Littlefield said:

I went to the podium and to make my verbal report that 39 were deemed eligible to vote. As I spoke there were two interruptions - one from our local County Council Chairman who called "Out of Order."  I was stunned and did not know what to do.

It is not your task to chair the convention, your task is to present the report of the credentional commission.

Point of order ,any other interruptions are to dealt with by the convention chair. (so by accident,  you did the right thing, sadly the convention chair didn't)

[Drake Savory]

Unfortunately, you were relying on a Chair that did not know parliamentary rules nor how to control a meeting.  You were fighting a losing battle from the beginning.

[Catharine Littlefield]

Exactly.  That is why I gave up on it so easily.

I appreciate your opinion!

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/23/2023 at 2:42 PM, Catharine Littlefield said:

Exactly.  That is why I gave up on it so easily.

I appreciate your opinion!

Here's something to keep at the ready should you need it. If you're getting interrupted and the chair is doing nothing:  "Mr. Chairman, I raise a Point of Order that the meeting is not in order."   And wait.

[Catharine Littlefield]

On 9/23/2023 at 4:58 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Here's something to keep at the ready should you need it. If you're getting interrupted and the chair is doing nothing:  "Mr. Chairman, I raise a Point of Order that the meeting is not in order."   And wait.

BRILLIANT!!

[Wright Stuff]

On 9/26/2023 at 8:59 AM, Catharine Littlefield said:

BRILLIANT!!

You may be surprised how many groups are in the same situation you’re in. As an advocate for compliance with RONR, I am frequently called on to explain why we use rules that are so complicated. In that connection, I’ve learned several things that you may want to consider:

• Most people are lazy and will not spend the time to learn RONR.
• Being in leadership does not mean you know the rules even though that knowledge should be a prerequisite. 
• Not everyone has the brain power to learn and apply the rules.
• If you are the only person who wants an orderly meeting, you will have to win the support of other members to work with you.
• RONR gives you a tremendous amount of power, but you have to know them, know how to apply them, know how to argue them, and not be concerned about being a trouble maker.
• Whoever demonstrates true knowledge of RONR in a meeting will gain the respect of the others who also want an orderly meeting. 
• And most important of all, if your meeting is being conducted pursuant to RONR, mistakes are being made even if the chair is an accomplished parliamentarian. If you read this forum very much you will see that, at times, even the authors disagree on the interpretation or application of a provision. Reasonable minds differ. There are tools to deal with problems, such as Appeal. 

Don’t let the other members of your group discourage you. Take their lack of knowledge as a challenge. 

[Rob Elsman]

It sounds like you were not so much on a committee as caught in a mob. Parliamentary procedure is for meetings, not mobs. Be sure you know the difference.

For reasons I don't fully understand, you seem to feel obligated to try to keep functioning "by the book" in the midst of an out-of-control mob that does not intend to treat you with the dignity and respect that you deserve and have the right to expect. The next time you are treated that way, cut your sentence off mid-syllable, pick up your things and leave the premises so fast that you burn the tile off the floor. No explanations; no apologies; no excuses. Get yourself immediately to a safer, healthier place.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/24/2023 at 7:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

No explanations; no apologies; no excuses.

But I think a well-launched epithet or two would not be amiss, at the door.