Chair Refusing To Allow Elected Members To Sit On His Board

[Josh Martin]

On 5/11/2024 at 9:21 AM, J. J. said:

I am saying that, in groups that give some body outside the assembly the ability to finally interpret the bylaws, the 24:1 rule may not apply.  It assembly, a convention, is clearly not "vested in the assembly for final decision,"  in this case. 

If the rule, "The Judicial Committee shall decide cases involving alleged violations of these bylaws or resolutions," was not there, I would agree with you.  Under RONR, and without such a rule, the convention clearly has the final ability to interpret the bylaws.  That, however, is not the case here. 

I think the Judicial Committee are the ones to make the decision on if the convention has, for lack of a better term, superior ability to interpret the bylaws over the board.  Likewise, they could determine that both the convention and the board have an equal ability to interpret the bylaws, and that any conflict must be resolved by the Judicial Committee; I would not find that an unreasonable interpretation of the bylaws.   In theory, the Judicial Committee could determine that the board has a superior ability to interpret the bylaws, though I would not find that reasonable. 

Thank you for the clarification of your position.

It seems what you are saying now is that, ultimately, this comes down to the customized rules in this organization's bylaws. I have no disagreement with that.

[1Angela]

It is me who has the disagreement based on the customized rules of the bylaws.  

And while I get my arguments debunked on a regular basis here in these forums, I still maintain my position here, that the chair has no such authority but we're again simply powerless to stop him, is the correct interpretation. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/12/2024 at 3:02 PM, Josh Martin said:

Thank you for the clarification of your position.

It seems what you are saying now is that, ultimately, this comes down to the customized rules in this organization's bylaws. I have no disagreement with that.

Well, I still am not clear on who or what body's preliminary decision stands until this judicial committee provides its decision. In my mind, it would appear that the convention's decision that this election - conducted as part of the convention - was properly conducted (by lack of objection) would stand as the judgement unless and until the appeal was upheld by this judicial committee (analogous to the ruling of the chair applying unless and until it is overturned on appeal to the body). I have not been told of any provision that allows the chair to act as if the election (conducted, I emphasize, by a different body) was invalid until the judicial committee decides that.

It is not clear from the thread whether the appeal to the judicial committee has actually been made; to the extent that the chair is acting based on the intent to appeal, this would strengthen my belief that the convention's decision should stand until overturned. 

[Josh Martin]

On 5/12/2024 at 3:13 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Well, I still am not clear on who or what body's preliminary decision stands until this judicial committee provides its decision. In my mind, it would appear that the convention's decision that this election - conducted as part of the convention - was properly conducted (by lack of objection) would stand as the judgement unless and until the appeal was upheld by this judicial committee (analogous to the ruling of the chair applying unless and until it is overturned on appeal to the body). I have not been told of any provision that allows the chair to act as if the election (conducted, I emphasize, by a different body) was invalid until the judicial committee decides that.

It is not clear from the thread whether the appeal to the judicial committee has actually been made; to the extent that the chair is acting based on the intent to appeal, this would strengthen my belief that the convention's decision should stand until overturned. 

I apologize if I said anything which made it look as if I retracted my position. I continue to assert that my own interpretation of the bylaws, based upon the facts presented at this time, is that the decision of the convention stands until overturned by the convention or by the judicial committee (which apparently has authority to make such decisions under the bylaws).

Where J.J. and I am in agreement is that this matter comes down to an interpretation of the bylaws, and J.J. has now clarified that his response is due to a differing interpretation of the rules in the bylaws and not, as he originally suggested, based upon RONR (12th ed.) 46:50.

[J. J.]

On 5/12/2024 at 4:45 PM, Josh Martin said:

I apologize if I said anything which made it look as if I retracted my position. I continue to assert that my own interpretation of the bylaws, based upon the facts presented at this time, is that the decision of the convention stands until overturned by the convention or by the judicial committee (which apparently has authority to make such decisions under the bylaws).

Where J.J. and I am in agreement is that this matter comes down to an interpretation of the bylaws, and J.J. has now clarified that his response is due to a differing interpretation of the rules in the bylaws and not, as he originally suggested, based upon RONR (12th ed.) 46:50.

I hope I did not originally suggest that.    I do question if 24:1 does apply, in this case, because of the bylaw. 

That said, based on 46:50, I would question how an election result referred to a committee should be handled.  I think the position would be vacant (or the incumbent continues to serve) until the committee resolves the matter. 

[J. J.]

On 5/12/2024 at 4:13 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Well, I still am not clear on who or what body's preliminary decision stands until this judicial committee provides its decision. In my mind, it would appear that the convention's decision that this election - conducted as part of the convention - was properly conducted (by lack of objection) would stand as the judgement unless and until the appeal was upheld by this judicial committee (analogous to the ruling of the chair applying unless and until it is overturned on appeal to the body). I have not been told of any provision that allows the chair to act as if the election (conducted, I emphasize, by a different body) was invalid until the judicial committee decides that.

It is not clear from the thread whether the appeal to the judicial committee has actually been made; to the extent that the chair is acting based on the intent to appeal, this would strengthen my belief that the convention's decision should stand until overturned. 

Just as a matter of reference, there was an objection, though it not upheld by the convention body.

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/12/2024 at 6:16 PM, J. J. said:

I would question how an election result referred to a committee should be handled.  I think the position would be vacant (or the incumbent continues to serve) until the committee resolves the matter. 

That, however, is not the set of facts in the OP, as I understand them. The result was not referred to the committee by the voting body, as per 46:50. As you say,

On 5/12/2024 at 6:17 PM, J. J. said:

there was an objection, though it not upheld by the convention body.

and the convention did not, I understand, refer it to the committee. So the convention made a decision. 

That decision is, apparently, being appealed (or has been promised that it will at some point be appealed). During the appeal the convention's decision should stand as the official decision, no?

[Josh Martin]

On 5/12/2024 at 5:16 PM, J. J. said:

That said, based on 46:50, I would question how an election result referred to a committee should be handled.  I think the position would be vacant (or the incumbent continues to serve) until the committee resolves the matter. 

I think the election would be presumed valid unless and until the committee determines otherwise. (And that's even assuming the committee is authorized "with power" to resolve this matter and is not instructed to report back recommendations.)

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/10/2024 at 7:33 AM, 1Angela said:

I think that this is again the answer to a different question, but it begs more.  

Why does 47:7 and 23:3 override 46:50, which says he can't?  And I will point out that the Chair did not raise a point of order as per 23:3.  He announced that he would not be recognizing those elected members as "a ruling of the chair,"  that was entirely proper per RONR, then refused to answer the multiple points of parliamentary inquiry that were raised.    

 

What happened after the chair made this ruling?  I understand you to say that he refused to respond to parliamentary inquiries, but was any appeal taken from this ruling?

[1Angela]

On 5/13/2024 at 8:19 AM, Dan Honemann said:

What happened after the chair made this ruling?  I understand you to say that he refused to respond to parliamentary inquiries, but was any appeal taken from this ruling?

A board member wrote an appeal to the Judicial Committee almost immediately, but they have thus far not issued any opinion, so the elected reps are not allowed to vote or speak.     

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/13/2024 at 9:00 AM, 1Angela said:

A board member wrote an appeal to the Judicial Committee almost immediately, but they have thus far not issued any opinion, so the elected reps are not allowed to vote or speak.     

Okay, but was any appeal taken from the chair's ruling during the meeting?

[1Angela]

On 5/13/2024 at 9:14 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Okay, but was any appeal taken from the chair's ruling during the meeting?

Yes, several.  They were all declared to be not well taken and dismissed.  

It gets a little more complicated. There are two districts: District 8 and District 10.   For District 8, the Chair went further and announced that he had seated the runner-up to the election. She voted on all matters on this day.   (At the next meeting, it was announced that it had been subsequently determined that she did not actually have the votes to win second-place, and that he had removed her from the seat.)  That seat remains empty, but no vote was taken to affirm that original decision.

He did ask the board to vote on his decision regarding District 10, but it was technically not phrased in the manner of a proper motion.  The vote narrowly passed 7 yes, 5 no with the chair voting.  

 If the representatives who had been seated by the convention votes had been allowed to vote in this meeting, the vote would have ended exactly opposite.  

In summary, no vote was taken on the District 08 seat.  A vote was taken on the District 10 seat,  but the outcome was questionable. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2024 at 02:10 PM by 1Angela

[Josh Martin]

On 5/13/2024 at 9:05 AM, 1Angela said:

They were all declared to be not well taken and dismissed.  

Well, that's not how an appeal works.

A Point of Order is ruled "well taken" or "not well taken."

An Appeal is an appeal from that decision and is presented to the membership of the assembly, which determines whether to sustain or overturn the chair's ruling.

[Richard Brown]

On 5/12/2024 at 9:56 PM, Atul Kapur said:

The result [of the election] was not referred to the committee by the voting body, as per 46:50.

 

On 5/12/2024 at 9:56 PM, Atul Kapur said:

and the convention did not, I understand, refer it to the committee. So the convention made a decision. 

That decision is, apparently, being appealed (or has been promised that it will at some point be appealed). During the appeal the convention's decision should stand as the official decision, no?   (Emphasis added)

 

On 5/13/2024 at 6:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

I think the election would be presumed valid unless and until the committee determines otherwise. (And that's even assuming the committee is authorized "with power" to resolve this matter and is not instructed to report back recommendations.)

I agree with Dr. Kapur and Mr. Martin.  The quote immediately above by Mr. Martin says it perfectly.  There should be no question as to whether the results of the election and the decisions of the convention stand as valid unless and until overturned by a board or committee authorized to do so if one even exists.  I am not at all convinced that the language in the bylaws gives the judicial committee the power to overturn decisions of the convention body -- the parent body.  Language in the bylaws to give a subordinate body such as a board or committee or officer that authority would have to be clear and explicit.  I'm not convinced the language in the bylaws rises to that level.  Regardless, to claim that decisions made at a convention (or in any other meeting) are suddenly put on hold and are of no effect just because some member has filed an appeal or claims that he will or might file an appeal in the future is, to use a term sometimes used on this board, simply hogwash.  A decision stands until it is reversed.

[J. J.]

On 5/12/2024 at 10:56 PM, Atul Kapur said:

That, however, is not the set of facts in the OP, as I understand them. The result was not referred to the committee by the voting body, as per 46:50. As you say,

and the convention did not, I understand, refer it to the committee. So the convention made a decision. 

That decision is, apparently, being appealed (or has been promised that it will at some point be appealed). During the appeal the convention's decision should stand as the official decision, no?

The appeal process is created in the bylaws, which creates the issue.

My answer is maybe it should not stand, because the bylaw establishes that neither the convention nor the board has the final authority to rule.  You are assuming a hierarchy of authority that may not exist in this group. 

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 7:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

I think the election would be presumed valid unless and until the committee determines otherwise. (And that's even assuming the committee is authorized "with power" to resolve this matter and is not instructed to report back recommendations.)

That I am not certain about, even without reference to a bylaw.  Normally, the motion would be pending and not complete under 46:50.  If it were not pending directed, e.g. a point of order made after the result was announced, appealed and the appeal referred to a committee, I think the answer is questionable. 

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 10:27 AM, Josh Martin said:

Well, that's not how an appeal works.

A Point of Order is ruled "well taken" or "not well taken."

An Appeal is an appeal from that decision and is presented to the membership of the assembly, which determines whether to sustain or overturn the chair's ruling.

There was no appeal at the board level, though I think one could have put from the floor. 

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 10:27 AM, Richard Brown said:

 

 

I agree with Dr. Kapur and Mr. Martin.  The quote immediately above by Mr. Martin says it perfectly.  There should be no question as to whether the results of the election and the decisions of the convention stand as valid unless and until overturned by a board or committee authorized to do so if one even exists.  I am not at all convinced that the language in the bylaws gives the judicial committee the power to overturn decisions of the convention body -- the parent body.  Language in the bylaws to give a subordinate body such as a board or committee or officer that authority would have to be clear and explicit.  I'm not convinced the language in the bylaws rises to that level.  Regardless, to claim that decisions made at a convention (or in any other meeting) are suddenly put on hold and are of no effect just because some member has filed an appeal or claims that he will or might file an appeal in the future is, to use a term sometimes used on this board, simply hogwash.  A decision stands until it is reversed.

This was actually adjudicated in court and the court, correctly, determined that the committee does have authority to interpret the bylaws.  The bylaw is,  "The Judicial Committee shall decide cases involving alleged violations of these bylaws or resolutions."

Edited May 13, 2024 at 02:54 PM by J. J.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/13/2024 at 9:43 AM, J. J. said:

There was no appeal at the board level, though I think one could have put from the floor. 

Thank you for that clarity. So I understand that one or more Point(s) of Order were raised, but no Appeal was raised. (Or at least, no "Appeal" in the sense that term is used in RONR.)

On 5/13/2024 at 9:42 AM, J. J. said:

That I am not certain about, even without reference to a bylaw.  Normally, the motion would be pending and not complete under 46:50.  If it were not pending directed, e.g. a point of order made after the result was announced, appealed and the appeal referred to a committee, I think the answer is questionable. 

I disagree that is what 46:50 says.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

RONR refers to a circumstance in which an "election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body." Nothing in RONR suggests, however, that the fact that such a dispute is pending, in and of itself, changes the validity or finality of the election, which is controlled by RONR (12th ed.) 46:46.

"An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not consented to his candidacy, the election becomes final when he is notified of his election, provided that he does not immediately decline. If he does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice. After an election has become final as stated in this paragraph, it is too late to reconsider (37) the vote on the election." RONR (12th ed.) 46:46

These rules taken together continue to suggest to me that, if RONR is all that is controlling on this matter, the results of an election stand unless and until otherwise determined by the voting body or by "a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." I do not see anything under RONR alone which suggests that an election is "stayed" in some manner until a pending dispute is resolved.

Now, certainly, an organization could adopt its own rules providing as much, or the election body could provide as much in the motion referring the dispute. But I do not see such a rule in RONR.

Edited May 13, 2024 at 02:53 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 5/13/2024 at 10:51 AM, Josh Martin said:

 

I disagree that is what 46:50 says.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

 

Well, I think 46:50 generally refers to a pending election being referred to a committee.  My question, and it is purely an RONR, one is that after the election is pending, what happens if a Point of Order is raised regarding the election, the chair's decision is appealed and that appeal is referred to a committee.  Is the person seated or not?  I think it is a grey area. 

Edited May 13, 2024 at 03:57 PM by J. J.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/13/2024 at 10:48 AM, J. J. said:

Well, I think 46:50 generally refers to a pending election being referred to a committee.

What 46:50 says is as follows:

"While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

The fact that an "election dispute" is immediately pending does not necessarily mean the election itself is immediately pending.

On 5/13/2024 at 10:48 AM, J. J. said:

My question, and it is purely an RONR, one is that after the election is pending, what happens if a Point of Order is raised regarding the election, the chair's decision is appealed and that appeal is referred to a committee.  Is the person seated or not?  I think it is a grey area. 

I understand that the facts in the hypothetical you are describing are substantially as described below. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

• The organization's rules are silent on this matter.
• The chair in question is the chair of the election body.
• The election dispute at issue is one which can be properly addressed after the election is pending, because it involves an issue that is one of the examples discussed in 46:59 (or an issue which is similar in nature).
• A member raises a Point of Order concerning the election dispute in the point noted above, alleging that the election is null and void and the person is therefore not validly elected, and explains the reasons why.
• The chair rules the point well taken and explains the reasoning for the ruling.
• A member appeals from the decision of the chair, and the appeal is seconded.
• Another member moves to refer the appeal to a committee (either an appropriate standing committee or a special committee appointed for this purpose). That motion is seconded and is ultimately adopted. The committee might be appointed "with power" to make a determination on this matter or be directed to report back with recommendations. The assembly may or may not make other instructions in this matter. For purposes of this question, we shall assume the assembly gives no instructions with respect to the specific question you have raised.

The question then becomes, in the interim period between the chair's ruling and a final determination by this matter by the committee (or by the assembly, if the committee was directed to report back with recommendations), what is the status of the person whose election is "in limbo," so to speak?

Under the specific factual circumstances described above, while I first certainly agree that this "is a grey area," my view would be that the person's election is presumed to be invalid, unless and until the appeal is resolved determining otherwise.

The reason for this is because 1.) in the circumstances described above, the chair is the presiding officer of the election body, which has authority to decide this matter; 2.) under parliamentary law, the chair is delegated by the assembly the authority to make determinations on questions of order, subject to appeal. As far as I am aware, nothing in RONR provides that the chair's ruling is "stayed" simply by the making and seconding of an appeal - the ruling remains in force and effect unless and until the ruling is overturned on appeal.

But let's consider a slightly different set of facts and circumstances.

• The organization's rules are silent on this matter.
• The chair in question is the chair of the election body.
• The election dispute at issue is one which can be properly addressed after the election is pending, because it involves an issue that is one of the examples discussed in 46:59 (or an issue which is similar in nature).
• A member raises a Point of Order concerning the election dispute in the point noted above, alleging that the election is null and void and the person is therefore not validly elected, and explains the reasons why.
• This is where the next steps diverge.
• The chair, seeing that this is a difficult question, does not rule on the question. Instead, the chair submits the question to the assembly for a decision.
• While the Point of Order is pending before the assembly for consideration, another member moves to refer the appeal to a committee (either an appropriate standing committee or a special committee appointed for this purpose). That motion is seconded and is ultimately adopted. The committee might be appointed "with power" to make a determination on this matter or be directed to report back with recommendations. The assembly may or may not make other instructions in this matter. For purposes of this question, we shall assume the assembly gives no instructions with respect to the specific question you have raised.

Under the specific factual circumstances described above, my view would be that the person's election is presumed to be valid, unless and until the Point of Order is resolved determining otherwise. No determination has been made on the Point of Order, and the mere making of a Point of Order does not "stay" the election. As a result, the original result of the election, as announced by the chair upon the election's conclusion, is presumed to be valid unless and until this has been otherwise determined by the result of a ruling on the Point of Order.

I think looking at both of these circumstances is important, because I believe it is not immediately clear which of these two situations is more analogous to an organization in which the organization's bylaws provide that some committee is granted authority to resolve "appeals" of decisions made by the organization, which are submitted to that committee in writing. The complication arises because the manner in which "appeal" is used here is not used in the connection that term is used in parliamentary law, but instead is more closely analogous to the sense that term is used in legal parlance or in colloquial usage.

As I understand it, the "appeal" being considered in this matter is not related to a ruling on a Point of Order at the meeting of the electing body, but is instead related to the election itself. As such, this seems to be more in the nature of a "Point of Order," in parliamentary terms, than an "Appeal." With that in mind, I am inclined to think that (unless the organization's rules provide otherwise), this situation is more analogous to the second set of facts and circumstances above, and when an "appeal" is submitted to the committee, the original decision by the election body remains in force and effect unless and until overturned on appeal.

There is also, of course, the separate matter of the ruling of the chair of the board concerning the validity of the election. It continues to be my view that the chair had no authority to do this, because as I understand the facts 1.) the organization's bylaws do not grant the board the authority to make determinations on these matters and 2.) this matter was not referred to the board by the election body. In my view, the chair should have ruled:

"The chair rules the point not well taken, for the following reasons. Neither Robert's Rules of Order nor the organization's bylaws grant the board any authority to make a ruling on an election conducted by the convention. The chair of the board only has the authority delegated to him by the board, and therefore the chair lacks the authority the board itself does not possess, and the chair lacks the authority to rule on this matter. The chair notes that, under the organization's bylaws, there is a separate committee granted authority to decide these matters, and the chair would suggest that interested members instead submit appeals to that body, under the provisions in the organization's bylaws. In the interim, the chair is obliged to follow the determination of the convention as the judgment of the organization. The chair declines to rule on the merits of the challenge to the validity of the election."

Going back to our examples described above, I think the chair of the board ruling on this matter would be more like if this is what had happened:

• The organization's rules are silent on this matter.
• The chair in question is the chair of the election body.
• The election dispute at issue is one which can be properly addressed after the election is pending, because it involves an issue that is one of the examples discussed in 46:59 (or an issue which is similar in nature).
• A member raises a Point of Order concerning the election dispute in the point noted above, alleging that the election is null and void and the person is therefore not validly elected, and explains the reasons why.
• The chair, seeing that this is a difficult question, does not rule on the question. Instead, the chair submits the question to the assembly for a decision.
• While the Point of Order is pending before the assembly for consideration, another member moves to refer the appeal to a committee (either an appropriate standing committee or a special committee appointed for this purpose). That motion is seconded and is ultimately adopted. The committee might be appointed "with power" to make a determination on this matter or be directed to report back with recommendations. The assembly may or may not make other instructions in this matter. For purposes of this question, we shall assume the assembly gives no instructions with respect to the specific question you have raised.
• Subsequent to this meeting, but prior to a final determination on the Point of Order, the chair of the board (which is not the body to which this question was referred) makes a ruling on this issue that the election is invalid.

Notwithstanding our disagreements over the meaning of the bylaws, I can hope you would agree that in the specific facts and circumstances described above, the chair has exceeded his authority. (Now, what happens next is an open question. It may well be the committee and/or assembly comes to the same conclusion, and the chair will be applauded for his wise judgment, or it may be that he'll be promptly disciplined and removed from office, or something in between, but regardless, the chair acted outside his authority.)

Edited May 13, 2024 at 06:16 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

I would, and I thank you for distinction between the election dispute pending and the election pending.

That said, the chair would have to respond to a point of order as you suggest, and his ruling is appealed, successfully.  I'm not sure how it could be fixed, even if you agree that there is a problem with the board doing so. 

The chair, and the board, would exceed their authority if the assembly has the final word on the bylaws.  Here the assembly  does not. 

[Josh Martin]

On 5/13/2024 at 1:58 PM, J. J. said:

That said, the chair would have to respond to a point of order as you suggest, and his ruling is appealed, successfully.  I'm not sure how it could be fixed, even if you agree that there is a problem with the board doing so. 

I imagine it would ultimately have to be fixed with disciplinary proceedings.

On 5/13/2024 at 1:58 PM, J. J. said:

The chair, and the board, would exceed their authority if the assembly has the final word on the bylaws.  Here the assembly  does not. 

Well, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the board's appropriate course of action under these bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/13/2024 at 9:00 AM, 1Angela said:

A board member wrote an appeal to the Judicial Committee almost immediately, but they have thus far not issued any opinion, so the elected reps are not allowed to vote or speak.     

That's not how Appeals (§24) are done.  If the chair issues a ruling which some members believe is incorrect, a member rises (right then and there), says "I appeal from the decision of the chair." and another member says "Second".  The chair doesn't rule this well taken or not, he simply must place it before the assembly. In debate on an Appeal, the Chair speaks first, and last if desired. Other members speak no more than once.  Unlike most motions, a tie vote sustains the chair's decision.

Here's the Form and Example from RONR:

24:9  A member desiring to appeal rises and, without waiting to be recognized, addresses the chair as follows:

MEMBER A: I appeal from the decision of the chair. (Second.)

CHAIR: The decision of the chair is appealed from.

24:10  The chair, after stating clearly the exact question at issue, and the reasons for his decision if he thinks an explanation necessary, states the question on the appeal as follows:

CHAIR: The question is: “Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly [or “club,” “society,” “board,” etc.]?”

Or:

CHAIR: The question is, “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?”

24:11  The question is not on “sustaining the chair,” because the decision, not the presiding officer, is in question.

24:12  The vote is taken so that the affirmative will be in favor of sustaining the chair’s decision, as follows:

CHAIR: Those in favor of sustaining the chair’s decision, say aye.… Those opposed to sustaining this decision, say no.…

24:13  After the result of the vote is announced, business is resumed in accordance with the situation existing after the action on the appeal.

 

See §24 for more details.

Edited May 13, 2024 at 07:38 PM by Gary Novosielski
minor lint

[Josh Martin]

On 5/13/2024 at 2:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

That's not how Appeals (§24) are done.  If the chair issues a ruling which some members believe is incorrect, a member rises (right then and there), says "I appeal from the decision of the chair." and another member says "Second".  The chair doesn't rule this well taken or not, he simply must place it before the assembly. In debate on an Appeal, the Chair speaks first, and last if desired. Other members speak no more than once.  Unlike most motions, a tie vote sustains the chair's decision...

Yes, this is all correct with respect to the rules in RONR, but this organization's bylaws include a procedure in which "appeals" of decisions are submitted to the Judicial Committee.

(My understanding is that this is supplemental to the Point of Order and Appeal process in RONR, and not a replacement for it.)