What do I do when meeting continues to be out of order?

[Catharine Littlefield]

I will be making a motion to establish a Rules Committee for our County GOP Party this week that the Chairman needs, but does not want.  He has never even conducted a proper debate according to RONR. (our named authority) I expect the meeting to quickly become disorderly.

I have earlier been advised here that I can say, "Mr. Chairman, I raise a Point of Order that the meeting is not in order."   And wait.

Can adjournment be requested on the basis that meeting does not come to order? 

Cam motion be made to postpone debate on the motion until we have a special meeting to learn the rules of debate?

I need to know every proper tactic available to me in a situation where no one else has a clue what the rules are or cares.

(PS.  an Appeal is being prepared for our State Party, but that hearing would be weeks out.)

[Rob Elsman]

As long as the county party continues to elect incompetent chairmen, it is almost certain that the meetings will continue to be poorly conducted.  Just having a manual of parliamentary law sitting on a table is not likely to be of much help.  In the end, it is the responsibility of the assembly to enforce its rules.  It is also the responsibility of the assembly to elect a properly trained and committed presiding officer who will carry out his responsibilities.  

[Josh Martin]

On 9/26/2023 at 8:38 AM, Catharine Littlefield said:

I have earlier been advised here that I can say, "Mr. Chairman, I raise a Point of Order that the meeting is not in order."   And wait.

I would note that the proper manner in which this is handled is as follows:

Member: I rise to a Point of Order.

Chair: State your point.

Member: [Specifically describing what, exactly, is not in compliance with the rules, and explaining the member’s reasoning. Use this to address one issue at a time.]
 

Chair: The point is well taken. [Meaning the chair agrees.] OR The point is not well taken. [Meaning the chair disagrees.] [In either case, the chair explains his reasoning.]

If a member disagrees with the ruling, a member could appeal. If seconded, this places the question in the hands of the assembly.

Without more facts, I can’t say what the proper ruling is.

On 9/26/2023 at 8:38 AM, Catharine Littlefield said:

Can adjournment be requested on the basis that meeting does not come to order? 

A member may move to adjourn for whatever reason the member wishes. A majority vote is required for adoption. The motion is not debatable.

On 9/26/2023 at 8:38 AM, Catharine Littlefield said:

Can motion be made to postpone debate on the motion until we have a special meeting to learn the rules of debate?

No, this is not a proper motion to postpone.

A member may move to postpone the motion to the next regular meeting, provided that meeting is within a quarterly interval, and the member may endeavor to ensure some sort of parliamentary education occurs prior to that time.

When the motion comes up at the next regular meeting, the member could move to postpone it again.

The motion to postpone requires a majority vote for adoption and is debatable.

On 9/26/2023 at 8:38 AM, Catharine Littlefield said:

I need to know every proper tactic available to me in a situation where no one else has a clue what the rules are or cares.

If no one other than you knows or cares what the rules are, you’re doomed. So I hope for your sake that you are exaggerating. There are many parliamentary tools available, but they will generally require at least a majority on your side, and some of the more powerful tools will require a 2/3 vote.

RONR assumes that most of the members want to follow the rules. If this is not correct, there is very little as a parliamentary matter that can be done.

Edited September 26, 2023 at 05:17 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/26/2023 at 1:17 PM, Josh Martin said:

I would note that the proper manner in which this is handled is as follows:

Member: I rise to a Point of Order.

Chair: State your point.

Member: [Specifically describing what, exactly, is not in compliance with the rules, and explaining the member’s reasoning. Use this to address one issue at a time.]

You are quite right of course. 

But my suggestion referred to a particular situation where @Catharine Littlefield had been recognized to give some sort of report, and was being interrupted by shouts from other members.  In that case I believe it would not be necessary to seek recognition if one already has the floor.   And if people were shouting out, the nature of the non-compliance would be obvious.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/26/2023 at 3:50 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

You are quite right of course. 

But my suggestion referred to a particular situation where @Catharine Littlefield had been recognized to give some sort of report, and was being interrupted by shouts from other members.  In that case I believe it would not be necessary to seek recognition if one already has the floor.

I concur that in such a case, the member need not seek recognition to raise a Point of Order, since the member already has the floor. The alternative wording which may be used in the instance that the Point of Order relates to a transgression of the rules of debate is "Mr. President, I call the gentleman to order."

Notwithstanding this, it seems to me that the member is still asked to state their point and explain their reasoning, at least based on how I read 23:12-21.

On 9/26/2023 at 3:50 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

And if people were shouting out, the nature of the non-compliance would be obvious.

One would hope so, but based on what we have been told so far about the assembly, it's not clear to me that this will be obvious.