Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

precedent set by ruling of chair


Trina

Recommended Posts

Growing out of these two recent threads:

I have a question about the precedent set by a ruling of the chair.

Case 1: The chair rules on a question of interpretation of the bylaws (let's assume it's a situation where there is true ambiguity). The chair's ruling sets a precedent, which can be overturned at some future time by a motion to rescind.

Case 2: The chair makes a blatantly incorrect ruling, violating a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Let's say he rules that a group of absent members can be called up on their cell phones so that they can cast their votes on an important motion. The chair's ruling is not appealed, since many of the members present think the chair's ruling sounds sort of OK (and they are not well educated about parliamentary law or procedure).

Is it really true (as some posters claimed in the second thread cited above) that this Case 2 ruling creates a precedent which the organization must honor unless/until the precedent is removed via a motion to rescind?

Why couldn't a normal point of order be raised about the continuing breach?

Or, to approach it another way, suppose a point of order is raised about a particular motion which passed at last month's meeting (using the absentee voting authorized by the ruling of the chair). The chair rules against the point of order, and this time someone knows enough to appeal, and the assembly votes against the chair's ruling on appeal... but only by a bare majority. Does the precedent set by the chair's original incorrect ruling about votes by cell phone continue to stand? Should the chair have ruled the point of order dilatory, since it conflicted with the precedent that had been set??

I just find it hard to believe that a basic error by one person (the chair) can put the organization in the position of requiring a two-thirds vote in order to correct a continuing breach. I'm floundering for relevant page references in RONR, however... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, to approach it another way, suppose a point of order is raised about a particular motion which passed at last month's meeting (using the absentee voting authorized by the ruling of the chair). The chair rules against the point of order, and this time someone knows enough to appeal, and the assembly votes against the chair's ruling on appeal... but only by a bare majority. Does the precedent set by the chair's original incorrect ruling about votes by cell phone continue to stand? Should the chair have ruled the point of order dilatory, since it conflicted with the precedent that had been set??

No, the precedent set by the chair's original ruling about votes by cell phone does not continue to stand, it has been superseded by a new precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the precedent set by the chair's original ruling about votes by cell phone does not continue to stand, it has been superseded by a new precedent.

This response assumes that a point of order is being raised concerning a motion which is not the same motion as to which the point of order and ruling were originally made. As to that motion, if anything is to be done about it it will have to be by way of its rescission or amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case 2: The chair makes a blatantly incorrect ruling, violating a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Let's say ... absent members ... cast their votes on an important motion.

The chair's ruling is not appealed.

Q1. Is it really true (as some posters claimed in the second thread cited above) that this Case 2 ruling creates a precedent which the organization must honor unless/until the precedent is removed via a motion to rescind?

Q2. Why couldn't a normal point of order be raised about the continuing breach?

A1.) True. If the chair makes a ruling, then the ruling stands as the decision of the assembly. (There was no appeal at the time of the ruling, per your own Case #2. So you cannot use Appeal as a tool anymore, nor a point of order, anymore.)

A2.) First, let's nail down a key assumption:

If, as you say, "the chair made a ruling" in a legitimate circumstance, then the chair MUST have processed a POINT OF ORDER.

(A chair cannot willy-nilly make rulings left and right, without a Point of Order. - The two things are tightly coupled.)

A ruling of the chair ONLY arises when a POINT OF ORDER is raised. A ruling of the chair does not otherwise arise.

So, I will assume, per your scenarios, that your phrase, "chair's ... ruling", ALWAYS implies ".. a point of order ...".

Now, to answer your question Q2.

Why can't you raise another point of order (or a third, or a fourth, etc.), as time passes?

Because you cannot re-use a point of order against a decision of the assembly, a decision which arises either by:

(a.) the chair making a ruling on a Point of Order, without an Appeal;

(b.) the chair making a ruling which is either sustained or overturned via a timely Appeal.

• The assembly makes ONE decision on the given violation.

• The violation no longer is at risk for being targeted by a (future) Point of Order once a Point of Order has been raised against the violation; regardless of the Appeal, or lack of Appeal; regardless of the sustaining or overturning.

To repeat, put in the negative wording:

You cannot raise the identical Point of Order, every meeting, forever.

Either #a or #b establishes a precedent.

The Book says that the motion Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted is the tool to use to alter any precedent.

Excerpt, Standard Descriptive Characteristic #2 under "Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted:

2. Can be applied to anything (e.g., bylaw, rule, policy, de-

cision, or choice) which has continuing force and effect

and which was made or created at any time or times as

the result of the adoption of one or more main motions.

Can also be applied to any precedent created as a result

of a ruling of the chair or an appeal that has been taken

from a ruling of the chair. (However, see below for ac-

tions that cannot be rescinded or amended.) All of the

subsidiary motions can be applied to the motions to Re-

scind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as you say, "the chair made a ruling" in a legitimate circumstance, then the chair MUST have processed a POINT OF ORDER.

(A chair cannot willy-nilly make rulings left and right, without a Point of Order. - The two things are tightly coupled.)

A ruling of the chair ONLY arises when a POINT OF ORDER is raised. A ruling of the chair does not otherwise arise.

So, I will assume, per your scenarios, that your phrase, "chair's ... ruling", ALWAYS implies ".. a point of order ...".

Kim, are you saying that a Chair ruling on his own that a motion is not in order at that time is not actually a ruling? What would it be considered then? I don't see it being an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A1.) True. If the chair makes a ruling, then the ruling stands as the decision of the assembly. (There was no appeal at the time of the ruling, per your own Case #2. So you cannot use Appeal as a tool anymore, nor a point of order, anymore.)

A2.) First, let's nail down a key assumption:

If, as you say, "the chair made a ruling" in a legitimate circumstance, then the chair MUST have processed a POINT OF ORDER.

(A chair cannot willy-nilly make rulings left and right, without a Point of Order. - The two things are tightly coupled.)

A ruling of the chair ONLY arises when a POINT OF ORDER is raised. A ruling of the chair does not otherwise arise.

So, I will assume, per your scenarios, that your phrase, "chair's ... ruling", ALWAYS implies ".. a point of order ...".

Now, to answer your question Q2.

Why can't you raise another point of order (or a third, or a fourth, etc.), as time passes?

Because you cannot re-use a point of order against a decision of the assembly, a decision which arises either by:

(a.) the chair making a ruling on a Point of Order, without an Appeal;

(b.) the chair making a ruling which is either sustained or overturned via a timely Appeal.

• The assembly makes ONE decision on the given violation.

• The violation no longer is at risk for being targeted by a (future) Point of Order once a Point of Order has been raised against the violation; regardless of the Appeal, or lack of Appeal; regardless of the sustaining or overturning.

To repeat, put in the negative wording:

You cannot raise the identical Point of Order, every meeting, forever.

Either #a or #b establishes a precedent.

The Book says that the motion Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted is the tool to use to alter any precedent.

Since the first ruling stands, according to you, even though it violates an FPPL (p. 244, d.), why would not the second ruling also stand, even if it violates p. 244 a.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... are you saying that a Chair ruling on his own that a motion is not in order at that time is not actually a ruling?

What would it be considered then?

I don't see it being an opinion.

"... a motion that is not in order ..."?

Not relevant to the original poster's scenario:

"...The chair rules on a question of interpretation of the bylaws ... "

"... The chair's ruling sets a precedent, which can be overturned at some future time by a motion to rescind ..."

"...The chair makes a blatantly incorrect ruling, violating a fundamental principle of parliamentary law..."

... [chair] rules that ... absent members can ... cast their votes on [a] motion...

There is no ruling whether a "motion is out of order."

Instead, the chair is interpreting the bylaws.

I am assuming that the chair is interpreting the bylaws, and that the chair is not merely ruling a motion as being out of order.

If my assumption is wrong, then I apologize to the original poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the first ruling stands, according to you, even though it violates an FPPL (p. 244, d.), why would not the second ruling also stand, even if it violates p. 244 a.?

Q. What second ruling?

Once a violation is judged by the assembly, that is the end of it.

No second (or third or fourth) point of order, or second (or third or fourth) ruling, is in order.

The interpretation of the bylaws is now fixed.

To re-fix an interpretation of the bylaws, there are only two solutions I can think of:

1. Rescind or Amend the old interpretation (into a new, improved interpretation).

2. Amend the bylaws (to match the intended interpretation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q. What second ruling?

Once a violation is judged by the assembly, that is the end of it.

No second (or third or fourth) point of order, or second (or third or fourth) ruling, is in order.

The interpretation of the bylaws is now fixed.

Oh, is it? At the next meeting, a point of order is raised that the use of cell phones violates an FPPL. The chair rules against it on the grounds that "the interpretation of the bylaws is now fixed."

A member appeals the decision of the chair (which is seconded), which the chair refuses to entertain, on the ground that "the interpretation of the bylaws is now fixed." The member puts the appeal from the floor. The majority (but less than an MEM or 2/3) over rules the decision of the chair.

It looks like nothing was fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... a motion that is not in order ..."?

Not relevant to the original poster's scenario:

There is no ruling whether a "motion is out of order."

Instead, the chair is interpreting the bylaws.

I am assuming that the chair is interpreting the bylaws, and that the chair is not merely ruling a motion as being out of order.

If my assumption is wrong, then I apologize to the original poster.

I am not suggesting that a motion being out of order was part of Trina's original post. My response was to what you said about a ruling only arising from a Point of Order.

If, as you say, "the chair made a ruling" in a legitimate circumstance, then the chair MUST have processed a POINT OF ORDER.

(A chair cannot willy-nilly make rulings left and right, without a Point of Order. - The two things are tightly coupled.)

A ruling of the chair ONLY arises when a POINT OF ORDER is raised. A ruling of the chair does not otherwise arise.

So, I will assume, per your scenarios, that your phrase, "chair's ... ruling", ALWAYS implies ".. a point of order ...".

My point was that making a ruling that a motion is out of order would not necessarily come from a Point of Order having been raised first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... saw fit to adopt the use of "willy-nilly"...on one of the threads that Trina cited.

You are way too late.

I had posted using the adjective "willy nilly" YEARS before your posting of 2010, multiple times.

Likewise, the adjective "plain vanilla" was used in many posts YEARS before any one else had used the term in their posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not suggesting that a motion being out of order was part of Trina's original post. My response was to what you said about a ruling only arising from a Point of Order.

My point was that making a ruling that a motion is out of order would not necessarily come from a Point of Order having been raised first.

Fair enough.

This was my read.

I assumed that we (the editorial "we") were inferring all the criteria of the original poster. - That the question was not based on:

(a.) "The chair ruled a motion out of order";

...but based on...

(b.) "The chair allowed or disallowed voting process X (here, cell phones being the medium for absentee voting), without an explicit motion ever being involved (and justified his allowance/disallowance based on an interpretation of the bylaws."

• #a will not involve a Point of Order. (Granted, yes, a ruling is indeed involved. Granted, indeed, an appeal can be involved.)

• #b did involve a Point of Order, as I read the original poster's "case #2".

If I mis-read the original poster's scenario, then I am sorry for focusing on the wrong issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, to approach it another way, suppose a point of order is raised about a particular motion which passed at last month's meeting (using the absentee voting authorized by the ruling of the chair). The chair rules against the point of order, and this time someone knows enough to appeal, and the assembly votes against the chair's ruling on appeal... but only by a bare majority. Does the precedent set by the chair's original incorrect ruling about votes by cell phone continue to stand? Should the chair have ruled the point of order dilatory, since it conflicted with the precedent that had been set??

No, the precedent set by the chair's original ruling about votes by cell phone does not continue to stand, it has been superseded by a new precedent.

Does that mean that in the case of a continuing breach, a majority vote is sufficient to rescind the precedent set by the chair's erroneous ruling? Or is it just that in this scenario, once the point of order plus appeal played out, it's a done deal? I was thinking that perhaps the continuing breach could be fixed with respect to the specific motion (by majority vote), but that the precedent might continue to stand (since it was not explicitly targeted by the point of order, and not explicitly repealed by a two-thirds vote).

I assume it's significant that you said the precedent was 'superseded by a new precedent', which is not exactly the same as saying that the precedent was rescinded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean that in the case of a continuing breach, a majority vote is sufficient to rescind the precedent set by the chair's erroneous ruling? Or is it just that in this scenario, once the point of order plus appeal played out, it's a done deal? I was thinking that perhaps the continuing breach could be fixed with respect to the specific motion (by majority vote), but that the precedent might continue to stand (since it was not explicitly targeted by the point of order, and not explicitly repealed by a two-thirds vote).

I assume it's significant that you said the precedent was 'superseded by a new precedent', which is not exactly the same as saying that the precedent was rescinded...

Trina, I must confess that, in responding to your post, I paid very little attention to the facts which you recited, and I certainly did not look at the previous threads to which you referred.

The only point I was trying to make is that a precedent previously established is not binding upon the chair when ruling upon a similar situation arising during a later session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A1.) True. If the chair makes a ruling, then the ruling stands as the decision of the assembly. (There was no appeal at the time of the ruling, per your own Case #2. So you cannot use Appeal as a tool anymore, nor a point of order, anymore.)

That's true -- by ignorance, or simple silence, the assembly participated in the chair's bad decision.

A2.) First, let's nail down a key assumption:

If, as you say, "the chair made a ruling" in a legitimate circumstance, then the chair MUST have processed a POINT OF ORDER.

(A chair cannot willy-nilly make rulings left and right, without a Point of Order. - The two things are tightly coupled.)

A ruling of the chair ONLY arises when a POINT OF ORDER is raised. A ruling of the chair does not otherwise arise.

So, I will assume, per your scenarios, that your phrase, "chair's ... ruling", ALWAYS implies ".. a point of order ...".

Ideally so, of course, but in real life things may be more sloppy, especially in an assembly in which the chair and the members collaborate in setting such a lousy precedent... Presumably the chair's ruling still has standing as precedent, even if the process wasn't perfect?

Now, to answer your question Q2.

Why can't you raise another point of order (or a third, or a fourth, etc.), as time passes?

Because you cannot re-use a point of order against a decision of the assembly, a decision which arises either by:

(a.) the chair making a ruling on a Point of Order, without an Appeal;

(b.) the chair making a ruling which is either sustained or overturned via a timely Appeal.

• The assembly makes ONE decision on the given violation.

• The violation no longer is at risk for being targeted by a (future) Point of Order once a Point of Order has been raised against the violation; regardless of the Appeal, or lack of Appeal; regardless of the sustaining or overturning.

To repeat, put in the negative wording:

You cannot raise the identical Point of Order, every meeting, forever.

Either #a or #b establishes a precedent.

Thank you, that seems clear. So, even in the case of a continuing breach, there is only one shot at fixing it via a point of order, and if the chair (plus assembly) don't get it right on the first attempt, the breach is now protected by the vote margins needed to rescind? Further, if the breach itself is started by a ruling of the chair, then all future attempts to repair it are immediately subject to those higher vote margins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case 1: The chair rules on a question of interpretation of the bylaws (let's assume it's a situation where there is true ambiguity). The chair's ruling sets a precedent, which can be overturned at some future time by a motion to rescind.

Case 2: The chair makes a blatantly incorrect ruling, violating a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Let's say he rules that a group of absent members can be called up on their cell phones so that they can cast their votes on an important motion. The chair's ruling is not appealed, since many of the members present think the chair's ruling sounds sort of OK (and they are not well educated about parliamentary law or procedure).

I probably caused some confusion by the wordiness of my original question, and I see that I abandoned 'Case 1' after stating it :). I wasn't really thinking of 'Case 2' as involving bylaws interpretation... in case that matters.

Case 1 was supposed to be a normal (proper) ruling by the chair, which set a precedent as described in RONR. Case 2 was supposed to be an incorrect ruling by the chair, which also violates a FPPL.

Question A): Are the precedents set in Case 1 and Case 2 exactly the same in standing, requiring the same process and vote margins to overturn them?

Question B): Does the fact that Case 2 involves a violation of a FPPL give the assembly any additional tools, as compared to the situation in Case 1?

Question C): Is it true that once a point of order addressing a p. 244 violation is raised and disposed of (assuming the assembly does not vote to correct the violation), the same point of order cannot be raised again, no matter how blatant the violation? [This question comes out of some of the responses posted on this thread.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A precedent, no matter what is is, may be overturned by a subsequent ruling, as I have previously indicated.

The requirements for overturning the decision arrived at by the assembly as a consequence of the ruling which created the precedent may vary depending upon what that decision was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably caused some confusion by the wordiness of my original question, and I see that I abandoned 'Case 1' after stating it :). I wasn't really thinking of 'Case 2' as involving bylaws interpretation... in case that matters.

Case 1 was supposed to be a normal (proper) ruling by the chair, which set a precedent as described in RONR. Case 2 was supposed to be an incorrect ruling by the chair, which also violates a FPPL.

Question A): Are the precedents set in Case 1 and Case 2 exactly the same in standing, requiring the same process and vote margins to overturn them?

Question B): Does the fact that Case 2 involves a violation of a FPPL give the assembly any additional tools, as compared to the situation in Case 1?

Question C): Is it true that once a point of order addressing a p. 244 violation is raised and disposed of (assuming the assembly does not vote to correct the violation), the same point of order cannot be raised again, no matter how blatant the violation? [This question comes out of some of the responses posted on this thread.]

As I noted in the other post you referred to, I feel that it would be inappropriate for a Point of Order to be raised regarding the exact same situation when the matter has already been decided. If there was a continuing breach regarding a motion, and the chair made a ruling (with or without a subsequent appeal), it would be inappropriate for someone to simply raise the Point of Order at the next session regarding the same breach.

If another case arises, however, even if it involves the same, or very similar questions of interpretation, the precedent established in the previous case, while it may be persuasive, is by no means binding on the assembly.

The particular questions of interpretation involved in the ruling are of no bearing on the relevant rules here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I noted in the other post you referred to, I feel that it would be inappropriate for a Point of Order to be raised regarding the exact same situation when the matter has already been decided. If there was a continuing breach regarding a motion, and the chair made a ruling (with or without a subsequent appeal), it would be inappropriate for someone to simply raise the Point of Order at the next session regarding the same breach.

And, how will you stop it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...