Weldon Merritt

I have long though that that's the way it should be. But Official Interpretation 2006-7 says that it is recorded.

They can "control" the other officers only of the other officers allow them to do so. But to answer your questions, take a look at FAQ #20. (You may need to scroll down to find it.)

That's the way I read it, too. But it's still too late to raise a Point of Order. The result of the vote on the MM stands.

My original question has generated a lot more discussion than I anticipated. I actually settled fairly early in the discussion on the language I intend to propose ("The parliamentarian will attend meetings of the board of directors in a advisory capacity," possible with the insertion of "including executive sessions," although the insertion probably isn't necessary). But the discussion makes for interesting reading.

Possibly so. But there are other considerations that make that unlikely to happen during the current term.

No, the rest of teh committee is salified with the language as proposed. So ultimately that's what we will do. I'm just trying to see if there is a goad way to alleviate his concern while still making him a non-member.

But that would mean that he could debate, which I think would-be a bigger problem than voting. And it also would mean that he couldn't vote, even if the vote is by ballot which is contrary to RONR's default. I would prefer that he nit be a member at all.

The current board has about 15 defined positions, but berceuse of shrinking general membership and difficulty in finding members willing to serve, we have a lot of members holding two or more positions, there are only nine actual members. Among the amendments we are proposing is one that would shrink the board to a more reasonable size in relation to the size of the organization. (Just the elected officers and representatives of a couple of subordinate units.) Ain't gonna happen with this organization. Good quotation, to which I have no answer. I'm not sure when that was done, or why. I was a member of the same organization several years ago, before moving away for a while, and II don't recall that being in the bylaws then. And I wasn't [resent when it was proposed. As far as I am concerned, the first goal is sufficient. But I suspect that the parliamentarian would favor the second. I'm not sure about the other tow committee members. I'm not sure if there is a "fundamental disagreement." The parliamentarian seems to be the only one who is concerned. Neither do I. I appreciate all of the comments.

He hasn't suggested any. What he really wants, I believe, is to continue being a member of the board. The rest of us agree that the parliamentarian should not be a member, but should just serve as an advisor.

That certainly would wound work. The committee chair may object that it is too wordy, but I may be able to overcome that argument. If anyone else has any pertinent thoughts, I would welcome them.

No, you're not dumb. But while I personally think that language would work, I have a feeling that the current parliamentarian would still argue that t doesn't give him the right to attend, but only provides that when he attends it is in an advisory capacity.

My organization’s current bylaws make the parliamentarian a member of the board of directors. We are considering a series of amendments to the bylaws, one of which would remove the parliamentarian as a member of the board, but provide that “the parliamentarian will attend board meetings in an advisory capacity.” The current parliamentarian, who is also a member of the bylaws committee, argues that removing him as a member makes it possible for him to be excluded from executive sessions. Another member of the bylaws committee has proposed simply inserting the word “all” before "board meetings,” but the parliamentarian continues to argue that the language simply means that when he is present, it is in an advisory capacity, and that he still could be excluded from executive sessions. He also says that inserting the word “all” could be interpreted to make him subject to discipline if he fails to attend a meeting (unless he has been excluded). For whatever relevance it may have, there is another provision that allows all organization members to attend board meetings as observers, except when the meeting is held in executive session. My questions are: 1. Is the proposed language that “the parliamentarian will attend board meetings in an advisory capacity” sufficient to preclude his exclusion from executive sessions? 2. If the answer to #1 is “no,” would insertion of the word “all” before ‘board meetings” resolve the issue? 3. Would insertion of the word “all” make the parliamentarian subject to disciplinary action if he fails to attend a meeting?

I agree that this would accomplished the desired result. The chair cloud stile vote if it would would affect the result, but than would occur only after the others have voted. So the chair's vote would not influence the other committee members.

I concur with Mr. Eksman.

Was the motion adopted? If so, it no longer matters who seconded it, or even if it was seconded at all. If fact, once debate has started or any subsidiary motion has been applied, the secondi becomes irrelevant.

If the rules in RONR apply, and if the motion to Lay on the Table was properly used, the answer is "yes." Butt from your reference to "the council," I suspect you may be referring t9 a governmental body. If so, there may be other rules that apply. And the fact that you refer to the "topic com[ing] to council" leads me to believe that the motion "to table" was used improperly to postpone the topic to a later meeting. If the motion was to "table the topic until the next meeting," or something like that, then I would say that it was in reality a motion to Postpone definitely. In that case, it would come automatically under General Orders. But again, if the "council" is a public body, there may well be other rules that control.

But do your bylaws allow them? A standing rule alone is not sufficient. The authorization must be in the bylaws.

Has the parliamentarian said that he "believes that members should not ne allowed to abstain," or is that an assumption on your part? So far as RONR is concerned, members do have a righty to abstain, but I agree that the char should not call for abstentions.

Sure. Didn't you get the memo? 😁

If, as you say, your bylaws do not require board members to be members of the organization, then you don'ts need to do anything. Kist Just go ahead and install her, and let her resume membership in 2024.

Good points, of course. Of the guest is speaking while a motion is pending, that almost certainly would be debate. Before a motion s pending, I'm not so sure.,

Yes, but if the guest is speaking "to give context" for a resolution, that sounds to me like debate.

The "order of succession" is that the VOP becomes the president and the erstwhile president becomes teh immediate past president. Then the vacant VP position needs to be filled by whatever vacancy-filling provisions exits in the bylaws. And if there are no such provisions, then the body that elected the VOP in the first pace is the bogy that can fill the vacancy.

So do I, except that if the rules in RONR apply, the vacancy he would be ruining for would be in the office of voce president. Once he resigned and the reignition was accepted, the erstwhile VP instantly and automatically became the president. So VP is the office that now needs to be filled.

First of all, parliamentarians are not "licensed." Anyone can call themselves a parliamentarian and serve as such. But there are two major organization, the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians, that each administer a credentialling program. Most professional parliamentarians are members of at least one, and often both, of those organizations. If the parliamentarian you are referring to is not a member of at least one of those organizations, then you are out of luck as far as any formal complaint goes. Or at least I know of no mechanism to resolve such a complaint. If the parliamentarian is a member of one of the argentations, you may file a complaint with the appropriate one. For NAP, go to https://www.parliamentarians.org/about/resources, and scroll down t find copies of teh Code of Professional Responsibility, the Professional Responsibility Complaint Rules, and the Complaint Form. For AIP. go tohttps://aipparl.org/governing-documents, where you will find the equivalent rules and forms. Note that the Code of Professional Responsibility is a joint code, so it will be identical for both organizations. The complaint forms and the process for handling complaints differ a bit between the two.