Talk:Appeal (motion)

Parliamentary Procedure Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Parliamentary ProcedureWikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureTemplate:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureParliamentary Procedure articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Example Discussion[edit]

The examples in the article are not cited so their origin is unknown. Appeals (under RONR) are appeals of rulings, not appeals of the chair' opinion. When the chair responds to a parliamentary inquiry, or a request for information, that response is not subject to an appeal, because the response is considered an opinion. The following examples from the article may be misleading:

Example 1[edit]

Member B: "Mr. Chairman, what vote adopts adjournment?" Chair: "Majority vote." Member B: "I appeal from your decision; it needs a two-thirds vote." Chair: "The appeal cannot be entertained; the rule says majority."

This example above is a parliamentary inquiry from Member B. The Chair's first response is an opinion, not a ruling. Therefore the chair's second response to the members appeal should be the appeal is out of order because there has been no ruling. One can only appeal a ruling and the Chair has not made a ruling.

Example 2[edit]

Member C: "Madam Chairman, how many delegates can we elect?" Chair: "Article nine states: 'nine delegates shall be elected." Member C: "Madam Chairman, I move that we elect eleven instead." Chair: "The motion is out of order; it violates the bylaw." Member C: "Madam Chairman, I appeal from your ruling." Chair: "The appeal is out of order; the bylaw is inviolable."

The above is a better example. The Chair's first response is to a point of information. That is not appealable. The chair's second response is a ruling "The motion is out of order." That is a appealable.

Example 3[edit]

Member D: "Madam Chairman, is the motion to postpone debatable?" Chair: "Yes." Member D: "I appeal from your decision; it is not debatable." Chair: "The appeal is out of order; the rule says it is."

This is a parliamentary inquiry about a subsidiary motion. The Chairs first response is not appealable, not because there is a clear rule showing that postpone is debatable (or allows limited debate) but the appeal is out of order because the chair has not yet made a ruling.

Example 4[edit]

Member E: "Mr. Chairman, how many months has the year?" Chair: "Twelve." Member E: "I appeal from your ruling; it has eleven months." Chair (calmly, patiently): "The appeal is out of order. The calendar says twelve months."

Again, the Chair's first response is a response to a point of information. The chair should rule the appeal to be out of order because one cannot appeal an opinion, not because it is a frivolous appeal.

Parlirules (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation Discussion[edit]

DEM is not a standard short name for Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Procedure; Please see discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Parliamentary_Procedure#Standard Abbreviations Parlirules (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]