"I challenge the chair". This phrase is sometimes used by members who disagree with the Chair on a procedural matter. The "challenge" process has negative connotations and is often misused. If it is handled poorly, members get frustrated and the Chair gets defensive or confused. How should you deal with "a challenge to the Chair", without turning your meetings into chaotic events, and without needing to retain a parliamentary expert or ... a security guard?

First, the terminology: The correct procedure is not to "challenge the Chair" (which is aggressive and negative), but to "appeal the decision of the Chair". Note that it is the decision, and not the officer, that is subject to an appeal (shift from the person to the procedural ruling). The word "appeal" is softer (and more "appealing") than "challenge".

Under parliamentary procedure, an appeal is a procedure that allows members who disagree with the Chair's ruling to force a vote on it. For example, if the Chair declares that an amendment is not related to a motion and will therefore not be permitted, a member can say: "I appeal the decision of the Chair". Depending on the group's procedural guide, an appeal may require a seconder.

The Chair should respond as follows: "The ruling that the amendment is not in order is appealed. The reason for the ruling is ___, Is there any discussion on whether this ruling is correct?" The person who initiated the appeal can speak against the ruling, and others can also enter this discussion. Hopefully this discussion does not take too long. You don't want the focus of your meeting to be on procedural matters. There are substantive issues to be addressed, and they should consume most of the time.

At the end of this limited discussion, the Chair puts the appeal to a vote: "We will now vote on the appeal. The ruling of the Chair was that the amendment is not in order because it is not related to the motion. Those who believe this ruling is correct raise your hands. Thank you. Hands down please. Those who believe the ruling is incorrect raise your hands. Thank you. Hands down please."

After the vote, the Chair announces the result: "The ruling has been upheld and the amendment will not be considered". Or: "The ruling has been reversed, and the amendment will now be considered". It should be noted that a majority vote against the Chair's ruling is required to reverse it. This means that a tie vote sustains the ruling.

A common misconception is that, if a ruling is appealed, the presiding officer must vacate the Chair, so someone else can facilitate the vote on the ruling. Another misconception is that - if the Chair's ruling is reversed - the individual in question must resign as Chair. Books on parliamentary procedure do not support either one of these notions. But if your Bylaws or governing statute validate them (and I don't know why they would) then you must follow your own governing documents.

Some Chairs mistakenly take an appeal as a personal attack. I once saw a Chair getting so incensed when his ruling was overturned, that he left the meeting in disgust and then quit the organization. None of this is necessary. It is the ruling, and not the individual Chair, that is being questioned. The focus under parliamentary procedure is generally on issues, not people. The Chair should park his or her ego at the door and run the meeting in a fair and democratic fashion. He or she might lessen the likelihood of appeals by running a good meeting and by being guided by the good of the organization.