Parliamentarian/treasurer errors

[Guest Jennifer Hamer]

Our parliamentarian was desinated by our president (congregational president) to preside at an emergency meeting regarding finances. He 'stepped outside his box' to make commentaries, ask questions, debate and I think even to vote. He also denied a member the opportunity to amend the agenda (or allow the congregation to raise the motion of amending the agenda) with a financial report of rentals (which was quite germaine to the topic of finances). The president did not rule on this, he did. If a member of our church acts as parliamentarian, does he have the right to debate, raise questions, comment, or vote? He had a crucial impact on this meeting. Does this null and void the motions voted on by the congregation in which he participated? Should the minutes be amended and am I allowed to raise a point of order at the next meeting?

Secondly, our treasurer had the financial secretary deliver a verbal report on our finances that could not be backed up by hard-copy (her HOME computer crashed and she had not backed the information up on a flash-drive). There were innaccuracies in her report. No recomendations were given, however, the commentary was very perjorative and misleading (not backed by facts or recommendations of action that should be taken), actually, a blatent swipe at certain individuals. How should this be received by the congregation and again, should the minutes be amended to reflect any changes or any points of order raised. BTW, she has not been able to produce any hard-copies in a year and also has not had the finances audited by internal or external sources.

Many thanks for your wisdom and yes I would love to hire a professional if I can pursuade the powers that be!

[jstackpo]

Sounds like your parliamentarian/presiding officer was not particularly good at the job. However, unless points of order were raised at the time of any improprieties, it is too late (near as I can tell from what you wrote) to do anything about it now.

The minutes should contain ONLY whatever business was transacted at the meeting -- motions adopted, defeated, postponed &c.

Nothing else.

[Guest Jennifer Hamer]

Sounds like your parliamentarian/presiding officer was not particularly good at the job. However, unless points of order were raised at the time of any improprieties, it is too late (near as I can tell from what you wrote) to do anything about it now.

The minutes should contain ONLY whatever business was transacted at the meeting -- motions adopted, defeated, postponed &c.

Nothing else.

Thank you for your input! He is both popular and wily.

1.) Regarding his role, is he allowed to vote, discuss, debate, etc. even if he announces he is stepping away from his post?

2.) If the minutes do contain what is not proper, may I call point of order?

3.) If he voted on any motions, is that motion void or should it be reconsidered?

4.) If he presides as parliamentarian at the next meeting, what do I do?

[jstackpo]

1. If he is your official member/parliamentarian, No to all your questions. But he can vote on ballot votes. See p. 451.

2) When the minutes are before the assembly for approval, propose amendments to set things right.

3) No. Too late now, as noted. You are free to move to rescind or amend what was adopted - p. 293 ff.

4) Cringe. Or raise (proper) points of order promptly when he goes astray.

[Guest Jennifer Hamer]

1. If he is your official member/parliamentarian, No to all your questions. But he can vote on ballot votes. See p. 451.

2) When the minutes are before the assembly for approval, propose amendments to set things right.

3) No. Too late now, as noted. You are free to move to rescind or amend what was adopted - p. 293 ff.

4) Cringe. Or raise (proper) points of order promptly when he goes astray.

Thank you again.

This confirms most of what I thought and/or learned in RONR, however, I prefer confirmation so I may 'have my ducks in a row.'

[Chris Harrison]

4.) If he presides as parliamentarian at the next meeting, what do I do?

4) Cringe. Or raise (proper) points of order promptly when he goes astray.

Also, Official Interpretation 2006-2 may be of some use if Jennifer can find enough votes.

Note: Although the Official Interpretation refers to the President it can be applied to any presiding officer.

[Larry Cisar]

Also, Official Interpretation 2006-2 may be of some use if Jennifer can find enough votes.

Note: Although the Official Interpretation refers to the President it can be applied to any presiding officer.

Also look at page 87. The assembly names it chair pro tem and not the president. The president can suggest a name, but the asembly has the final say.

[Guest Jennifer Hamer]

Regarding the above answers (with gratitude),

I am anticipating some difficulties with our parliamentarian if I call point of order and explain what you have so thouroughly explained to me:

1. Can he suspend the rules (according to ronr procedure since our by-laws default by omission to this procedure) regarding his actions as parliamentarian? In other words, could he have a motion (or someone else raise the motion)to suspend the rules to continue his editing and commenatary, obviously influencing the outcome of certain motions?

2. If he decides he does not want to be parliamentarian further, could he resign or does he need to be dismissed?

3. If he is voluntarily removed in some manner, even mid-meeting, does the chair bring forward a new name for the assembly to approve, or is the rest of the meeting without a ppt?

[hmtcastle]

1. Can he suspend the rules . . .

No, the parliamentarian can't do anything. During meetings he serves strictly as an advisor to the chair.

2. If he decides he does not want to be parliamentarian further, could he resign or does he need to be dismissed?

Either option is available (though resignation would be the simplest).

3. If he is voluntarily removed in some manner, even mid-meeting, does the chair bring forward a new name for the assembly to approve, or is the rest of the meeting without a ppt?

You can continue quite well without a parliamentarian. And unless your bylaws require a parliamentarian, you can continue to meet without one.

[Guest Jennifer Hamer]

Thank you for your response. This might sound like I am ignorant or splitting hairs, however, the group we are dealing with will find the smallest loophole.

1. Could someone else bring forward a motion to suspend the rules regarding the limitations placed on the parliamentarian? (he has friends)

2. Once the parliamentarian post is left open mid-meeting, could our chair have another take his place (she would definitely want one, but is this proper procedure)?

I agree with your statements but am asking via playing devil's advocate.

[Chris Harrison]

1. Could someone else bring forward a motion to suspend the rules regarding the limitations placed on the parliamentarian? (he has friends)

I would say that it isn't possible because RONR p. 451 says:

A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly forego these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion.

which suggests that it would not be proper to Suspend the Rules to allow him to give up his duties. But stay tuned for further thoughts.

2. Once the parliamentarian post is left open mid-meeting, could our chair have another take his place (she would definitely want one, but is this proper procedure)?

What do your bylaws say regarding appointing a parliamentarian (member or nonmember)? Does the Membership have any say on who is named or do they even say anything?

[Guest jenhamer262]

Our church constitution/by-laws automatically default to RONR, so therefore everything you stated via page 451 should be the final word. My worry,however, is the ability to find loopholes which could be used to bend the rules.

Suffice to say, this gentleman is most pleased to grandstand and preside, and although he appears to want to help, does not have the best interest of the assembly at heart. Your information and insight are most helpful!

[Gary Novosielski]

Our church constitution/by-laws automatically default to RONR, so therefore everything you stated via page 451 should be the final word.

Not really.

Although your rules default to RONR, that's only in cases where your constitution and bylaws are silent. If there is any rule in your documents which conflicts with RONR, then the rules in RONR do NOT apply, and your constitution and bylaws are the final word.

[Guest jenhamer262]

Not really.

Although your rules default to RONR, that's only in cases where your constitution and bylaws are silent. If there is any rule in your documents which conflicts with RONR, then the rules in RONR do NOT apply, and your constitution and bylaws are the final word.

Sorry, I did a poor job of explaining. Our bylaws/constitution are silent on the role of the parliamentarian, therefore, they default to RONR. I always check the by-laws first, then RONR.

Thanks again!

[Chris Harrison]

Our bylaws/constitution are silent on the role of the parliamentarian

Thanks again!

Do they even provide for the office of parliamentarian or did the Chair one day just decide that he wanted one?

[Guest jenhamer262]

After a thorough reading of our bylaws, parliamentarian is not mentioned anywhere, but our by-laws do cite RONR for the sake of orer.

In past meetings, if there was a chance the meeting was going to be schismatic, then the chair would suggest a parliamentarian to the congregation. The chair would then ask if there were any objections to so-and-so being ppt. After no objections were raised, the meeting would begin.

You have been most helpful and have provided great insight. Do you think you might peruse a secondary topic under my name regarding "Treasuer Errors and Reporting?"

Many Thanks.

[Josh Martin]

1. Could someone else bring forward a motion to suspend the rules regarding the limitations placed on the parliamentarian? (he has friends)

Yes. Such a motion is not debatable and requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

2. Once the parliamentarian post is left open mid-meeting, could our chair have another take his place (she would definitely want one, but is this proper procedure)?

Yes.

I would say that it isn't possible because RONR p. 451 says:

which suggests that it would not be proper to Suspend the Rules to allow him to give up his duties.

It seems to me the rule on pg. 451 is suspendable, although I can't imagine why an assembly would want to suspend it. Of course, a member-Parliamentarian retains the right to speak anyway, it is just that the Parliamentarian should not exercise this right.

I think the assembly should keep in mind that the Parliamentarian is simply an adviser to the President. Many people mistakenly assume that the Parliamentarian has more power than he really does.