Parliamentarian Raising a Point of Order

[DR Stockley]

5 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

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. 

True.  Unfortunately, rank doesn't always convert to a completely democratic system.

[J. J.]

14 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

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. 

At the time that Henry M. Robert was an officer, command was less hierarchical.  Commanding generals had "councils of war," made up of heir senior commanders.  The general would preside, usually using a gavel, and the commanders would vote, at least in some cases.  The most famous was a council of war used by Meade after the third day of Gettysburg.  This was more than a commander asking for the advice of  his subordinates, though the decision was still ultimately with the commanding general. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 3/19/2018 at 5:23 AM, DR Stockley said:

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.    

Also an issue in many volunteer FDs, which often are governed by meetings and are sometimes nicknamed "Roberts Rules departments."  One issue is that they often make the chief the presiding officer, then have difficulty conceptualizing that the chief is in command on the fireground, but isn't a dictator in meetings.  The solution in that case is often to create an office of President (or even a board) that does not correspond to the command structure.  Maybe vet organizations can do something similar and decouple presiding from rank?  Ideally, the most skilled presider presides, not the person with the highest rank in a very different sort of work.

[DR Stockley]

2 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Also an issue in many volunteer FDs, which often are governed by meetings and are sometimes nicknamed "Roberts Rules departments."  One issue is that they often make the chief the presiding officer, then have difficulty conceptualizing that the chief is in command on the fireground, but isn't a dictator in meetings.  The solution in that case is often to create an office of President (or even a board) that does not correspond to the command structure.  Maybe vet organizations can do something similar and decouple presiding from rank?  Ideally, the most skilled presider presides, not the person with the highest rank in a very different sort of work.

In our organization the titles to elected offices are of a quasi-military nature.  Commander equates to president, Quarter Master to Treasurer and so on.  In actuality, the organization is closer to a pure democracy with all members having one vote and no members vote carrying more weight than any others.  Unfortunately, issue sometimes arise when carrier military retirees are elected to positions and do not fully appreciate that the title of Commander is not the same as being "In Command" of a military unit. 

[Joshua Katz]

22 minutes ago, DR Stockley said:

In our organization the titles to elected offices are of a quasi-military nature.  Commander equates to president, Quarter Master to Treasurer and so on.  In actuality, the organization is closer to a pure democracy with all members having one vote and no members vote carrying more weight than any others.  Unfortunately, issue sometimes arise when carrier military retirees are elected to positions and do not fully appreciate that the title of Commander is not the same as being "In Command" of a military unit. 

So they are elected to these positions, but they don't correspond to ranks they held during their service?  Is it possible to change the names of the positions, if they are causing misunderstanding, or are they dictated by a parent organization?  I realize, of course, it might not be worth trying if it will be opposed.

[DR Stockley]

Oh!  I did resign my position as Judge Advocate so as to free myself to exercise my full membership rights.  I did then introduce a resolution for a special rule to allow the Post Judge Advocate to exercise the full rights of membership as any other member which was unanimously adopted.  This I did to insure that my successor doesn't find themselves frustrated and to make it easier for the organization to find someone willing to fill the position.  However, I have declined to accept reappointment to the position feeling that I can best serve as a regular member.

[DR Stockley]

2 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

So they are elected to these positions, but they don't correspond to ranks they held during their service?  Is it possible to change the names of the positions, if they are causing misunderstanding, or are they dictated by a parent organization?  I realize, of course, it might not be worth trying if it will be opposed.

The titles were determined at the time the organization was first chartered.  It is doubtful that proposing they be changed at the 119th Annual Convention would meet with much acceptance, even if it came from somewhere higher than local post level.