Officer making a motion

[Guest Wray]

Can the President make a motion?  What about other officers?

[jstackpo]

If they are members of the association, they can make motions, just like any other member.

 

The President, when presiding over a meeting, probably shouldn't be making motions (there are exceptions to that in special situations) but there is no RONR rule forbidding him/her from doing so. 

[Transpower]

The Chair of a meeting may assume a motion.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, ll. 35-36.  My friend George Mervosh once used this at a meeting of parliamentarians....

[Dan Honemann]

The Chair of a meeting may assume a motion.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, ll. 35-36.  My friend George Mervosh once used this at a meeting of parliamentarians....

 

Well, that passage refers to the chair assuming a motion to do something after a member has objected to a request for unanimous consent to do it, which I doubt is the sort of thing that Guest Wray has in mind.

 

There are, of course, a few (actually, just a very few) situations in which the chair may assume a motion, and I have no doubt but that, when your friend and mine did so, it was in one of them.  

[Guest Curious]

Can the President make a motion?  What about other officers?

 

Whichever member is presiding over the meeting (usually the president but sometimes not), has a duty of impartiality and should not make motions, enter debate, or vote (unless by ballot or to break a tie). This duty abates in committees and small boards that are accustomed to letting the chair participate as fully as any other member.

[Gödel Fan]

>(unless by ballot or to break a tie)

 

Quibble:  I believe this should say unless by ballot or if that vote would be decisive, which is broader than to break a tie.  

[Richard Brown]

Well, actually RONR says that the chair may vote whenever his vote will affect the result.  For  example, he can vote to create a tie as well as to break a tie and he can vote to create a 2/3 vote as well as to defeat one.  See pages 53 and 406 for more.

 

As has already been pointed out, he can always vote when the vote is by ballot.

 

See also FAQ # 1:  http://robertsrules.com/faq.html#1

[Gary Novosielski]

"affect the result"

"be decisive"

 

A distinction without a difference?

[Gödel Fan]

I think so, since no one else is in such a position - a member parliamentarian can't, for instance, come riding in and trump the chair after the chair creates a tie (or, at least, shouldn't, and won't last long as parliamentarian if he does).  

[Guest Curious]

>(unless by ballot or to break a tie)

 

Quibble:  I believe this should say unless by ballot or if that vote would be decisive, which is broader than to break a tie.  

 

Quibble well taken and thanks for reminding us that the vote can be used either way!

[Richard Brown]

I think so, since no one else is in such a position - a member parliamentarian can't, for instance, come riding in and trump the chair after the chair creates a tie (or, at least, shouldn't, and won't last long as parliamentarian if he does).  

I agree that the member parliamentarian can't come riding in and trump the chair, but only because the chair votes only after everyone else has voted and it's too late for the parliamentarian to vote (if he insists on voting) once the chair has voted.

 

But as to whether he won't last long as a parliamentarian if he casts a vote (at least if he casts it along with everyone else), I rather suspect that the members in many organizations wouldn't be especially upset at their member parliamentarian voting despite the provisions in RONR.  If faced with the choice, they might well prefer to let their member parliamentarian vote like everyone else rather than to have him refuse to serve as parliamentarian.  (But, if he tries to vote after the chair has voted, that's a different matter!)

 

The organization can also do as my local NAP unit has done and adopt a special rule of order that lets its member parliamentarian participate to the same extent as the other members, as suggested by Greg Goodwiller several years ago in post # 6 in this thread: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/13791-small-board-member-as-parliamentarian/

 

I've seen other organizations do the same thing. 

 

Now, how did we get off on parliamentarians?  Oh, yeah:  someone said something about the parliamentarian riding in to trump the chair. . . .  

[Gödel Fan]

The pending question was on whether there's a difference between "except when decisive" and "except when the vote will affect the result."  

 

Your experiences with organizations differ from mine.  My appointment as member parliamentarian actually got a lot of people to buy and read RONR In Brief - in hopes of finding me doing something wrong.  It became an obsession with many - it annoyed them that I (outside the meeting) told the Chair he was wrong about things like, oh, I don't know, holding a special meeting without notice in order to spend money on gerbil balls...

 

The bylaws committee is now talking about bringing a proposal to create a President position separate from the Chief's office.  I would run for that, I think.  

 

I'm surprised about the NAP unit adopting that rule of order.  The idea of a parliamentarian not voting or debating in order to remain impartial strikes me as a good one.  

[Josh Martin]

I agree that the member parliamentarian can't come riding in and trump the chair, but only because the chair votes only after everyone else has voted and it's too late for the parliamentarian to vote (if he insists on voting) once the chair has voted.

 

But as to whether he won't last long as a parliamentarian if he casts a vote (at least if he casts it along with everyone else), I rather suspect that the members in many organizations wouldn't be especially upset at their member parliamentarian voting despite the provisions in RONR.  If faced with the choice, they might well prefer to let their member parliamentarian vote like everyone else rather than to have him refuse to serve as parliamentarian.  (But, if he tries to vote after the chair has voted, that's a different matter!)

 

The organization can also do as my local NAP unit has done and adopt a special rule of order that lets its member parliamentarian participate to the same extent as the other members, as suggested by Greg Goodwiller several years ago in post # 6 in this thread: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/13791-small-board-member-as-parliamentarian/

 

I've seen other organizations do the same thing. 

 

Alternately, the chair could ask advice from an "experienced member" as needed, rather than appointing a formal parliamentarian, as suggested by me in Post #13 of that thread.

 

"Before rendering his decision, the chair can consult the parliamentarian, if there is one. The chair can also request the advice of experienced members, but no one has the right to express such opinions in the meeting unless requested to do so by the chair." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 254)

[Richard Brown]

Alternately, the chair could ask advice from an "experienced member" as needed, rather than appointing a formal parliamentarian, as suggested by me in Post #13 of that thread.

 

"Before rendering his decision, the chair can consult the parliamentarian, if there is one. The chair can also request the advice of experienced members, but no one has the right to express such opinions in the meeting unless requested to do so by the chair." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 254)

I agree... and almost mentioned that as an alternative in my comment.  I think it is a very viable option for many organizations.  I believe Dan Honemann also mentioned that as an alternative in his comments at the end of that thread.