Denying an Appeal to the Ruling of the Chair (or from the Decision of the Chair)

[Guest Guest]

The president of our organization recently ruled three new business items out of order in one meeting that he was chairing, asserting in each instance that allowing the motion to be considered would or could result in a violation of our organization's bylaws. (The relevant bylaws were not the same in all three instances.) Having three new business items ruled out of order in one meeting was unprecedented in my experience of hundreds of meetings in this organization through about 27 years. But what was especially disturbing was this: In each of these three instances a member moved to appeal the chair's decision that allowing the motion would violate the bylaws and was out of order, but the chair denied each of these motions to appeal his ruling. The justification given for the denial in each case was identical to the ruling that the main motion was out of order—i.e., that the main motion would violate the bylaws. This ruling denied the body the opportunity to debate the chair's interpretation of the bylaws and, potentially, to overrule that interpretation. I understand that on "a question about which there cannot be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." (RONR 9th Ed. §24. Appeal)  This was not such a situation. Several members of the body objected to chair's denial of the appeal, noting that their own interpretation of the relevant bylaws sharply differed from that of the chair.

It seems to me that such an application of the chair's authority to deny an appeal is profoundly undemocratic. What do others in this forum think about this situation? If necessary, I can provide more details.

[Joshua Katz]

On 10/24/2023 at 4:02 PM, Guest Guest said:

The president of our organization recently ruled three new business items out of order in one meeting that he was chairing, asserting in each instance that allowing the motion to be considered would or could result in a violation of our organization's bylaws. (The relevant bylaws were not the same in all three instances.)

That's a valid reason to find a motion out of order.

On 10/24/2023 at 4:02 PM, Guest Guest said:

Having three new business items ruled out of order in one meeting was unprecedented in my experience of hundreds of meetings in this organization through about 27 years.

I don't see how that matters. As Justice Thomas said in oral argument recently, newness is not an infirmity. There could have been more bylaws-violative motions than usual.

On 10/24/2023 at 4:02 PM, Guest Guest said:

In each of these three instances a member moved to appeal the chair's decision that allowing the motion would violate the bylaws and was out of order, but the chair denied each of these motions to appeal his ruling. The justification given for the denial in each case was identical to the ruling that the main motion was out of order—i.e., that the main motion would violate the bylaws.

Well that's absurd. That the chair thinks his ruling is correct is not a reason to prevent an appeal.

On 10/24/2023 at 4:02 PM, Guest Guest said:

What do others in this forum think about this situation?

There are procedures in RONR for proceeding when the chair refuses to put an appeal before the assembly. I would have used those, personally, unless I believed it was dilatory.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/24/2023 at 4:02 PM, Guest Guest said:

The president of our organization recently ruled three new business items out of order in one meeting that he was chairing, asserting in each instance that allowing the motion to be considered would or could result in a violation of our organization's bylaws. (The relevant bylaws were not the same in all three instances.) Having three new business items ruled out of order in one meeting was unprecedented in my experience of hundreds of meetings in this organization through about 27 years. But what was especially disturbing was this: In each of these three instances a member moved to appeal the chair's decision that allowing the motion would violate the bylaws and was out of order, but the chair denied each of these motions to appeal his ruling. The justification given for the denial in each case was identical to the ruling that the main motion was out of order—i.e., that the main motion would violate the bylaws. This ruling denied the body the opportunity to debate the chair's interpretation of the bylaws and, potentially, to overrule that interpretation. I understand that on "a question about which there cannot be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." (RONR 9th Ed. §24. Appeal)  This was not such a situation. Several members of the body objected to chair's denial of the appeal, noting that their own interpretation of the relevant bylaws sharply differed from that of the chair.

It seems to me that such an application of the chair's authority to deny an appeal is profoundly undemocratic. What do others in this forum think about this situation? If necessary, I can provide more details.

I think it's time to initiate at the very least a censure motion against the chair's behavior, if not more serious discipline.  

The chair cannot rule an Appeal out of order simply because it disagrees with his ruling.  That is the whole point of Appeals.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you for these responses so far.  Regarding the point about "procedures in RONR for proceeding when the chair refuses to put an appeal before the assembly," please elaborate. What are those procedures and where are they to be found in RONR?  In the meeting I've described, we didn't feel we had any immediate remedy, as the chair simply refused to budge from his position.   

 

[Joshua Katz]

I don't have the book in front of me to provide a cite, but in short, when the chair fails to put the question before the assembly, a member may put it there. Another remedy would be to replace the presiding officer.

[Atul Kapur]

On 10/24/2023 at 6:13 PM, Guest Guest said:

What are those procedures and where are they to be found in RONR?

See "Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting" 62:2-62:9, particularly 62:9 in this case where an appeal is ignored.

[Josh Martin]

On 10/24/2023 at 3:02 PM, Guest Guest said:

But what was especially disturbing was this: In each of these three instances a member moved to appeal the chair's decision that allowing the motion would violate the bylaws and was out of order, but the chair denied each of these motions to appeal his ruling. The justification given for the denial in each case was identical to the ruling that the main motion was out of order—i.e., that the main motion would violate the bylaws.

This is not a proper justification for denying to permit an appeal. The question of whether the main motion would violate the bylaws is, in fact, what the appeal proposes to decide.

"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

"Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws." RONR (12th ed.) 56:68

It may well be that some or all of the chair's rulings were correct and, if so, they should be upheld on appeal. But the chair cannot simply refuse to permit the appeal by repeating his reasoning for ruling the motion out of order.

RONR does provide that "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." RONR (12th ed.) 24:3

But in my view, this is a very high bar to meet, particularly when the question involves an organization's own rules.

On 10/24/2023 at 3:02 PM, Guest Guest said:

It seems to me that such an application of the chair's authority to deny an appeal is profoundly undemocratic. What do others in this forum think about this situation? If necessary, I can provide more details.

The chair's behavior in this matter was extremely inappropriate. I concur with Dr. Kapur that the assembly should review Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting, and I think the assembly should consider replacing the chair.

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with Mr. Martin's understanding. What he is highlighting is the chair's inappropriate misuse of the authority of the chair and the chair's apparent inability to maintain the appearance of impartiality while presiding.  It may be a worthwhile endeavor to depose this person from office, since it is more than just likely that he will cause serious harm to the society by interfering in the transaction of business and degrading the trust that members should be able to place in the presiding officer.