Parliamentarian Raising a Point of Order

[Guest Gretchen]

If after notifying the chair of a serious infraction of the rules and the chair refuse to do anything, can the parliamentarian then raise a point of order in the meeting and subsequently appeal the decision of the chair.  Is this appropriate?

[George Mervosh]

9 minutes ago, Guest Gretchen said:

If after notifying the chair of a serious infraction of the rules and the chair refuse to do anything, can the parliamentarian then raise a point of order in the meeting and subsequently appeal the decision of the chair.  Is this appropriate?

No, it's not appropriate.

"A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion. "  RONR (11th ed.), p. 467

If the chair ignoring the parliamentarian's advice becomes a habit, he should resign.

If this parliamentarian is not a member of the assembly he  cannot raise a point of order or appeal.

Edited February 27, 2018 at 06:23 PM by George Mervosh

[J. J.]

4 hours ago, Guest Gretchen said:

If after notifying the chair of a serious infraction of the rules and the chair refuse to do anything, can the parliamentarian then raise a point of order in the meeting and subsequently appeal the decision of the chair.  Is this appropriate?

No, but the parliamentarian could resign at the end of the meeting.  That would be appropriate. 

[Setemu]

On 2/27/2018 at 1:23 PM, George Mervosh said:

If this parliamentarian is not a member of the assembly he  cannot raise a point of order or appeal.

Am I correct to assume, then, this also means that if the parliamentarian /is/ a member of the assembly s/he can raise a point of order or appeal?  It seems that way given the member begins with all rights granted to any member of the assembly and then is restricted, once taking the position of parliamentarian, to only from making motions and debating, and to only voting during ballot vote. That would seem to leave all other member rights of the member-parliamentarian in place.

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, Setemu said:

It seems that way given the member begins with all rights granted to any member of the assembly and then is restricted, once taking the position of parliamentarian, to only from making motions and debating, and to only voting during ballot vote.

A point of order is a motion, and raising a point of order is making a motion.  

[Benjamin Geiger]

Of course that raises the question of why any member of any organization would willingly take the role of parliamentarian.

[Josh Martin]

20 minutes ago, Setemu said:

Am I correct to assume, then, this also means that if the parliamentarian /is/ a member of the assembly s/he can raise a point of order or appeal?  It seems that way given the member begins with all rights granted to any member of the assembly and then is restricted, once taking the position of parliamentarian, to only from making motions and debating, and to only voting during ballot vote. That would seem to leave all other member rights of the member-parliamentarian in place.

A member parliamentarian retains all of the rights of membership, but he refrains from exercising certain rights. One of those rights he refrains from exercising is to make motions. Point of Order and Appeal are motions.

If the member wishes to raise a Point of Order or Appeal, he is free to do so, but he should also tender his resignation as Parliamentarian.

Edited March 5, 2018 at 03:04 PM by Josh Martin

[Setemu]

7 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

A point of order is a motion, and raising a point of order is making a motion.  

Huh. I see that it is listed under "Incidental Motions" in the RONR, but it just seemed to me to be categorically different than all other motions given it is strictly about a breach of rules, and considering it didn't seem to fall under any motion listed on, p. T4. That said, I can see how raising a point of order might be strategically advantageous for a particular side of debate on the pending question.

[George Mervosh]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Of course that raises the question of why any member of any organization would willingly take the role of parliamentarian.

Getting home in time to watch the start of Monday Night Football versus getting home for the start of the 11:00 news?

Edited March 5, 2018 at 03:50 PM by George Mervosh

[Richard Brown]

An organization that wishes to let a member parliamentarian serve without giving up the rights specified in RONR may adopt a special rule of order to that effect.

My local NAP unit has adopted such a special rule of order because so many of the most knowledgeable members were unwilling to give up those rights in order to serve as Parliamentarian.

Another  "workaround" is to not have an official member parliamentarian, but rather for the chair to call upon a "knowledgeable" or "experienced" member for parliamentary advice as permitted by RONR on page 254 at lines 3 - 7.

Edited March 5, 2018 at 03:48 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Benjamin Geiger]

Our bylaws demand that the chair appoint a member parliamentarian, and have no workaround for allowing the parliamentarian to participate. (This subject has come up in this very forum, in fact.) I've made it clear to the chair that I will refuse to accept the role of parliamentarian in the absence of such a special rule of order, because the very reason I joined was to have a say in my representation.

It should also be noted that our bylaws also contain a rule requiring a 2/3 vote in order to bring up new business:

Quote

7.2.3   New Business Defined: The membership of the HCDEC may vote on a matter if:
7.2.3.1   The appropriate HCDEC existing committee has discussed and voted to bring the matter before the HCDEC membership at its next regularly scheduled meeting; or
7.2.3.2   Two thirds (2/3) of those present and voting vote to hear the issue; or
7.2.3.3   The HCDEC position must be sent to the State Executive Committee or the Central Committee of the Florida Democratic Party as an expression of the HCDEC’s opinion before the next regularly scheduled meeting of the HCDEC.  Only the State Committeewoman, State Committeeman, Chairperson or Vice Chairpersons may make the motion for the subject matter brought before the HCDEC under this provision.

So, as I understand things, I'd need to get a 2/3 vote in two consecutive meetings, once to introduce the special rule of order, and once to pass it.

EDIT: The relevant portion of our bylaws:

Quote

9   Parliamentarian and Parliamentary Authority:
9.1   The Chairperson shall appoint one (1) member of the HCDEC to serve as Parliamentarian of the HCDEC.  The Parliamentarian shall serve at the pleasure of the Chairperson.
9.2   Parliamentary Authority: The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the HCDEC in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Charter and Bylaws of the Florida Democratic Party and the Bylaws of the HCDEC.

EDIT²: This got off on more of a tangent than I intended. I apologize for derailing.

Edited March 5, 2018 at 06:31 PM by Benjamin Geiger

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Setemu said:

and considering it didn't seem to fall under any motion listed on, p. T4.

That is because the chart on tinted pages 4-5 only lists main, subsidiary, and privileged motions. The chart on those pages displays how these motions fit into the order of precedence. Incidental motions do not fit neatly into such a chart.

4 hours ago, Setemu said:

That said, I can see how raising a point of order might be strategically advantageous for a particular side of debate on the pending question.

This has nothing to do whether a Point of Order is a motion.

45 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

So, as I understand things, I'd need to get a 2/3 vote in two consecutive meetings, once to introduce the special rule of order, and once to pass it.

I suggest posting this as a new topic.

[Richard Brown]

58 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

So, as I understand things, I'd need to get a 2/3 vote in two consecutive meetings, once to introduce the special rule of order, and once to pass it.

 

13 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I suggest posting this as a new topic.

I agree.

 

[Setemu]

On 3/5/2018 at 10:05 AM, Setemu said:

 I can see how raising a point of order might be strategically advantageous for a particular side of debate on the pending question.

 

20 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

This has nothing to do whether a Point of Order is a motion.

Let me try to clarify my thinking, fist by citing the passage spurring my question:

"A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote" (p. 467, emphasis added).

If the reason the member-parliamentarian has a duty not to make motions is for the sake of maintaining a position of impartiality, then why would this include the duty to refrain from making a Point of Order (other than it is technically a motion--which seem to lead to a tautology), considering a Point of Order is merely regarding a matter of a breach of rules, which moreover is a subject matter falling squarely within the primary purview of the the parliamentarian, instead of being about any partiality to a pending question before the assembly? One answer is that because raising a Point of Order can be advantageous for a particular side of debate on the pending question, and therefore the member-parliamentarian raising a Point of Order can be seen to be partial in raising a Point of Order on a pending question. However, if this is the case--that the reasoning behind refraining from making a Point of Order is to maintain impartiality, as is the reason provided by RONR--it seems unreasonable to expect the member-parliamentarian to be given the benefit of the doubt by the chair or the assembly when the parliamentarian points to "any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or otherwise do harm" (RONR, 466), given that doing so could indicate some partiality to the pending question. If the member-parliamentarian does have the benefit of the doubt to remain impartial on questions of order, then why not allow him/her to be able to raise a point of order except, again, for the seemingly tautological reasoning that a Point of Order is a motion.

Edited March 6, 2018 at 03:19 PM by Setemu
added underlined sentence

[Josh Martin]

12 minutes ago, Setemu said:

If the reason the member-parliamentarian has a duty not to make motions is for the sake of maintaining a position of impartiality, then why would this include the duty to refrain from making a Point of Order (other than it is technically a motion--which seem to lead to a tautology), considering a Point of Order is merely regarding a matter of a breach of rules, which moreover is a subject matter falling squarely within the primary purview of the the parliamentarian, instead of being about any partiality to a pending question before the assembly?

Because the parliamentarian’s role is to advise the chair. The parliamentarian should not address the assembly directly unless asked to do so. If the chair will not listen to the parliamentarian, his responsibility is to either let it go, or if the issue is important enough, resign.

[DR Stockley]

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, I, as Judge Advocate (Parliamentarian), would under RONR not be permitted to rise to a point of order, make any motions, second any motions or even engage in any discussions or debate on any motions.  I would be restricted to merely awaiting for the Commander (Chair) to consult if he is unclear about any of the National, State or Post By-Laws and/or RONR.  If that is correct and the presiding officer isn't well versed in the rules or is only acquainted with them as our average member, there is little point in having a parliamentarian.  Frankly, it is doubtful that many of our members are willing to familiarize themselves with RONR recognize when there is a point of order to be raised. 

[jstackpo]

1 hour ago, DR Stockley said:

 I would be restricted to merely awaiting for the Commander (Chair) to consult if he is unclear about any of the National, State or Post By-Laws and/or RONR.

Well, you can pass the chair notes or other surreptitious communications if he/she is is going (or is about to go) astray.  But you should probably work some system out with the chair ahead of time.

Easter is coming; give him/her a gift of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

It might be just what the parliamentarian ordered. 

[DR Stockley]

He advised me that he already has the abbreviated version.  Alas!  It is not always easy to get him or the Jr & Sr Vices to read and understand as much about parliamentary procedures as I'd like.  Frankly, ex-military officers and sergeants sometimes have problems understanding such things.  They're too use to giving orders without parliamentary procedures getting in the way.    

[DR Stockley]

Apparently, I'll have to resign my office of Post Judge Advocate since it prohibits me from exercising my rights as a member, which I deem more useful to the organization.  Of course, even as just a regular member my knowledge of the National & Post By-Laws coupled with my limited knowledge of RONR will most likely come in useful.  Frankly, we've probably become a bit too lax in procedure over the years so I suppose the switch from Demeter's to Robert's will force us to get back on the relatively straight and narrow.

[jstackpo]

Be gentle on your chair. Don't raise a host of relatively minor parliamentary missteps (like discussing unseconded motions or folks using "table" when postpone is the clear intent) until your chair learns how to avoid big ones that cut into members rights, &c.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, DR Stockley said:

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, I, as Judge Advocate (Parliamentarian), would under RONR not be permitted to rise to a point of order, make any motions, second any motions or even engage in any discussions or debate on any motions.  I would be restricted to merely awaiting for the Commander (Chair) to consult if he is unclear about any of the National, State or Post By-Laws and/or RONR.  If that is correct and the presiding officer isn't well versed in the rules or is only acquainted with them as our average member, there is little point in having a parliamentarian.  Frankly, it is doubtful that many of our members are willing to familiarize themselves with RONR recognize when there is a point of order to be raised. 

No, you are not required to wait for him to consult you. You can and should point out errors yourself - directly to the chair. If the chair does not listen to you, however, you have no further recourse. So far as RONR is concerned, the role of the parliamentarian is to advise the chair, not to serve as a “check” on the chair.

Although since you have the title of “Judge Advocate,” perhaps your organization’s rules define your role differently.

[Richard Brown]

7 hours ago, DR Stockley said:

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, I, as Judge Advocate (Parliamentarian), would under RONR not be permitted to rise to a point of order, make any motions, second any motions or even engage in any discussions or debate on any motions.  I would be restricted to merely awaiting for the Commander (Chair) to consult if he is unclear about any of the National, State or Post By-Laws and/or RONR.  If that is correct and the presiding officer isn't well versed in the rules or is only acquainted with them as our average member, there is little point in having a parliamentarian.  Frankly, it is doubtful that many of our members are willing to familiarize themselves with RONR recognize when there is a point of order to be raised. 

Dr. Stockley, I understand your frustration.  There are some workarounds, however, as i pointed out in the following post which I made back on March 5:

On 3/5/2018 at 9:47 AM, Richard Brown said:

An organization that wishes to let a member parliamentarian serve without giving up the rights specified in RONR may adopt a special rule of order to that effect.

My local NAP unit has adopted such a special rule of order because so many of the most knowledgeable members were unwilling to give up those rights in order to serve as Parliamentarian.

Another  "workaround" is to not have an official member parliamentarian, but rather for the chair to call upon a "knowledgeable" or "experienced" member for parliamentary advice as permitted by RONR on page 254 at lines 3 - 7.

I would add that a special rule of order permitting a member parliamentarian to participate in meetings could permit him to exercise all of the rights of other members or could be more limited in scope, such as granting him the right to raise points of order.  In the case of the rule adopted by my NAP unit, it permits the member parliamentarian to exercise all of the rights of membership.

I will also add that I think it is extremely doubtful that, even without such a special rule of order, an assembly would in any way discipline or censure a member parliamentarian for raising a point of order as to a serious breach of the rules by the chair affecting the rights of members of the assembly.  Despite the language in RONR, I think doing that is precisely what the membership expects from a member parliamentarian. 

[Joshua Katz]

7 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Well, you can pass the chair notes or other surreptitious communications if he/she is is going (or is about to go) astray.  But you should probably work some system out with the chair ahead of time.

 

One thing I ask my chairs to agree to before serving as parliamentarian is that I have a little stop sign card, and when I pass it to them, they have the assembly stand at ease so I can say what the problem is quietly.  Of course, I don't use it for every little thing, and I make that clear up front too.  

There was one time when a member tried to make a secondary amendment, the chair asked me if secondary amendments are allowed, and I told him yes.  Later, a member tried to make a clearly out of order secondary amendment, and a point of order was raised, but the chair figured he already had his answer and immediately said "the parliamentarian has already informed me that amendments like this are allowed."  Sigh.

[DR Stockley]

Thank you all again for your advice.  By now you have probably surmised that the organization of which I am a member is a Veterans organization.  One which has existed for some 118 years.  Unfortunately, at the post level most of the membership isn't particularly knowledgeable with regard to Parliamentary Law, nor are they inclined to take much stock in it if left to their own devices.  A recent amendment to the National By-Laws which changed the Parliamentary Authority recognized by the organization from Demeter's to Robert's Rules has lead to an increased awareness of procedural matters.  Alas!  I must admit to, over the years, allowing the strict adherence to proper procedures to become somewhat lax.  

Thank you all again for all your advice.  I will undoubtedly, be seeking more of your expertise in the future.   

[Gary Novosielski]

12 hours ago, DR Stockley said:

He advised me that he already has the abbreviated version.  Alas!  It is not always easy to get him or the Jr & Sr Vices to read and understand as much about parliamentary procedures as I'd like.  Frankly, ex-military officers and sergeants sometimes have problems understanding such things.  They're too use to giving orders without parliamentary procedures getting in the way.    

That may be true, but after all, Henry M. Robert was a West Point graduate and Brigadier General, and his military background shows itself in the use of such terms as General Orders, Special Orders, Stand at Ease, and others.  But he was nevertheless committed to such ideas as majority rule.  Ex-military officers and sergeants understand rank.