Chair Motion not to Recognize

[Guest Ann]

I looked through RONR and couldn't find (or maybe just not understand) the following scenario:

If a Chair/President of the Board rules that they will not recognize a motion (haven't seen that term in RONR but I'm assuming it means "out of order"?), can the members overturn that ruling and, if so, what requirements are there for that? And, by the way, the motion that wasn't recognized or was out of order was a motion that was contrary to the organization's by-laws and constitution. Any information would be appreciated...

[Mr. J!]

I looked through RONR and couldn't find (or maybe just not understand) the following scenario:

If a Chair/President of the Board rules that they will not recognize a motion (haven't seen that term in RONR but I'm assuming it means "out of order"?), can the members overturn that ruling and, if so, what requirements are there for that?

See APPEAL from the decision of the chair. In most cases, members can overturn decisions of the chair, by majority vote.

And, by the way, the motion that wasn't recognized or was out of order was a motion that was contrary to the organization's by-laws and constitution...

If it was clearly and unambiguously in conflict with the bylaws, the chair was correct and an appeal is not proper.

[Guest Marshall]

See APPEAL from the decision of the chair. In most cases, members can overturn decisions of the chair, by majority vote.

If it was clearly and unambiguously in conflict with the bylaws, the chair was correct and an appeal is not proper.

[abcdave]

"Motions that conflict with the corporate charter, constitution or bylaws of a society, ... are out of order, and if any motion of this kind is adopted, it is null and void." Pg. 332

[Guest Marshall]

If a presiding officer determines that a motion goes against the by-laws, and therefore rules it out of order, and a member appeals the presiding officer's decision (because he thinks the motion does not go against the by-laws), may that presiding officer rule the member's appeal out of order? If the presiding officer does rule the appeal out of order, what can the membership do?

[abcdave]

If a presiding officer determines that a motion goes against the by-laws, and therefore rules it out of order, and a member appeals the presiding officer's decision (because he thinks the motion does not go against the by-laws), may that presiding officer rule the member's appeal out of order? If the presiding officer does rule the appeal out of order, what can the membership do?

He can't.

When an appeal is made - AND seconded - "the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision." RONR pg. 247

It's up to the society to interpret its own bylaws.

[Weldon Merritt]

He can't.

When an appeal is made - AND seconded - "the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision." RONR pg. 247

It's up to the society to interpret its own bylaws.

“[W]hen the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed.” RONR, p. 248, ll. 28-30.

“When the meaning [of a bylaw] is clear, … the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws. An ambiguity must exist before there is any occasion for interpretation." RONR, p. ll. 17-10 (emphasis added).

[abcdave]

“[W]hen the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed.” RONR, p. 248, ll. 28-30.

“When the meaning [of a bylaw] is clear, … the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws. An ambiguity must exist before there is any occasion for interpretation." RONR, p. ll. 17-10 (emphasis added).

"The presiding officer determines that a motion goes against the bylaws and therefore rules it out of order and a member appeals the presiding officer's decision (because he feels it does not go against the bylaws) ... what can the membership do?"

Which opinion "cannot possibly be reasonable"?

If the the meaning of the bylaw in question is indeed clear and unambiguous - then you are correct, an appeal should not be allowed. But then, why is there this disagreement?

[Weldon Merritt]

If the the meaning of the bylaw in question is indeed clear and unambiguous - then you are correct, an appeal should not be allowed. But then, why is there this disagreement?

I am not saying that this particular bylaw necessarily is unambiguous. Since I have not read it, I obviously do not know if it is. The point I was trying to make is that your statement was overly broad. There are instances when an appeal is not “taken from the chair and vested in the assembly,” and some bylaws that the society cannot interpret because there is no room for interpretation. Just because a member makes an appeal and someone else seconds it does not, in itself, mean that the appeal is proper. Sometimes the presiding officer can rule the appeal out of order.