sammy Posted February 3, 2011 at 02:20 AM Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 at 02:20 AM our board does not have a need for a full time parliamentarian as we only have 11 board members, however at our state meeting, we have about 75 members, is it possible to appoint aparliamentarian for the meeting and remove this person after the close of meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted February 3, 2011 at 02:25 AM Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 at 02:25 AM Our board does not have a need for a full time parliamentarian as we only have 11 board members.However at our state meeting, we have about 75 members, Is it possible to appoint a parliamentarian for the meeting and remove this person after the close of meeting?Yes.You are free to hire a consultant.You are free to hire an employee.You are free to contract with an independent contractor.No rule in Robert's Rules of Order will stop you.Why did you think that you couldn't get rid of a consultant, a temp, a free-lancer, etc., when the job is over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 3, 2011 at 02:26 AM Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 at 02:26 AM I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "appoint" and "remove" the parliamentarian.The more common thing - for enlightened organizations - is to hire a professional parliamentarian to advise the association before and during the meeting (especially if the meeting is expected to be contentious or involve parliamentary maneuvering). And if you want a follow-up review of how things went, you could pay him or her to do that too. The hired hand is usually not a member - he is completely impartial with respect to the issues at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy Posted February 3, 2011 at 01:48 PM Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 at 01:48 PM Yes.You are free to hire a consultant.You are free to hire an employee.You are free to contract with an independent contractor.No rule in Robert's Rules of Order will stop you.Why did you think that you couldn't get rid of a consultant, a temp, a free-lancer, etc., when the job is over?being as we are a nonprofit group, we do not have the funds to hire some one, it would be a case where we would appoint withinour organization, still no problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 3, 2011 at 02:06 PM Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 at 02:06 PM being as we are a nonprofit group, we do not have the funds to hire some one, it would be a case where we would appoint within our organization, still no problem?Still no problem. Just remember that, at a meeting, the parliamentarian serves as an advisor to the chair, so it should be someone the chair has confidence in, not someone who is "forced" upon the chair by the membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted February 3, 2011 at 06:01 PM Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 at 06:01 PM Also be aware that, if you appoint someone from within the organization, that person will be (or at least should be) giving up his membership rights to participate in debate and vote (unless the vote is by ballot) for as long as he serves as parliamentarian (RONR, 10th ed. p. 451, l.4-15). So make sure that the person chosen not only has the confidence of the presiding officer, but is also willing to abide by these restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy Posted February 7, 2011 at 02:17 PM Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 02:17 PM if we start a meeting without a parliamentarian and find that during the meeting that we need one, can we recess and appoint a parliamentarian for the rest of the meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted February 7, 2011 at 02:26 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 02:26 PM radar, RONR states that the parliamentarian SHOULD be appointed as far in advance of the meeting as possible. If you think you might need one, consider heeding the book's advice that the most important work of the parliamentarian is done OUTSIDE/BEFORE the meeting (in preparation). p 449.Nonetheless, it says SHOULD, not MUST or SHALL. From that, I'd think appointing one during the meeting would be permissible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 7, 2011 at 03:08 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 03:08 PM radar, RONR states that the parliamentarian SHOULD be appointed as far in advance of the meeting as possible. If you think you might need one, consider heeding the book's advice that the most important work of the parliamentarian is done OUTSIDE/BEFORE the meeting (in preparation). p 449.Nonetheless, it says SHOULD, not MUST or SHALL. From that, I'd think appointing one during the meeting would be permissible.Even though unless someone has a buddy who is a parliamentarian and can come out that day I wouldn't think it would be practical to just recess and hire one. However, maybe NAP or AIP have a "rapid response" brigade of parliamentarians who can be sent there with real short notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 7, 2011 at 03:29 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 03:29 PM "I'm from the AIP/NAP and I'm here to help you..."Yeah, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted February 7, 2011 at 03:33 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 03:33 PM being as we are a nonprofit group, we do not have the funds to hire some one, it would be a case where we would appoint withinour organizationEven though unless someone has a buddy who is a parliamentarian and can come out that day I wouldn't think it would be practical to just recess and hire one. However, maybe NAP or AIP have a "rapid response" brigade of parliamentarians who can be sent there with real short notice.It appears they won't be calling NAP, AIP or any outside group... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 7, 2011 at 03:41 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 03:41 PM With any luck, radar will have a laptop and wi-fi at the meeting, and can just post a question to the forum for a quick dozen or so answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:04 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:04 PM However, maybe NAP or AIP have a "rapid response" brigade of parliamentarians who can be sent there with real short notice.Yes, I think I've seen their cars. They're black and white VW beetles and on the side it says "Geek Squad". And there's often a "Spouse on Board" sign in the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Barbara Szalay Posted October 8, 2015 at 09:01 PM Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 at 09:01 PM Discussion is wrong on many counts. Parliamentarian if a member has all the rights of members to make motions, debate & vote, except when he/she is seated at the front next to the President. the Parliamentarian can choose not top sit by the President. In this way he/she doesn't give up the right to speak and vote. RROO Simplified & Applied, pp 286-87. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 8, 2015 at 09:50 PM Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 at 09:50 PM Discussion is wrong on many counts. Parliamentarian if a member has all the rights of members to make motions, debate & vote, except when he/she is seated at the front next to the President. the Parliamentarian can choose not top sit by the President. In this way he/she doesn't give up the right to speak and vote. RROO Simplified & Applied, pp 286-87. What's your question? The book you cite "RROO Simplified..." is not the right book. This one is: link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 8, 2015 at 10:46 PM Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 at 10:46 PM Discussion is wrong on many counts. Parliamentarian if a member has all the rights of members to make motions, debate & vote, except when he/she is seated at the front next to the President. the Parliamentarian can choose not top sit by the President. In this way he/she doesn't give up the right to speak and vote. RROO Simplified & Applied, pp 286-87.This is pretty much all wrong, unless RROO Simplified and Applied is the assembly's parliamentary authority. That text is not an official edition of Robert's Rules of Order.The 11th edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is quite clear that a member parliamentarian is expected not to exercise his rights to make motions or speak in debate at all, and not to exercise his right to vote unless the vote is taken by ballot. The text further clarifies that unlike the chairman, the Parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise these rights. If a member is unwilling to accept these limitations, he should not agree to serve as parliamentarian. (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 465-467)Now, it is ultimately correct that a member who serves as the assembly's parliamentarian does not actually lose his rights of membership. If a member-parliamentarian insisted on speaking in debate, making a motion, or voting, he could not be prevented from doing so. Since this would disastrously undermine his appearance of impartiality, however, a member-parliamentarian who persists in this behavior should be promptly fired from his position of parliamentarian, and then he's free to exercise his rights as much as he likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 9, 2015 at 05:32 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 at 05:32 AM Discussion is wrong on many counts. Parliamentarian if a member has all the rights of members to make motions, debate & vote, except when he/she is seated at the front next to the President. the Parliamentarian can choose not top sit by the President. In this way he/she doesn't give up the right to speak and vote. RROO Simplified & Applied, pp 286-87. That might be true if the society adopted ROO Simplified and Applied as its parliamentary authority. Otherwise, it's unfounded rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 10, 2015 at 04:07 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 at 04:07 PM I'm wondering why guest Barbara popped up with that in this thread that is four and a half years old. Maybe somebody had questioned what her book says about the parliamentarian? I'm assuming (and hoping) that the book she referenced doesn't claim to be based on RONR. Does anybody know? I don't have that book. If a society really wants its member parliamentarian to be able to make motions, debate, vote, etc, it can adopt a special rule of order that permits its member parliamentarian to participate to the same extent as all other members (or to participate to whatever extent the society wants to allow, such as just voting). I'm surprised nobody pointed out to guest Radar this reference on page 254 as to the president consulting with a knowledgeable or experienced member about questions of parliamentary procedure: "Before rendering his decision, the chair can consult the parliamentarian, if there is one. The chair can also request the advice of experienced members, but no one has the right to express such opinions in the meeting unless requested to do so by the chair." Perhaps this society can have a designated "experienced member". :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 11, 2015 at 03:37 AM Report Share Posted October 11, 2015 at 03:37 AM I'm wondering why guest Barbara popped up with that in this thread that is four and a half years old. Maybe somebody had questioned what her book says about the parliamentarian? I'm assuming (and hoping) that the book she referenced doesn't claim to be based on RONR. Does anybody know? I don't have that book. I don't have it either, but Amazon lets you see a preview of it (the full name of the work is Webster's New World Robert's Rules of Order Simplified and Applied, 2nd ed.), and it appears that the answer is "yes and no." In the preface of the book, it notes that it is based on Robert's Rules of Order, and the new (2nd) edition was prepared because of the release of the 10th edition of RONR. The text goes on to say, however, that the authors chose not to follow some of the changes in the 10th edition because, in the view of the authors, these changes made the procedures more complicated and their desire was to "keep it simple." In the first chapter, the text suggests adopting "this book" as the parliamentary authority, which suggests that is intended to be its own parliamentary authority, not a third party guide and supplement to the current edition of RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.