motion ruled out of order

[Ratnott]

When can a motion that has been seconde be ruled out of order by the chair??

[Chris Harrison]

When some rule is being broken by introducing the motion. However, the Chair must state the reason for ruling the motion out of order and that ruling (with a very few exceptions) can be Appealed.

[Greg]

When can a motion that has been seconde be ruled out of order by the chair??

Ratnott,

The Chair can right fully rule a motion OOO if it violates one of your bylaws, any portion of your constitution or charter (if you have one) a local, state, or federal law, or is outside the scope of your organization. I'm no parliamentarian, but I've had some experience with an out of control chair.

I've also found that some Chairs will rule motions OOO if it mimimizes their power or increases the memberships power. If the ladder is the case, your best option, at the time the motion is ruled OOO, state...I appeal the decision of the Chair, you'll need a second and some like minded members in the majority to overrule the Chairs decision. Good luck.

[abcdave]

Ratnott,

The Chair can right fully rule a motion OOO if it violates one of your bylaws, any portion of your constitution or charter (if you have one) a local, state, or federal law, or is outside the scope of your organization. I'm no parliamentarian, but I've had some experience with an out of control chair.

I've also found that some Chairs will rule motions OOO if it mimimizes their power or increases the memberships power. If the ladder is the case, your best option, at the time the motion is ruled OOO, state...I appeal the decision of the Chair, you'll need a second and some like minded members in the majority to overrule the Chairs decision. Good luck.

Someone PLEASE come up with a better way to say OOO

[David A Foulkes]

Someone PLEASE come up with a better way to say OOO

Um......... how about Out of Order?

[Rob Elsman]

Someone PLEASE come up with a better way to say OOO

For the sake of forum guests who use the search facility to locate questions and/or replies in which they have a special interest, I, too, wish we could avoid the use of uncommon or non-standard acronyms.

[David A Foulkes]

For the sake of forum guests who use the search facility to locate questions and/or replies in which they have a special interest, I, too, wish we could avoid the use of uncommon or non-standard acronyms.

Indeed a good point. As long as they also know to search for Out of Odrer, Quoram, Resend, and a host of other variations on parlemintory preceedures!!

[Trina]

....

The Chair can right fully rule a motion OOO if it violates one of your bylaws, any portion of your constitution or charter (if you have one) a local, state, or federal law, or is outside the scope of your organization.

....

I do not believe a motion in violation of law is automatically out of order. It is only actions which violate 'applicable procedural rules' (see RONR p. 4, for example) prescribed by the law that are out of order by their nature.

[George Mervosh]

I do not believe a motion in violation of law is automatically out of order. It is only actions which violate 'applicable procedural rules' (see RONR p. 4, for example) prescribed by the law that are out of order by their nature.

I think it was Gary c (I know what the lil "c" stands for) Tesser who pointed out years ago, that motion to rob a bank is not necessarily out of order since it violates no procedural rule in statute, though it may fall outside of the scope of the society, which still doesn't mean it can't be entertained.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think it was Gary c (I know what the lil "c" stands for) Tesser who pointed out years ago, that motion to rob a bank is not necessarily out of order since it violates no procedural rule in statute, though it may fall outside of the scope of the society, which still doesn't mean it can't be entertained.

If memory serves (and what are the odds of that?) earlier versions of RONR did prohibit the consideration of motions whose effect if adopted would be a violation of law. Somewhere along the line that seems to have been changed. It might even have been with the current (2000) edition.

I favor the current interpretation, though not to promote robbery. The thought I had was more along the lines of a human rights group trying to decide upon and plan actions of civil disobedience.

[hmtcastle]

If memory serves . . . earlier versions of RONR did prohibit the consideration of motions whose effect if adopted would be a violation of law. Somewhere along the line that seems to have been changed. It might even have been with the current (2000) edition.

FWIW, the 75th Anniversary Edition (1951) states: "No motion is in order than conflicts with the laws of the nation, or state . . . " (p.201).

[Josh Martin]

If memory serves (and what are the odds of that?) earlier versions of RONR did prohibit the consideration of motions whose effect if adopted would be a violation of law. Somewhere along the line that seems to have been changed. It might even have been with the current (2000) edition.

Such changes do indeed appear to have been made in the 10th edition. The change and the rationale behind it are discussed in the preface. "References to federal, state, and local laws are restricted, wherever appropriate, to procedural rules prescribed by such laws, in recognition of the fact that rules of parliamentary procedure are concerned with the process by which a deliberative assembly arrives at a decision, and not with the wisdom, or even legality, of the decision itself. For similar reasons, the rule prohibiting rescission of a motion which is in the nature of a contract has been eliminated." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. xxi)

[Guest POCO]

We have several members who want e-mails to go out to the membership giving medical information about members. For example: "Nancy Jones' husband was severely injured in an auto accident at 2 a.m. on Friday and is in ABC hospital in critical condition. Please send cards to (address)." A subordinate board believes this request has significant potential for legal liability for disclosing private medical information, especially if the information is second or third-hand.

If a motion is presented to the membership, can the Presiding Officer speak to the motion and consider it out-of-order. The concern is that the membership will vote to approve this practice leaving the Board wide-open for diseminating the medical information.

[Guest Edgar]

We have several members who want e-mails to go out to the membership

If a motion is presented to the membership, can the Presiding Officer speak to the motion and consider it out-of-order.

Please post your question as a new topic. This topic ended over a year ago.