Voting by Parliamentarian

[Judgeelaine]

I'm the new Parliamentarian for my organization. I sit to to the right of the President during meetings to advise the President on rules of parliamentary procedure. I'm a financial member counted in the "quorum" requirement of members present and voting. Our National organization published that it is traditional and customary for Parliamentarians NOT to vote on motions during meetings. How does RONR address this issue? (Our bylaws does not address this issue). Our Bylaws require us to follow RONR if the issue is not addressed in our Bylaws.

[Robert B Fish]

The parliamentarian does not vote unless the vote is taken by ballot. [p451, RONR (10th ed.)]

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

I'm the new Parliamentarian for my organization.

Then may we assume your very own copy of RONR, as well as a copy of your bylaws and other governing documents, is at your side?

[Tim Wynn]

Then may we assume your very own copy of RONR, as well as a copy of your bylaws and other governing documents, is at your side?

We may assume, but we may be wrong. I'll write my assumption down on a piece of paper.

[Guest Jo]

I'm the new Parliamentarian for my organization. I sit to to the right of the President during meetings to advise the President on rules of parliamentary procedure. I'm a financial member counted in the "quorum" requirement of members present and voting. Our National organization published that it is traditional and customary for Parliamentarians NOT to vote on motions during meetings. How does RONR address this issue? (Our bylaws does not address this issue). Our Bylaws require us to follow RONR if the issue is not addressed in our Bylaws.

Unless your bylaws specifically give your parliamentarian the right to participate in debate and vote, then they can only vote when the vote is by ballot. Further, and unlike the chair, the parliamentarian cannot even temporarily relinquish the position to participate in debate or vote on a specific issue.

It is the intent of Robert's that the parliamentarian be impartial, but that is sometimes hard when you are also a member of the organization. (That's why I'm recording secretary in our organization this year and not parliamentarian; I still sit next to the president, but I can make a motion or debate if I want; but I digress.)

[Tim Wynn]

Unless your bylaws specifically give your parliamentarian the right to participate in debate and vote, then they can only vote when the vote is by ballot.

Jo,

You got it right, except for the details.

The parliamentarian, if a member, already HAS the right to debate and vote. He simply does not EXERCISE them. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 451, l. 15.

"An office... does not deprive a member of the society of his rights as a member." - RONR(10th ed.), p. 432, l. 10-12.

"If a member feels he cannot properly forego these right in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position." - RONR(10th ed.), p. 451, l. 10-13.

I don't see that there would be any effect on the application of the rules in RONR, if a bylaw gave a member parliamentarian rights that he already had. He still has the duty to maintain a position of impartiality.

[Dan Honemann]

Jo,

You got it right, except for the details.

The parliamentarian, if a member, already HAS the right to debate and vote. He simply does not EXERCISE them. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 451, l. 15.

"An office... does not deprive a member of the society of his rights as a member." - RONR(10th ed.), p. 432, l. 10-12.

"If a member feels he cannot properly forego these right in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position." - RONR(10th ed.), p. 451, l. 10-13.

I don't see that there would be any effect on the application of the rules in RONR, if a bylaw gave a member parliamentarian rights that he already had. He still has the duty to maintain a position of impartiality.

I think that by referring to the "right" to participate in debate and to vote, Jo means the right to do so without being in violation of any rules, in which event I think we all will agree.

[Guest Nancy N.]

I think that by referring to the "right" to participate in debate and to vote, Jo means the right to do so without being in violation of any rules, in which event I think we all will agree.

Wow. Nice clarification, Dan. This kinda issue has been itching me for some time. Thanks.

[Dan Honemann]

Wow. Nice clarification, Dan. This kinda issue has been itching me for some time. Thanks.

And thank you, Nancy, but what kinda issue did I clarify without realizing it? Surely what Jo meant by referring to the "right" to participate in debate and to vote hasn't been itching you for all that long.

[Guest Jo]

I don't see that there would be any effect on the application of the rules in RONR, if a bylaw gave a member parliamentarian rights that he already had. He still has the duty to maintain a position of impartiality.

Our bylaws previously had language that said "The parliamentarian shall act as an advisor to the president, shall be allowed to participate in debate, and shall retain all voting privileges."

Are you saying that this would not overrule the provisions in Robert's? (We have since pulled that language out of our bylaws ... I'm just curious if there are things that, even if they are in your bylaws, cannot overrule Robert's.)

[hmtcastle]

I'm just curious if there are things that, even if they are in your bylaws, cannot overrule Robert's.

It depends on the precise language in the bylaws but, where there's a conflict, RONR is the low-man on the parliamentary totem pole.

A rule stating the obvious (e.g. that the parliamentarian, as a member, retains all the privileges (i.e. rights) of membership) does not necessarily conflict with the RONR rule that the parliamentarian not exercise those rights.

One rule says you can, the other rule says you shouldn't. No conflict.

[George Mervosh]

It depends on the precise language in the bylaws but, where there's a conflict, RONR is the low-man on the parliamentary totem pole.

A rule stating the obvious (e.g. that the parliamentarian, as a member, retains all the privileges (i.e. rights) of membership) does not necessarily conflict with the RONR rule that the parliamentarian not exercise those rights.

One rule says you can, the other rule says you shouldn't. No conflict.

One rule says you have the right to, one says you can't, actually.

[Guest Nancy N.]

It depends on the precise language in the bylaws but, where there's a conflict, RONR is the low-man on the parliamentary totem pole.

A rule stating the obvious (e.g. that the parliamentarian, as a member, retains all the privileges (i.e. rights) of membership) does not necessarily conflict with the RONR rule that the parliamentarian not exercise those rights.

One rule says you can, the other rule says you shouldn't. No conflict.

I'm pretty sure this must qualify as a question of interpreting bylaws, which we who live on the Internet -- or at least on this website, which it sometimes feels like -- are not qualified to do, and which, then, is incumbent on the organization -- the one to which OP CamelliaRose belongs (expressed in that formalistic way so as not to write "CamelliaRose's organization," and then have to append parenthetically, "No, the organization does not belong to CamelliaRose," like everybody now has to, although come to think of it only Dan's and my hero habitually does) to do, which they can do well if they look at the Principles of Interpretation in RONR, p. 570 - 573. I say this -- I mean the first dozen words of the previous sentence -- because the bylaw seems to me, by saying "shall be allowed," to grant the parliamentarian the right to participate freely "without being in violation of any rules," as Dan Honemann articulated so groundbreakingly a few hours ago.

(I suspect I lost track of a thought. Maybe a verb. Probably digressed too. Can't even try to edit because filthy rotten swinish computer blinds me by distractingly highlighting as spelling errors such common words as "CamelliaRose," "Honemann," and even, can you believe it, "groundbreakingly.")

[Guest Nancy N.]

And thank you, Nancy, but what kinda issue did I clarify without realizing it? Surely what Jo meant by referring to the "right" to participate in debate and to vote hasn't been itching you for all that long.

What has been itching me, and I'm not done, is the impairment, maybe even corruption, of the meaning of the word "right" when exercising a right is restricted, even voluntarily, from member chairmen and member parliamentarians. It's almost -- or maybe really -- as if Jo is talking about, um, a meta-right, i.e. the right to exercise a right (without violating any of the rules). Part of the problem, then, is that it's a reasonable interpretation of what a right is, that if it can't be so freely exercised, it's not really a right. And while it might be nice to find a word that does express that meta-right concept (because "meta-right" is not a word, it's a blackboard-scratching travesty), what Dan (Dan, that's you) did was crystallize that distinction. Or at least break ground towards the crystallization process.

[Josh Martin]

One rule says you have the right to, one says you can't, actually.

RONR does not say that the Parliamentarian can't exercise certain rights, as members can only be deprived of their rights by disciplinary suspension. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 22-28) For instance, a member Parliamentarian who insisted on voting when the vote was not by ballot could not be prevented from voting, although he could be removed from his position as Parliamentarian.

[Trina]

RONR does not say that the Parliamentarian can't exercise certain rights, as members can only be deprived of their rights by disciplinary suspension. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 22-28) For instance, a member Parliamentarian who insisted on voting when the vote was not by ballot could not be prevented from voting, although he could be removed from his position as Parliamentarian.

The wording of the sentences describing the restriction of the parliamentarian's rights (RONR p. 451) is interesting:

The parliamentarian 'does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any questions except in the case of a ballot vote.' (emphasis added)

It could have said that the parliamentarian 'shall not' or 'may not' do these things... but that was not the language chosen by the authors.

Mr. Martin, would the removal of the parliamentarian (presumably for disciplinary reasons) be based on that language on p. 451? Would a member parliamentarian's insistence on exercising a right of membership, such as making a motion or voting, be 'misconduct' or 'neglect of duty in office' (the causes described on p. 642)?

Perhaps this conundrum only arises if the parliamentarian is elected to be parliamentarian (since pp. 642 deals with the removal of a 'regularly elected officer'). Since RONR assumes the parliamentarian should appointed by the president, perhaps the standards on p. 642 don't normally have to be met to remove a member parliamentarian from that position.

[hmtcastle]

Perhaps this conundrum only arises if the parliamentarian is elected to be parliamentarian (since pp. 642 deals with the removal of a 'regularly elected officer'). Since RONR assumes the parliamentarian should appointed by the president, perhaps the standards on p. 642 don't normally have to be met to remove a member parliamentarian from that position.

A member-parliamentarian could be removed from office for failing to honor his agreement not to vote regardless of whether he was elected or appointed.

[Josh Martin]

Mr. Martin, would the removal of the parliamentarian (presumably for disciplinary reasons) be based on that language on p. 451? Would a member parliamentarian's insistence on exercising a right of membership, such as making a motion or voting, be 'misconduct' or 'neglect of duty in office' (the causes described on p. 642)?

Perhaps this conundrum only arises if the parliamentarian is elected to be parliamentarian (since pp. 642 deals with the removal of a 'regularly elected officer'). Since RONR assumes the parliamentarian should appointed by the president, perhaps the standards on p. 642 don't normally have to be met to remove a member parliamentarian from that position.

I believe an appointed officer (such as a parliamentarian) could simply be removed at the pleasure of the President. While in some organizations the Parliamentarian is elected, the failure to maintain impartiality would certainly be neglect of duty in office.

[Guest President of PB]

Does a Secretary follow under the same "right" to vote, but just not exercise them, or is it ok for them to vote?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Does a Secretary follow under the same "right" to vote, but just not exercise them, or is it ok for them to vote?

It is okay.

The rule in RONR regarding restrictions on officers is LIMITED to the president and to the parliamentarian.