point of order

[Guest Linda Reed]

How do you raise a point of order?

[George Mervosh]

Immediately upon noticing a violation of the rules, you may rise and address the chair, even interrupting someone speaking if need be and say "Point of Order!"

You will be asked to state your point (state which rule is being violated) and you do so without debating anything. Just state what's wrong. The chair will rule on your point and typically his ruling is subject to appeal

[Weldon Merritt]

How do you raise a point of order?

You rise, say "Point of Order," and when recognized, state the rule you believe is being violated. You don't relly have to know "chapter and verse," but you do need to be able to at least say what you think is being done wrong. The chair will rule your point either "well-taken" or "not well-taken." If the chair rules against you, you can then appeal (by saying "I appeal from the ruling of the chair"). If your appeal is seconded, then (with some exceptions) it is debated, and the assembly will decide who is correct. It requires a majority vote to overturn the chair's ruling.

[Chris Harrison]

You don't relly have to know "chapter and verse",...

If you know roughly what page the "chapter and verse" is on but not the exact page would it be proper to request 15-20 seconds to locate the page so you can give the Chair the citation?

[Chris Harrison]

An example might be that the organization for years has been using absentee voting for their elections even though the bylaws don't provide for it and no law allows it. A new member hears that new officers were elected by mail in ballots and having read the bylaws knows that isn't provided for and knows that RONR says that if it isn't in the bylaws it can't be done, but doesn't know the exact page to back up the claim. Since the organization has been doing this for years chances are that they don't know absentee voting is a no-no (or doesn't care-which is a different problem) and the Chair is likely to rule the Point Not Well Taken absent some concrete cite. Granted there would be some time to look up the cite after the ruling is Appealed but that would take up time that could be saved if the Chair would have allowed the 20 or so seconds to look up the cite.

[jstackpo]

Perhaps the chair would rather NOT know the citation (as it might contradict his ruling) ...

[Chris Harrison]

Perhaps the chair would rather NOT know the citation (as it might contradict his ruling) ...

Quite possible. I guess that is what Appeals are for.

[hmtcastle]

An example might be . . .

That certainly seems reasonable (and, having second thoughts, I deleted my post, though apparently not soon enough).

[Chris Harrison]

That certainly seems reasonable (and, having second thoughts, I deleted my post, though apparently not soon enough).

No problem. My reply can stand on its own and so I got rid of the quote.