Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lgwdnbdgr
These two statements, as presented, contradict each other. Under Robert, the chair cannot unilaterally evict someone who has the right to be there.

Excuse me, but I was there. The Chairman of the Credentials Committe had the floor and was reciting the report of that committee. The disruptor was trying to prevent that report from being heard. Standing up and/or yelling "point of order" does not give one the floor.

27 posted on 03/30/2008 6:00:40 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Paleo Conservative

Paleo Conservatice,

You must not be well versed in Robert’s Rules. A “Point of Order” notifies the speaker that an infraction of the rules has taken place and can interrupt anyone speaking, does not need a second and does not need a vote. The Chairman is then required to address the infraction / the person who called for “Point of Order”.


29 posted on 03/30/2008 10:33:21 PM PDT by jinxspinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Paleo Conservative
Excuse me, but I was there. The Chairman of the Credentials Committe had the floor and was reciting the report of that committee. The disruptor was trying to prevent that report from being heard. Standing up and/or yelling "point of order" does not give one the floor.

Nobody is challenging your presence, nor your version of events. But, based on your version of events, the chairman was clearly in the wrong. He is required to recognize the member raising a point of order and is NOT permitted to unilaterally eject a member. The fiasco was created due to poor presiding and could have easily been avoided.

43 posted on 03/31/2008 10:46:08 PM PDT by lgwdnbdgr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson