Being Called Out of Order for calling a Point of Order

[Guest Pam Ratz]

I have just been elected to a Board who has a chair (by his own admission) that is not a parliamentarian.  Whenever I make a Point of Order, he calls me Out of Order.  I have appealed from the decision of the chair but can't get anyone on the Board to second the appeal.  Is there anything under RONR that I can use to get fair treatment and due process?  The reason I ran for the Board was to change the tyrannical and oppression that they have been displaying.  Appreciate all advice.

[Rob Elsman]

No, the appeal settles the matter. You're in for a long and frustrating term.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/28/2024 at 12:21 PM, Guest Pam Ratz said:

I have just been elected to a Board who has a chair (by his own admission) that is not a parliamentarian.  Whenever I make a Point of Order, he calls me Out of Order.  I have appealed from the decision of the chair but can't get anyone on the Board to second the appeal.  Is there anything under RONR that I can use to get fair treatment and due process?  The reason I ran for the Board was to change the tyrannical and oppression that they have been displaying.  Appreciate all advice.

There's nothing further you can do on the board level. You could take your case to a higher authority (the general membership).

[Michael Seebeck]

On 1/28/2024 at 12:21 PM, Guest Pam Ratz said:

I have just been elected to a Board who has a chair (by his own admission) that is not a parliamentarian.  Whenever I make a Point of Order, he calls me Out of Order.  I have appealed from the decision of the chair but can't get anyone on the Board to second the appeal.  Is there anything under RONR that I can use to get fair treatment and due process?  The reason I ran for the Board was to change the tyrannical and oppression that they have been displaying.  Appreciate all advice.

You have several routes to take, not mutually exclusive.

1. Slightly tongue-in-cheek, here, but drop a copy of RONR or RONRIB in their lap and suggest that they read it since the Chair doesn't appear to know what they're doing. (Seriously, they need it!)

2. Another approach would be to cite 62:5, which requires the Chair to address the PoO, and how to do so in 23:15 (not ignore it or unilaterally rule it out of order) and if necessary, employ the method given in 62:8.

If the Chair rules it out of order, then you have the right to ask why, and they need to appropriately cite from RONR 23:2 exactly why (or the appropriate Special Rule of Order or Bylaw if there is one), since it's only out of order under certain circumstances as explained there under Standard Characteristic #1.  "Because the Chair said so" is not a valid reason, either.  The Chair has no right to ignore the PoO raised, either.

3. Having a parliamentarian on-hand, preferably one that is also a lawyer, would also serve to provide just pressure on the Chair and Board to proceed correctly, especially if they are introduced as such and as to why they are present.

4. In the interim, you also will need to garner enough support from the general membership to get new Board members elected, since from your account that's also needed.

Best of luck; you have an uphill battle, but don't be dismayed and keep at it.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with my colleagues, it is hard to fight a "one man battle".  you will need friends on the board (or in the membership) who will support you and at least second your appeals.  Since there is no "RONR police force" this is really a matter of educating your colleagues on the board.  Giving them (or having the board buy them) all a copy of RONR or RoNR In Brief (RONRIB) or a copy of "Robeert's Rules for Dummies" by C. Alan Jennings might go a long way toward educating them.  Having a parliamentarian meke a presentation on proper meeting procedure and to highlight the trouble spots might also help convince the chair and other board members they they haven't been doing things the right way.  Lastly, I will say that it might be important to "pick your battles" and not sweat the small stuff that really isn't  hurting anyone or infringing on anyone's rights.

[Guest Anon]

On 2/7/2024 at 1:08 PM, Richard Brown said:

Lastly, I will say that it might be important to "pick your battles" and not sweat the small stuff that really isn't  hurting anyone or infringing on anyone's rights.

I agree. Guest Pam Ratz, you used the terms "tyrannical" and "oppression." Are there particularly egregious things that the board has done to its membership, besides the procedural issues? If so, it might be more productive to see whether a special meeting of your organization's membership can be called under your bylaws, and in that meeting replace board members and/or reverse decisions made by the board.

[Rob Elsman]

The fact that the maker of the Appeal cannot even find one member of the board to second is telling, in my opinion.  It suggests, in my mind, that the maker is simply on the wrong side of things, and it suggests much less any tyranny or oppression.  Otherwise, we are left to accuse the board members, individually and collectively, of the most egregious kind of dereliction of duty, about which, I must say, I am quite skeptical.

[Michael Seebeck]

On 2/7/2024 at 1:54 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The fact that the maker of the Appeal cannot even find one member of the board to second is telling, in my opinion.  It suggests, in my mind, that the maker is simply on the wrong side of things, and it suggests much less any tyranny or oppression.  Otherwise, we are left to accuse the board members, individually and collectively, of the most egregious kind of dereliction of duty, about which, I must say, I am quite skeptical.

Or it could simply be that the rest of the Board doesn't understand the procedure, or are being intimidated by the Chair into silence.  Could be any of those, too.  Hard to tell without being there.