Benjamin Geiger

On 3/1/2019 at 4:16 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm not sure what you mean by " … other aspects of being a parliamentarian".

I intended it in the sense of ancillary components of serving as a parliamentarian: dealing with chairs, dealing with members, processing the rules of each individual organization, et cetera. But, if as J.J. points out, such places already exist (where?), then I guess there's no need.

On 3/1/2019 at 4:16 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The most recent posts here in this thread dealt with matters relating to NAP's credentialing of its members, and this sort of discussion wanders too far afield from a discussion of the rules in RONR. 

Point made.

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

This is all very interesting to folks, I'm sure, but please remember that this forum has been provided to "allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised." 

Would it be worth introducing a separate forum (preferably on this board) for advice and discussion about other aspects of being a parliamentarian?

Agreed: a lot of organizations use what I've been calling "Bob's Rules", usually out of a lack of understanding of proper procedure. It's rarely an explicit decision to use small-board rules.

Persuading people outside a meeting is just that: talking to people, outside of the context of a meeting, to attempt to convince them to vote for (or against) a motion when it comes up. In most cases this is entirely legal and kosher. The exceptions are certain governmental agencies, particularly in states such as Florida with strict "sunshine laws". In some of those states, if two or more members of the same board are communicating about business then it's considered a meeting and must be documented.

And there are plenty of ways that members' rights can be trampled, particularly if the rules in RONR are not followed. Specifically, the Previous Question steps on the rights of the minority to debate the subject. (This right has to be balanced with the majority's right to proceed with other business without being unduly impeded. Hence, the Previous Question requires a 2/3 vote to pass, in order to prevent a bare majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.)

An aside: We had to introduce language into our bylaws to deal with this, as all five of our officers (two vice chairs) are ex officio members of all committees, making quorum nigh impossible.

Quote

8.1.3  The quorum for each committee shall be a majority of the members of that committee, excepting officers who are members of that committee solely by virtue of being ex officio members of all committees.

8.1.4  Officers who are members of a committee solely by virtue of being ex officio members of all committees have the right, but not the obligation, to participate in the proceedings of the committees, and are not counted in determining the number required for a quorum or whether a quorum is present at a meeting.

11 hours ago, Guest Bumpy McGee said:

Just wanted to bump this thread instead of creating a new one.

Considering the instructions specify that you should do literally the exact opposite of this...

EDIT: Yeah, I missed the entire second page. Whoops. Is it possible to delete replies?

6 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

In any case, what I was originally objecting to, and still object to, is the notion that the "guy in the back who knows the rules" is somehow a "de facto parliamentarian." Such a person is simply a member who knows the rules, and even if people ask questions and he gives advice, he's not a parliamentarian.

Which really cuts back to the question I raised several posts ago: What power does a member parliamentarian have that J. Random Member doesn't?

EDIT: I guess a better question would be, what does an appointed parliamentarian do during a meeting other than answer questions and give advice? If that role is being filled by some putz in the audience, would that not make that putz a de facto parliamentarian?

Quote

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. 

So yeah, ours explicitly do require a member parliamentarian.

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think what is meant by a “de facto” parliamentarian is that there is a particular member the chair generally calls on for parliamentary advice, but this person does not formally serve as the parliamentarian.

Yes, that's precisely it. I've become known as "that Robert's Rules guy" (in addition to being the chair of the Bylaws committee).

Sadly, our parent organization and our bylaws require that the chair of the organization preside over meetings. Our bylaws require that the chair appoint a member parliamentarian.

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think the best option might be, as you have suggested before, adopting a special rule of order on the matter rather than leaving it as a "de facto" situation with unclear rules. 

Which special rule would that be?

3 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

Yes, I'm having a bit of fun here.  But it is HARD to write code like this and not have people be able to get clever about it.

This is precisely why I'm not at all surprised that among the authors of the 11th edition we find a mathematician and a computer scientist, professions that deal extensively with large, complex systems of rules.

And there's no way to perform automated unit testing on rules of order.

A serious question, once I've been struggling with since the prohibition on the parliamentarian participating in debate was pointed out to me: What power, precisely, would I have as the parliamentarian of an organization that I wouldn't have as "that guy in the back who knows Robert's Rules"? What sort of abuse would be possible as the de jure parliamentarian that isn't already possible as the de facto parliamentarian?

The consensus here seems to be that while a de jure parliamentarian cannot speak in debate, a de facto one can. Why?

Literally the only advantages I've found to being a parliamentarian for an organization would be a more comfortable seat and perhaps access to a power outlet. I'm not willing to trade my right to debate for that, so I've explicitly declined the role.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the membership is apathetic because they don't know that there are remedies available. I'd recommend making contact with some other members and seeing if they'd be interested in drumming up support.

RONR 11e p. 655, ll. 3-11:

Quote

A society has the right to investigate the character of its members and officers as may be necessary to the enforcement of its own standards. But neither the society nor any member has the right to make public any information obtained through such investigation; if it becomes common knowledge within the society, it should not be revealed to any persons outside the society. Consequently, a trial must always be held in executive session, as must the introduction and consideration of all resolutions leading up to the trial.

Yes, it should have been held in executive session. At a bare minimum I'd recommend holding all further proceedings in executive session. (Sorry I'm not more help. I'm still newish.)

PS: your organization charges fees to prefer charges against other members? Is this in addition to, or in lieu of, the formation of an investigation committee?

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

The one curious thing about this discussion is that the gentleman OP has not indicated whether his organization has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority or not.

Yes, RONR is our parliamentary authority.

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

otherwise I have a question to the presiding officer of why is he/she deviating from the rules of floor assignment?

I think it's more a matter of rules drift. People don't bother reading RONR; they learn how to run meetings from someone who learned to run meetings from someone who learned to run meetings from someone who half-remembered skimming RONR once. It turns into a giant game of telephone, combined with a "let's play it by ear" attitude.

Also, our debates tend to be more 'conversational', more like committee meetings; instead of members standing and delivering speeches, we tend to say a couple of sentences when we get the floor, and often directly to another member (another debate rule we routinely break).

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

But, then again, OP isn't seeking to change it (and seemingly doesn't see anything wrong with it, either). All he's seeking to do is make it a rule

I prefer the more formal approach, myself, but that's because I'm used to it. I can accept the status quo, though, particularly since it seems to be more natural for our organization. I don't think they're ready for proper debate yet. Baby steps.

17 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Why not just shrug and figure it's been accepted by unanimous consent? 

That's... a really good point.

18 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

To what end? Just so you can say you're in compliance?

Pretty much, yeah. I realized I'm falling into the trap of "because General Robert said so", and I need to work harder to avoid it.

When several members wish to speak to a motion, our Chair has a habit of acknowledging multiple members in sequence: "Okay, Alice, then Bob, then Carol."

Any victory I'd have in convincing them to follow proper floor assignment procedure would be Pyrrhic at best. Since the status quo seems to be acceptable to most--if not all--of the membership (in truth, the only objection I have is "it's not RONR"), and in the spirit of "pick your battles" (or perhaps "if the mountain won't come to Muhammad"), I'm considering proposing a special rule of order such that the Chair's current practice becomes the "proper" practice.

Is this something that can be done without rewriting swaths of RONR? Or should I just continue letting them follow custom, despite...?

In other words, if the member is present for the vote, it doesn't matter whether they were there for the debate.

Whether it's polite or reasonable to vote on a motion one did not hear the debate for is another question entirely, but that's a question of etiquette, not parliamentary procedure.

I've become something of a de facto parliamentarian for my organization, as I seem to be the only person in the room who has read RONR and is also willing to speak up when questions arise. We have an appointed parliamentarian, but he rarely attends meetings.

By answering parliamentary questions and presenting myself as reasonably knowledgeable about parliamentary matters---relative to the rest of the organization, of course---do I put myself under the same restrictions placed upon appointed member parliamentarians (i.e. the requirement to appear impartial and refrain from voting)?

(I've been pushing for a bylaws amendment or special rule of order that would remove those restrictions on a member parliamentarian, under the premise that there is nothing I can do on the dais as the official parliamentarian that I can't do from the membership as "that guy who knows Robert's Rules", so I wanted to confirm that that premise is reasonable.)

17 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

19 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

No, but in blue.

Huh???

A reference to this meme.

If memory serves, the, ahem, other parliamentary authority renamed Previous Question to Close Debate and Vote Immediately. A bit unwieldy, perhaps, but it seems to do the job.

33 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Minutes should be a record of what was done, I.e., motions adopted, not a record of what was said.

I like the saying (that I probably heard here): "they're minutes, not seconds."

1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

Who decided that this subcommittee “is responsible for disbursing funds from our Victory Fund to candidates and other causes until the end of the 2018 election”?

The chair and/or the members of the Finance Committee. It was basically presented to the Steering Committee as a fait accompli.

I wanted to make absolutely certain of this, preferably with citations, as I've been asked about it.

We currently have a "Victory Fund Committee" which is a special subcommittee of the Finance Committee. The Victory Fund Committee is responsible for disbursing funds from our Victory Fund to candidates and other causes until the end of the 2018 election.

The problem is that the Finance Committee does not have the authority to disburse funds. Can the Victory Fund Committee exercise an authority that its parent committee does not have? If not, where is it written (so I can convince people)?

Our bylaws are attached.

Thanks in advance.

HCDEC-Bylaws-As-Amended-2018-05-19-3.pdf

31 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

You seem to be saying two different things here which are in conflict.

In retrospect, you're right. Perhaps I should've said that it would be pointless to attempt to suspend such a rule unless it explicitly provides for a lower threshold.

I would argue that a rule of order that requires unanimity can't be suspended at all unless it provides for its own suspension.

Quote

7. Usually requires a two-thirds vote (see below, however). In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule.

RONR 11e, p. 261, ll. 14-18. Emphasis mine.

A rule requiring unanimity can be seen to be protecting a minority of size one, so the decision to suspend the rule requiring a unanimous decision would need to be a unanimous decision.