Formal meetings, whether for a non-profit board or a local government body, rely on parliamentary procedure to manage the process. Frameworks like Robert’s Rules of Order provide a common set of rules to ensure discussions are organized and fair for all participants. These established guidelines are designed to uphold the rights of the majority while protecting the voice of the minority and ensuring only one topic is discussed at a time. The system includes specific tools members can use to keep the proceedings on track.
Defining the Point of Order
The Point of Order is a procedural tool used by a member to demand that the presiding officer enforce the assembly’s rules of order. Its purpose is to immediately call attention to an alleged breach of those rules, which could include a violation of the organization’s bylaws, the adopted parliamentary authority, or the meeting’s own standing rules. This mechanism possesses high privilege, meaning it can interrupt a speaker who has the floor because the procedural integrity of the meeting takes precedence over the ongoing debate. When a member invokes this point, they are essentially asking the chair to pause all other business and make an immediate ruling on whether a rule has been broken. If the chair agrees, the point is declared “sustained,” and the chair acts to correct the violation. If the chair disagrees that a rule was broken, the point is “overruled,” and the meeting returns to its previous business.
Recognizing Situations That Require a Point of Order
A Point of Order is appropriate whenever a member observes any deviation from the adopted meeting rules, not just when a motion is being debated. The procedural error must be a clear violation of a governing rule rather than a simple disagreement with the direction of the discussion.
Violation of the Meeting’s Agenda or Order of Business
A meeting’s agenda, or order of business, dictates the specific sequence in which topics and motions must be addressed. A violation occurs if a member attempts to introduce a main motion during a time reserved exclusively for committee reports or unfinished business. A member may also raise a Point of Order if the chair allows the discussion of new business before completing all items of old business, as specified in the established agenda.
Improper Voting Procedures
Ensuring that votes are counted accurately and conducted according to the rules is a primary use of the Point of Order. For example, if the chair announces the passage of a motion to limit debate with a simple majority vote, a member should immediately rise to a Point of Order. This is because standard parliamentary rules require a two-thirds vote for motions that limit debate. Other violations involve allowing non-members to cast votes or incorrectly tallying a count, which directly impacts the legitimacy of the assembly’s decision.
Breach of Decorum or Speaking Rules
Rules governing debate are intended to maintain a professional and respectful environment, and a breach warrants immediate correction. A Point of Order is appropriate if a member engages in personal attacks against another member rather than confining their remarks to the merits of the pending motion. It is also used if a member violates established speaking limits, such as speaking a second time before others have spoken once. A member who speaks without first being recognized by the chair is also subject to this point.
Violation of Bylaws or Governing Documents
The highest authority for any organization is typically its bylaws or constitution, and any action taken in conflict with these documents is void. A member should raise a Point of Order if a proposed motion attempts to authorize an action explicitly forbidden by the organization’s founding documents. For example, if the bylaws state that the board must have seven members, and a motion is made to reduce the board to five members, that motion is out of order because it violates the established governing document.
The Procedure for Raising the Point
The act of raising a Point of Order is unique because it is one of the few motions that does not require a member to wait for recognition from the chair. A member who perceives a rule violation must stand and immediately address the presiding officer using the standard phrase, “Mr./Madam Chair, I rise to a Point of Order.” This immediate action is necessary because a Point of Order must be raised at the exact time the alleged violation occurs to be valid. The member does not need a second from another member to raise the point because they are simply calling attention to an existing rule, not introducing new business. Once the chair acknowledges the member, they must concisely state the specific rule that has been violated and the nature of the breach.
The Role of the Presiding Officer
Upon hearing a Point of Order, the presiding officer must immediately interrupt the proceedings and determine the validity of the member’s claim. The chair’s primary responsibility is to make a ruling on the procedural matter. The Point of Order itself is not debatable, meaning no other member may speak on whether they agree or disagree with the point being raised. The chair must rule either to sustain the point or to overrule it. If the chair sustains the point, they must take corrective action, such as ruling a motion out of order or admonishing a speaker for a breach of decorum. If a member disagrees with the chair’s ruling, they have the right to challenge it by appealing the decision to the assembly.
Key Distinctions from Other Procedural Motions
The Point of Order is frequently confused with other procedural motions that sound similar but serve entirely different functions. A Point of Information is merely a request for factual information or clarification regarding the pending business. When a member uses a Point of Information, they are not claiming a rule has been broken but rather asking the speaker a question to better understand the issue. Similarly, a Parliamentary Inquiry is a question directed to the chair asking about the rules or how to accomplish a specific procedural result. Unlike a Point of Order, neither a Point of Information nor a Parliamentary Inquiry claims that a rule has been violated, and they generally cannot interrupt a speaker. Misusing the Point of Order for simple questions or debate points unnecessarily halts the meeting.