Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Rulings that may be appealed


pwilson

Recommended Posts

Standard Descriptive Characteristic 2 of Appeal states that any ruling by the presiding officer (with a couple of technical exceptions) may be appealed (RONR [10th ed.], p. 248, l. 21-30). Are the following the only types of ruling that may be appealed?

(1) A ruling on a point of order (whether the point is well taken or not)

(2) A ruling that something is out of order (e.g., that an amendment is not germane), without a point of order having been raised

(3) A ruling that a request or motion is a question of privilege and, if so, whether it is urgent enough to interrupt business (p. 217, l. 7-11)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response and for focusing on the heart of the original question, namely, is my list comprehensive? I find no references in RONR to additional types of ruling by the chair, but perhaps others will.

As for rulings that something IS in order, (1) and (3) in the above list cover the only cases I can think of in which the chair actually makes a ruling. In cases in which the chair deems something to be in order without explicitly ruling on the matter, the proper recourse for a member who disagrees is to raise a Point of Order rather than to Appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding assignment of the floor, the relevant passage is on p. 370:

“If at any time the chair makes a mistake and assigns the floor to the wrong person when more than one member rose and addressed the chair promptly, a Point of Order can be raised. Except in a mass meeting, the decision of the chair in assigning the floor can be appealed from by any two members—one making the appeal and the other seconding it” (RONR, [10th ed.], p. 370, l. 23-29).

The passage raises several questions:

(A) May a Point of Order concerning assignment of the floor be raised only when more than one person was trying to obtain the floor?

(B) If the chair makes a mistake in assigning the floor when only one person was trying to obtain it, e.g., when the chair assigns the floor to a person who has already spoken twice to a question, is the only recourse a direct appeal from the chair’s decision?

© Is the decision of the chair in assigning the floor in either or both of the above cases considered a “ruling” of the chair that should be added to the list of rulings subject to appeal in the original posting?

(D) In general, are “decisions of the chair” the same as “rulings by the chair”?

Points of Order and Appeals obviously differ in important respects. I’m trying to get clear on exactly when each is allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding assignment of the floor, the relevant passage is on p. 370:

“If at any time the chair makes a mistake and assigns the floor to the wrong person when more than one member rose and addressed the chair promptly, a Point of Order can be raised. Except in a mass meeting, the decision of the chair in assigning the floor can be appealed from by any two members—one making the appeal and the other seconding it” (RONR, [10th ed.], p. 370, l. 23-29).

The passage raises several questions:

(A) May a Point of Order concerning assignment of the floor be raised only when more than one person was trying to obtain the floor?

(cool.gif If the chair makes a mistake in assigning the floor when only one person was trying to obtain it, e.g., when the chair assigns the floor to a person who has already spoken twice to a question, is the only recourse a direct appeal from the chair’s decision?

© Is the decision of the chair in assigning the floor in either or both of the above cases considered a “ruling” of the chair that should be added to the list of rulings subject to appeal in the original posting?

(D) In general, are “decisions of the chair” the same as “rulings by the chair”?

Points of Order and Appeals obviously differ in important respects. I’m trying to get clear on exactly when each is allowed.

Take a look at RONR (10th ed.), p. 240, ll. 3-7, and p. 247, ll. 19-25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding assignment of the floor, the relevant passage is on p. 370:

“If at any time the chair makes a mistake and assigns the floor to the wrong person when more than one member rose and addressed the chair promptly, a Point of Order can be raised. Except in a mass meeting, the decision of the chair in assigning the floor can be appealed from by any two members—one making the appeal and the other seconding it” (RONR, [10th ed.], p. 370, l. 23-29).

The passage raises several questions:

(A) May a Point of Order concerning assignment of the floor be raised only when more than one person was trying to obtain the floor?

If the chair makes a mistake in assigning the floor when only one person was trying to obtain it, e.g., when the chair assigns the floor to a person who has already spoken twice to a question, is the only recourse a direct appeal from the chair’s decision?

[C] Is the decision of the chair in assigning the floor in either or both of the above cases considered a “ruling” of the chair that should be added to the list of rulings subject to appeal in the original posting?

(D) In general, are “decisions of the chair” the same as “rulings by the chair”?

Points of Order and Appeals obviously differ in important respects. I’m trying to get clear on exactly when each is allowed.

In the case of the chair mistakenly assigning the floor, a Point of Order would be the first option in all cases, as it is in any situation where the chair is felt to have failed to follow the rules in some way. The Appeal would only be used after the chair rules on the Point of Order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the helpful responses.

If I understand correctly, a “decision” by the chair regarding something like assignment of the floor may have a point of order raised against it, which in turn may usually be appealed.

But only an official “ruling” by the chair is subject to direct appeal, and the only such rulings are (1) on a point of order, (2) that something is out of order, and (3) that something is a question of privilege and, if so, that it is urgent enough to interrupt business.

Probably what confused me is that p. 248, l. 21 limits appeals to “rulings,” whereas on p. 247, l. 20-22 the terms “decision” and “ruling” are used almost interchangeably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the helpful responses.

If I understand correctly, a “decision” by the chair regarding something like assignment of the floor may have a point of order raised against it, which in turn may usually be appealed.

But only an official “ruling” by the chair is subject to direct appeal, and the only such rulings are (1) on a point of order, (2) that something is out of order, and (3) that something is a question of privilege and, if so, that it is urgent enough to interrupt business.

Probably what confused me is that p. 248, l. 21 limits appeals to “rulings,” whereas on p. 247, l. 20-22 the terms “decision” and “ruling” are used almost interchangeably.

Yes, rulings, or decisions, are pretty much interchangeable. In fact the motion to appeal a ruling is called To Appeal From the Decision of the Chair.

And ONLY rulings or decisions can be appealed. You can't appeal anything the chair merely talks about, even if it's a stated opinion on proper parliamentary procedure.

For instance, if you raise a Parliamentary Inquiry and ask the chair whether it would be in order if you made such-and-so motion. And suppose the chair says, no, it would immediately be ruled out of order. You can't appeal that because it's just a statement of opinion, not a ruling.

In order to appeal it, you would have to go ahead and make the motion anyway, wait for it to be ruled out of order, and THEN move to Appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard Descriptive Characteristic 2 of Appeal states that any ruling by the presiding officer (with a couple of technical exceptions) may be appealed (RONR [10th ed.], p. 248, l. 21-30). Are the following the only types of ruling that may be appealed?

(1) A ruling on a point of order (whether the point is well taken or not)

(2) A ruling that something is out of order (e.g., that an amendment is not germane), without a point of order having been raised

(3) A ruling that a request or motion is a question of privilege and, if so, whether it is urgent enough to interrupt business (p. 217, l. 7-11)

It is also possible to appeal the chair's order that a disorderly non-member should be removed. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 628, lines 29-34)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...