Answer to Mind Bender for June 2009:

All references are to RONR 10th ed.

Question:

According to our bylaws, we are to follow Robert's Rules. At our annual convention, after the credentials committee report, the convention standing rules were submitted to the assembly for adoption. A member objected to several of the standing rules and requested that a separate vote be taken on them. The chair ruled against the member and said that the convention rules must be voted on as a single document and denied the member's request to vote separately on those convention rules objected to. The member appealed from the decision of the chair and the chair put the appeal to a vote of the assembly, which sided with the chair's ruling. Was this correct?

=================================================

Answer:

The handling of the convention standing rules was not in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, the parliamentary authority named in the bylaws. Here is what Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 10th edition, says on p. 600:

"After debate or amendment (if any), a single vote normally is taken on the complete body of rules. It should be understood that seriatim consideration is not applicable because, although the rules may be organized to have the appearance of being a single document, they are, in fact, a group of separate main motions being offered by the committee under one enacting motion. By the demand of a voting member of the convention, a separate vote can be required on any individual rule (see p. 265), although such a demand is advisable only if a serious matter appears to be at stake. If such a demand is made, the remainder of the rules are acted on first, and then those separated out are acted on individually."

Also, refer to RONR p. 265:

"MOTIONS THAT MUST BE DIVIDED ON DEMAND. Sometimes a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects is offered in one motion. In such a case, one or more of the several resolutions must receive separate consideration and vote at the request of a single member, and the motion for Division of a Question is not used. Such a demand...can be made even when another has the floor, as in, 'Mr. President, I call for a separate vote on Resolution No. 3.'"

The chair erred in submitting this to a vote of the members as there clearly cannot be two reasonable opinions on this issue. Robert's Rules is clear - a single member can demand that one or more convention standing rules be pulled out and placed separately before the assembly for debate, amendment, and vote apart from the remainder of the convention standing rules. When the chair makes procedural errors like this and then submits the erroneous ruling to the assembly for a decision, this puts the assembly in an awkward position. Since the assembly relies on the expertise and knowledge of the chair (in consultation with a parliamentarian who is presumed to be an expert in parliamentary law), the tendency is to uphold the decisions of the chair.

Refer to RONR p. 433:

"The presiding officer of an assembly - especially of a large one - should be chosen principally for the ability to preside. This person should be well versed in parliamentary law and should be thoroughly familiar with the bylaws and other rules of the organization - even if he or she is to have the assistance of a parliamentarian."

Thus, it is the duty of the chair and the parliamentarian to know and uphold the rules; when they do not it may, unfortunately, cast a bad light on the member who rightly insists that the rules be followed by raising numerous Points of Order and Appeals from the Decision of the Chair. Often an assembly has little patience for a member it perceives as being in the wrong even though, in reality, it is the presiding officer and parliamentarian who are in the wrong when they enlist the support of the assembly in upholding a clearly erroneous ruling.

Refer to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 10th edition