APPEALS

[Guest Thom]

If a motion was made on the floor, and during discussion, the chair determined that the motion violated the laws of the order as well as local laws and the local by-laws, and did not allow the motion to be voted on, then on the next previous meeting, can a member ask to appeal the chairs descion from the last meeting in which he didnt allow a vote based on violations as stated above.

[George Mervosh]

No.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If a motion was made on the floor, and during discussion, the chair determined that the motion violated the laws of the order as well as local laws and the local by-laws, and did not allow the motion to be voted on, then on the next previous meeting,

can a member ask to appeal the chairs decision from the last meeting

in which he didn't allow a vote based on violations as stated above?

No.

The Appeal, or the Point of Order, should have been timely.

It wasn't moved in time.

So the setting aside, as done by the chair, is history.

If you wish, at some future meeting (technically, a future "session") you are free to move the identical motion, and thus give yourself a "second bite at the apple" by being ready with your Point of Order or your Appeal.

[Trina]

No.

The Appeal, or the Point of Order, should have been timely.

It wasn't moved in time.

So the setting aside, as done by the chair, is history.

If you wish, at some future meeting (technically, a future "session") you are free to move the identical motion, and thus give yourself a "second bite at the apple" by being ready with your Point of Order or your Appeal.

Hasn't the chair's ruling (supported by the assembly, since no appeal was raised) set a precedent, at least with regard to the 'identical motion' being brought up in the future?

[Larry Cisar]

Hasn't the chair's ruling (supported by the assembly, since no appeal was raised) set a precedent, at least with regard to the 'identical motion' being brought up in the future?

Technically, yes. In reality, who remembers what happened at the last meeting let alone anything beyond that?

[Trina]

Technically, yes. In reality, who remembers what happened at the last meeting let alone anything beyond that?

Thank you for the answer, both the technical part, and the real-life part .

[Dan Honemann]

But a single ruling, especially one that has not been subject to an appeal, won't necessarily be persuasive.

[Gary c Tesser]

Hasn't the chair's ruling (supported by the assembly, since no appeal was raised) set a precedent, at least with regard to the 'identical motion' being brought up in the future?

It will, at least, be in the minutes.

[Gary c Tesser]

But a single ruling, especially one that has not been subject to an appeal, won't necessarily be persuasive.

But wait, won't it establish a precedent that would require a 2/3 vote to overturn -- and which therefore, necessarily, is binding on the organizatino?

[George Mervosh]

But wait, won't it establish a precedent that would require a 2/3 vote to overturn -- and which therefore, necessarily, is binding on the organizatino?

I think Dan's saying it wouldn't, which has me confused as well.

[Dan Honemann]

I think Dan's saying it wouldn't, which has me confused as well.

I'm saying it wouldn't because it won't, so that shouldn't be confusing.

[George Mervosh]

I'm saying it wouldn't because it won't, so that shouldn't be confusing.

I know you're trying to keep your word count down, so would it be because the book is referring to more consequential rulings which might have a longer lasting effect on similar types of motions being introduced in the future, or as usual, did I miss the point completely?

[Dan Honemann]

I know you're trying to keep your word count down, so would it be because the book is referring to more consequential rulings which might have a longer lasting effect on similar types of motions being introduced in the future, or as usual, did I miss the point completely?

Let's put it this way -- that sentence on page 294, lines 28-30, is rather confusing (and I don't expect that you will need to put up with it much longer), but suffice it now to say that it does not say or mean that application of a motion to Rescind is the only way to reverse an established precedent. Precedent's are usually overruled (if they are to be overruled) by a subsequent ruling, or decision of the assembly on an appeal from a subsequent ruling, in a similar situation.

[Gary c Tesser]

I know you're trying to keep your word count down, so would it be because the book is referring to more consequential rulings which might have a longer lasting effect on similar types of motions being introduced in the future, or as usual, did I miss the point completely?

That has me confused as well, which at least puts me again in old familiar, companionable company.

[Gary c Tesser]

That has me confused as well, which at least puts me again in old familiar, companionable company.

Yikes! (-- which at least puts me again in old familiar, companionable company.)

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip].

... that sentence on page 294, lines 28-30, is rather confusing (and I don't expect that you will need to put up with it much longer),

O Boy! Will we have a new Official Interpretation? Can I help write it?

[George Mervosh]

Let's put it this way -- that sentence on page 294, lines 28-30, is rather confusing (and I don't expect that you will need to put up with it much longer), but suffice it now to say that it does not say or mean that application of a motion to Rescind is the only way to reverse an established precedent. Precedent's are usually overruled (if they are to be overruled) by a subsequent ruling, or decision of the assembly on an appeal from a subsequent ruling, in a similar situation.

Fair enough, thank you.

[Dan Honemann]

O Boy! Will we have a new Official Interpretation? Can I help write it?

Sure you can help write one. When can we expect your first draft?

[Gary c Tesser]

Sure you can help write one. When can we expect your first draft?

Won't be long. I'm training crocodiles to type, and they're a quick study.

[Trina]

Let's put it this way -- that sentence on page 294, lines 28-30, is rather confusing (and I don't expect that you will need to put up with it much longer), but suffice it now to say that it does not say or mean that application of a motion to Rescind is the only way to reverse an established precedent. Precedent's are usually overruled (if they are to be overruled) by a subsequent ruling, or decision of the assembly on an appeal from a subsequent ruling, in a similar situation.

Thank you (and it's sort of a relief to discover that I'm apparently not alone in having felt a vague uncertainty every time I re-read those lines on p. 294 ).

[Josh Martin]

Let's put it this way -- that sentence on page 294, lines 28-30, is rather confusing (and I don't expect that you will need to put up with it much longer), but suffice it now to say that it does not say or mean that application of a motion to Rescind is the only way to reverse an established precedent. Precedent's are usually overruled (if they are to be overruled) by a subsequent ruling, or decision of the assembly on an appeal from a subsequent ruling, in a similar situation.

But this isn't a "similar situation," this is the exact same motion being made again. It would seem to me that this situation is analogous to the discussion in this thread.

[Dan Honemann]

But this isn't a "similar situation," this is the exact same motion being made again. It would seem to me that this situation is analogous to the discussion in this thread.

I see no conflict between what I said there (in posts 17 and 20) and what I have said here.

[Josh Martin]

I see no conflict between what I said there (in posts 17 and 20) and what I have said here.

I'm having more difficulty reconciling it with what I said in Post 21, which you affirmed in Post 27.

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.

I guess I'm not quite seeing how the situation discussed here (making the same motion again at the next meeting) is distinct from the situation discussed there.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm having more difficulty reconciling it with what I said in Post 21, which you affirmed in Post 27.

I guess I'm not quite seeing how the situation discussed here (making the same motion again at the next meeting) is distinct from the situation discussed there.

The opinion which you expressed in the previous thread (with which I agreed) was 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." The crucial question here is, what does or does not constitute the exact same situation. In my opinion, renewal at a later session of a previously defeated motion does not present the exact same situation.

In the previous thread, the incorrect ruling resulted in the allowance of absent members to vote in a specific instance, but there was nothing inherently wrong with the motion which was thereby adopted. I was (and am) inclined to agree that another point of order at a later session concerning that specific vote would be "inappropriate", as you put it, but it certainly would not be inappropriate to again raise a point of order if absent members were allowed to vote again.

If none of this makes any sense to you, you may chalk up my statement in the prior thread that "Mr. Martin has it quite right" to either my mindlessly playing the odds or presenting you with a birthday present.

[Josh Martin]

The opinion which you expressed in the previous thread (with which I agreed) was 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." The crucial question here is, what does or does not constitute the exact same situation. In my opinion, renewal at a later session of a previously defeated motion does not present the exact same situation.

In the previous thread, the incorrect ruling resulted in the allowance of absent members to vote in a specific instance, but there was nothing inherently wrong with the motion which was thereby adopted. I was (and am) inclined to agree that another point of order at a later session concerning that specific vote would be "inappropriate", as you put it, but it certainly would not be inappropriate to again raise a point of order if absent members were allowed to vote again.

If none of this makes any sense to you, you may chalk up my statement in the prior thread that "Mr. Martin has it quite right" to either my mindlessly playing the odds or presenting you with a birthday present.

This clears it up nicely for me. Thanks.