Presiding Commissioner

[Guest Cape Girardeau County]

District 2 Commissioner made a motion while he had the floor, the Presiding Commissioner state that there was no motion made because the chair didn't recognize the motion. the response from the District 2 Commissioner was, that the have a written ruling from the county Prosecuting Attorney stating once a motion has been made it has to be recognized. The Presiding Commissioner proudly held up RRO and stated that this body is ruled by this and not what he says. What is the correct answer? Thanks confused in Cape County Missouri

[Larry Cisar]

District 2 Commissioner made a motion while he had the floor, the Presiding Commissioner state that there was no motion made because the chair didn't recognize the motion. the response from the District 2 Commissioner was, that the have a written ruling from the county Prosecuting Attorney stating once a motion has been made it has to be recognized. The Presiding Commissioner proudly held up RRO and stated that this body is ruled by this and not what he says. What is the correct answer? Thanks confused in Cape County Missouri

It wasn't the presiding commissioner most likely. If there was no motion on the floor and the member had been recognized, he is free to make a motion. Unless the motion violates some rule, it is a valid motion. Now to give you more information, we need more information about what actually happened.

[Guest Cape Girardeau County]

It wasn't the presiding commissioner most likely. If there was no motion on the floor and the member had been recognized, he is free to make a motion. Unless the motion violates some rule, it is a valid motion. Now to give you more information, we need more information about what actually happened.

The Second District Commissioner asked for the floor, the Presiding Commissioner gave him the floor, The second District made a motion, as soon as he made the motion the Presiding commissioner stated the chair doesn't recognize the motion at this time. The Second District commissioner brought up the legal opinion of the Prosecuting Attorney of the county, that say you must aknowledge a motion when it is made on the floor and can only die for lack of a seconded, which in response the Presiding Commissioner stated thats not what is stated in robert's Rule of Order, and once again stated that the chair does not recognize the motion. sorry for and grammar and spelling errors

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... as soon as he made the motion the Presiding commissioner stated the chair doesn't recognize the motion at this time.

It is possible that your chairman was correct.

There are circumstances where a motion is made but cannot be entertained "at this time."

If such was the case, then the chair was correct, and the mover was in error.

However, there are very few instances where this is even possible, within the rules.

So, if I were to go to Las Vegas and lay odds, then I'd make money 99% of the time if I bet the chairman was wrong.

Bottom line:

It depends on circumstances - it depends on WHY the motion was not in order "at that time."

Q. Was the motion in order, or not in order, at that time?

[David A Foulkes]

The Second District Commissioner asked for the floor, the Presiding Commissioner gave him the floor, The second District made a motion, as soon as he made the motion the Presiding commissioner stated the chair doesn't recognize the motion at this time. The Second District commissioner brought up the legal opinion of the Prosecuting Attorney of the county, that say you must aknowledge a motion when it is made on the floor and can only die for lack of a seconded, which in response the Presiding Commissioner stated thats not what is stated in robert's Rule of Order, and once again stated that the chair does not recognize the motion. sorry for and grammar and spelling errors

Part of the confusion in answering here may be your terminology. I for one at least haven't heard this term (recognize the motion) although it may be used once in RONR on a page I haven't read more than five times yet, so we (as indicated by replies) assume that you mean to say the Chair ruled the motion out of order, which it may have been due to other circumstances we aren't fully aware of. I think it's fair to say a motion can only "die" for lack of a second, but it can be "killed" in other ways, one being out of order and the chair so ruling. So we're still trying to read between the lines, imagine the scene and language used, and guess at an appropriate answer.

And don't sweat the grammar and spelling (too much).

[Guest Cape Girardeau County]

It is possible that your chairman was correct.

There are circumstances where a motion is made but cannot be entertained "at this time."

If such was the case, then the chair was correct, and the mover was in error.

However, there are very few instances where this is even possible, within the rules.

So, if I were to go to Las Vegas and lay odds, then I'd make money 99% of the time if I bet the chairman was wrong.

Bottom line:

It depends on circumstances - it depends on WHY the motion was not in order "at that time."

Q. Was the motion in order, or not in order, at that time?

The motion was made to deed properties to board that by state statues can own property, the motion was in suit with the discussion that wass being held during the meeting before the motion was made. Can you give examples or actually RR's that state this matter

[hmtcastle]

The motion was made to deed properties to board that by state statues can own property, the motion was in suit with the discussion that was being held during the meeting before the motion was made.

At the very least, the chair is obligated to state why he ruled the motion out of order. His ruling can be appealed and the final decision rests with the assembly. See Section 24, Appeal.

[Guest Cape Girardeau County]

Part of the confusion in answering here may be your terminology. I for one at least haven't heard this term (recognize the motion) although it may be used once in RONR on a page I haven't read more than five times yet, so we (as indicated by replies) assume that you mean to say the Chair ruled the motion out of order, which it may have been due to other circumstances we aren't fully aware of. I think it's fair to say a motion can only "die" for lack of a second, but it can be "killed" in other ways, one being out of order and the chair so ruling. So we're still trying to read between the lines, imagine the scene and language used, and guess at an appropriate answer.

And don't sweat the grammar and spelling (too much).

To clear the matter up, I would suggest going to the following link: http://www.capecounty.us/CountyCommission/CommissionRecord.aspx

And scrolling down to the July 22, 2010 audio of the meeting, at the following time 1:28:00 into the meeting audio. Maybe this will help, Thanks

[J. J.]

I think if you are asking about a specific case, you, if one of the parties involved, should contact a professional parliamentarian.

You may get a reference on a parliamentarian from either (or both):

National Association of Parliamentarians

213 South Main St.

Independence, MO 64050-3850

Phone: 888-627-2929

Fax: 816-833-3893;

e-mail: hq@NAP2.org

http://www.parliamentarians.org

American Institute of Parliamentarians

550M Ritchie Highway #271

Severna Park, MD 21146

Tel: 888-664-0428

Fax: 847-885-8393

e-mail: aip@parliamentaryprocedure.org

http://www.parliamentaryprocedure.org/

In general, if this motion was otherwise in order, the chair should state it. If he fails to do so, under RONR, the motion may put the motion from his place on the floor (p. 642).

The motion may not have been in order, however, and the chair might have, inartfully but correctly, been attempting to rule it out of order on legitimate grounds.

[Rob Elsman]

To clear the matter up, I would suggest going to the following link: http://www.capecount...sionRecord.aspx

And scrolling down to the July 22, 2010 audio of the meeting, at the following time 1:28:00 into the meeting audio. Maybe this will help, Thanks

I'll pass on the audio, thanks.

If the member has been assigned the floor without limitation, he has the right to use the floor for any combination of purposes that are allowed under the rules. For example, a member making a speech in debate also has the right to make a secondary motion at the end of his remarks. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 374, ll. 18-22. However, in certain parliamentary situations, a member can only claim the floor for a limited purpose, as explained on , pp. 210, 365, in which case, a motion made beyond the limited purpose for which the member has been recognized is out of order.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

District 2 Commissioner made a motion while he had the floor, the Presiding Commissioner state that there was no motion made because the chair didn't recognize the motion.

The response from the District 2 Commissioner was, that the have a written ruling from the county Prosecuting Attorney stating once a motion has been made it has to be recognized.

The Presiding Commissioner proudly held up RRO and stated that this body is ruled by this and not what he says.

What is the correct answer?

This is useless.

Now that you know that it is possible that the chair was correct, and you know that it is highly likely the chair erred in how he handled the parliamentary situation, it would be my suggestion that you bypass this "He Said, She Said" bickering (i.e., "... the response from the District 2 Commissioner was, that the have a written ruling from the county Prosecuting Attorney stating once a motion has been made it has to be recognized...") and hire a parliamentarian to act as your presiding officer and to run your meeting.

You need:

1. a chairman who knows the rules of order.

2. a chairman who can give you a reason for a motion being ruled "out of order".

3. to not need other members citing lawyers about proper parliamentary procedure ("Ugh!")

Right now, you've got the blind leading the blind. - You've got a chairman who "... holds up RONR ...", yet does not know the contents of RONR. - You've got people in the audience who thinks a "prosecuting attorney's written ruling" carries weight inside a meeting.

You've got a whole infinite loop of ignorant nonsense to deal with.

And you are trying to fix only one side of of your three-sided problem.

(By "one sided", I mean, "You asked if the chair was correct. You didn't ask if your idiot Commissioner was even close to correct by waving his own written opinions around in the air." And he is 1/3 of your problems.)

So I recommend that you don't pretend that each of you all know Robert's Rules of Order.

Don't hold up books and written opinions to each other. That isn't parliamentary procedure.

(They have a phrase for such contentious things. It is a euphemism for "urination battle", if you get my drift.)

Just get a real chairman, an objective chairman, who knows Robert's Rules of Order.

You are not going to "fix" your problem by doing what you chairman is doing and what your Commissioner, i.e., "... standing up and waving a hard copy printouts of all the opinions posted from the Robert's Rules Association Q&A Forum ...".

That's not proper parliamentary procedure.

Don't wave stuff in the air.

Don't you start doing what your two knucklehead Commissioners are already doing.

That's a dead end.

[Rev Ed]

Dumb question: Was there already a main motion that had yet to be dealt with? A member cannot move a new main motion if the membership if another main motion is already on the floor.

[Rob Elsman]

Dumb question: Was there already a main motion that had yet to be dealt with? A member cannot move a new main motion if the membership if another main motion is already on the floor.

Part of the problem with the original post is that motions are not recognized--members are.

[Guest Ca[e Girardeau County]

There was no main motion on the floor at the time. The District 2 Commissioner wasn't waving a hard copy of anything. Just stating that they had a ruling from. The Presiding clearly stated that the chair who in this case would be him since it aa three person commission, Did not recognize the motion at this time.

[Guest Cape Girardeau County]

There is no plan to hand out any printed documents from this forum. I am currently a new board member, that happens to be invovlved in local politics also, I was just curious and wanting answers or opinions. I appreciate all the feed back. Thanks

[J. J.]

There was no main motion on the floor at the time. The District 2 Commissioner wasn't waving a hard copy of anything. Just stating that they had a ruling from. The Presiding clearly stated that the chair who in this case would be him since it aa three person commission, Did not recognize the motion at this time.

The chair may very well be using imprecise language. The motion might be ruled out of order for a number of reasons, including simply at the wrong spot in the order of business.

[Josh Martin]

There was no main motion on the floor at the time. The District 2 Commissioner wasn't waving a hard copy of anything. Just stating that they had a ruling from. The Presiding clearly stated that the chair who in this case would be him since it aa three person commission, Did not recognize the motion at this time.

The chairman cannot refuse to recognize a motion just because he doesn't like it. If the motion violates some rule, then the chair may rule the motion out of order, but he needs to state why. Such a ruling may be appealed and overturned by majority vote.

[Rob Elsman]

The chairman cannot refuse to recognize a motion just because he doesn't like it. If the motion violates some rule, then the chair may rule the motion out of order, but he needs to state why. Such a ruling may be appealed and overturned by majority vote.

There is no such thing as "recognize a motion", as I have already noted. The proper term is "admit" or "entertain". Members are recognized, not motions.