Re: [ga] Point of Order

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 11:22 PM 08/05/02 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>The fact of the matter is that there is a reasoned point of order on the
>table. I would personally like to hear from our chair whether it is in 
>order or whether the discussion on the motion can proceed.

I'd like to make some points about a Point of Order.

First, I couldn't find any mention of what a Point
of Order is, insofar as it relates to the GA. Is such
a rule written down somewhere, even by a record of
past consensus? If not, then isn't a Point of Order
a dev/nullity?

Second, assuming that the minimalist rules of order
of the GA are augmented through rough consensus by
occasional looking for guidance from, for example,
Robert's Rules of Order, then a Point of Order is
*not* debatable and is ruled on forthwith by the
Chair (the Chair may put it to a vote). In the case
of the Chair making a ruling it can be appealed (which
must be done forthwith and requires a second) and it
then goes to a vote to support the Chair's ruling,
or not.

Third, Robert's Rules of Order almost always breaks
if you selectively use some of its rules and not others.

Fourth, if we aren't using Robert's, or others', rules,
it seems to me a Point of Order may be safely ignored.
If OTOH we are, even roughly, using Robert's Rules, then
I can't make points about Points of Order and this email
may be safely ignored. -g

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html