Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Motions out of order or improper


Greg

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

So, when a motion is made and seconded at a meeting do you think the Chairperson is obligated to call the

motion out of order or improper at the time the motion is made? Or is it OK by RR to call a motion out of order or improper after the fact a month later when the meeting is long over?

We have a problem in our Union meetings where the chair usually says nothing when a motion is made then at the

next meeting 3 months later we find out the motion was ruled out of order, AND the chair also refuses to state

exactly why the motion was ruled out of order (if it violates our bylaws or our constitution, state law, federal

law, the scope of the membership...whatever)

Can anyone quote a page number from RR of Order that requires the chair to rule on a motion at the time of its

making?

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P. 240 - 247 in RONR seem like the ticket. Let me also suggest that Greg get his copy of RONR - In Brief AT ONCE, and read it (the first time) standing on the runway before he gets onto the plane (feet won't hurt before he's done).

And come back here and ask questions. I personally have a fondness for questions about RONR - IB p. 23 and 119. But that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone quote a page number from RR of Order that requires the chair to rule on a motion at the time of its

making?

So, to put it yet another way, while most points of order should (and, indeed, must) be made in a "timely" manner (e.g. when the improper motion is made), there are a few infractions that are so egregious that they constitute what's called a "continuing breach" and, for these, there is no time limit. Of course even with these, the sooner the better.

And remember, any member can raise of point of order. So if you think a motion violates the bylaws (or is out of order for any reason), raise a point of order yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

the chair usually says nothing when a motion is made then at the

next meeting 3 months later we find out the motion was ruled out of order, AND the chair also refuses to state

exactly why the motion was ruled out of order (if it violates our bylaws or our constitution, state law, federal

law, the scope of the membership...whatever)

....

Such a ruling must be made during a meeting -- i.e. the chair can't make such a ruling in between meetings, which is sort of what your description above sounds like.

Most points of order must be timely. A point of order can be made after the fact, but only for a small subset of serious violations (called 'continuing breaches') -- see RONR p. 244, as pointed out by several other posters.

With regard to the chair refusing to state reasons:

'The chair then rules..., stating briefly his reasons, which should be recorded in the minutes.' (RONR p. 245 ll. 15-17)

The citation describes the situation when the chair rules on a point of order raised by another member, but I think the chair is also expected to provide some explanation when he himself is the one raising a point of order.

I'm not sure what the assembly should do if the chair simply refuses to give an explanation as required. One approach would be an appeal. Keep in mind that a ruling of the chair can be appealed (one member appeals the ruling, and another member seconds the appeal) -- since an appeal is debatable, presumably the reasons would come out during the debate. The assembly then decides (votes) on the appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a ruling must be made during a meeting -- i.e. the chair can't make such a ruling in between meetings, which is sort of what your description above sounds like.

Most points of order must be timely. A point of order can be made after the fact, but only for a small subset of serious violations (called 'continuing breaches') -- see RONR p. 244, as pointed out by several other posters.

With regard to the chair refusing to state reasons:

'The chair then rules..., stating briefly his reasons, which should be recorded in the minutes.' (RONR p. 245 ll. 15-17)

The citation describes the situation when the chair rules on a point of order raised by another member, but I think the chair is also expected to provide some explanation when he himself is the one raising a point of order.

I'm not sure what the assembly should do if the chair simply refuses to give an explanation as required. One approach would be an appeal. Keep in mind that a ruling of the chair can be appealed (one member appeals the ruling, and another member seconds the appeal) -- since an appeal is debatable, presumably the reasons would come out during the debate. The assembly then decides (votes) on the appeal.

Given that "'The chair then rules..., stating briefly his reasons ..." I'd guess a point of order would be the first step, pointing up the violation of this rule -- although it risks a perilously complicated parliamentary situation, piling a point of order onto another still-unresolved point of order. Myslef, I might just spitefully skip this step, rejecting the ruling of the chair out of hand on account of his supercilious disdain of the interests of the assembly (the need to hear his reasoning). That of course depends on the issue that this began with. It would be imprudent to put the dressing-down of a self-important presiding officer, as a principle, above getting an important violation (the first one, here) corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...