Dr Mark

I greatly appreciate the responses here. Guest Zev... "Instead he stands as a form of claiming the floor. " That makes logical sense. Chris Harrison- 1. Voice and 2. Visibility. Hieu H. Huynh - noting the contrast to small boards. Josh Martin's wisdom that concerning sound and visibility, "Modern technology may somewhat alleviate the need for such requirements." Reelsman's thoughtful concern "I would also like to stress that the custom should in no way be understood to preclude a person who is disabled from serving as presiding officer on account of his inability to stand." George Mervosh echoing the concern and expanding it to the floor. The Sargent in Arms has things well designed. There will be interpreters for the hearing impaired, and accomodations are made for the handicapped. George, as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, do you have any further insight you wish to offer as to Josh Martin's idea that "Modern technology may somewhat alleviate the need for such requirements."? The Chair is on a well-elevated platform assuring excellent visibility. He is mic'd and will have excellent audio. The Chair is also opting for the use of the gavel. In your opinion, could this suffice for the requirement of RONR? Thank you to all for weighing in.

I am a parliamentarian. One of my responsibilities is to a convention of about 500-1000 people. While most of RONR is quite logical and lends to efficiency, there are some things I question as to the purpose. One issue I would appreciate feedback on from other parliamentarians is does anyone know why "the presiding officer should stand while calling a meeting to order or declaring it adjourned, and while putting a question to vote. He should also stand—without leaving the chair—while explaining his reasons for a ruling on a point of order..." RONR page 451, 8-15 I appreciate your thoughts and feedback.