The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1909-05-29
REPLY TO !. QUESTIONS |j.||: !.
Parliamentary LAW
Appealing From and Overriding
Decision Not a Reflection Upon
- Presiding Officer.

We have been asked by a member
of the Carpenters Union to solve
parliamentary tangle. The questions
propounded to us need not be here re-
cited, as their import will fully ap-
pear in the following hypothetical case
which constitutes our reply:
Mr., A is in the chair as presiding
officer. Mr.. B. makes motion which
! is duly seconded, that some action be
taken which would involve a clear de-
| parture from the plain letter of the
constitution or bylaws. The chair
for the time being entertains the mo-
ton. Pending discussion on the mo-
ton Mr.. c.. offers a motion which he
calls an amendment, setting forth the
constitutional conflict involved in the
motion, but alleging the desirability
| Of the contemplated action, and that
the proper authorities be asked to
| grant dispensation to do it notwith-
standing the constitutional proviso.
The chair entertained the amendment
also.
The members being ready for the
question the vote was first taken on
the amendment and it was declared
lost. The original motion was then
put and 1t also was declared lost.
A little time subsequent, but at the
same, meeting, a member voting with
the majority moved that the vote by
| which the original motion was defeat
ed be reconsidered The chair de-
slined to entertain this motion. An
appeal was taken from the decision
and the chair was not sustained by
the membership.
One Of the questions which the. La
Dor World is called upon to answer
is: How should the chair then pro-
ceed?'
ANSWER in such a
case, when the decision Of a chair is
overruled by the members on appeal
the chair should announce: 1.-THE de-
cision Of the chair is not sustained
| and he recedes from his ruling; the
| motion to reconsider Is declared to be
in order; are you ready for the ques-
| tion?'
The business should then proceed as
though the chair had entertained the
! motion in the first instance. It con-
| stitutes no reflection whatever upon
the ability Of the presiding officer to
| have his decision overruled by the
! assembly.
The second question propounded to
| us is: who was right-the chair or
| the assembly? ANSWER-Other
| things being equal we think the chair
should have entertained the motion
| to reconsider.
Third question-Was the proceeding
as whole regular? :.
! ANSWER-Oh, yes; measurably So
The better mode of procedure when
| the constitution stands in the way Of
some desired action, and such action
is one for Which dispensation can
be granted-is to set. the entire mat
tive series of resolutions preceded by
the necessary preambles, and act upon
the series as if they constituted but
one resolution, somewhat in the fol-
lowing form:
WHEREAS Estate what you want
and the inducements and reasons
therefor) and
WHEREAS-(Give the section or ar
ticle Of constitution Or bylaws that
stand in the way)
THEREFORE RESOLVED, That (in-
sert whatever you wish done.)
FURTHER RESOLVED, That Un-
struct the proper officers about send
ing for dispensation.)
+ However, the manner in which the
organization proceeded would do wei;
enough, and if the members wanted
the action taken, they should have vot-
ed for the amendment and carried it,;
then for the original motion as amend
ed and carried that, and the entire
subject would have been disposed of.
But they had perfect right to do
as they did. Vote down both the
amendment and the original motion.
and their right to subsequently recon-
slider such action is unquestionable,