Writing a bylaw amendment to allow for a Parliamentarian

[gregory]

I'm writing a bylaw to allow a NON member Professional Parliamentarian into our membership meetings.

I will need to write it perfectly as I'm sure our meeting Chairperson wants nothing of it.

If you were the Parliamentarian, (which many of you are) how would you write the bylaw amendment to make

it as iron clad as possible. Remember the Chair will shoot it down if at all possible.

[Robert B Fish]

Where to start?

Non-members of a group may be allowed to attend any meeting with the permission of the assembly.

The chairman may not close the meeting on his/her own authority unless he has been given that authority via some rule.

I recommend against putting something like this in your bylaws except to possibly specify that the group shall employ a professional registered parliamentarian to serve as parliamentarian for the meetings of the assembly.

The chair cannot "shoot down" anything unless you let him. If he declares that a motion is not in order, he must state why and you can appeal the ruling.

-Bob

[Chris Harrison]

Unless I am missing something I would also say that the Chair can't legitimately rule the language of a bylaw amendment out of order unless it conflicts with some superior rule or law (and if he claims that it does demand he show you where the conflict exists).

[Robert B Fish]

Unless I am missing something I would also say that the Chair can't legitimately rule the language of a bylaw amendment out of order unless it conflicts with some superior rule or law (and if he claims that it does demand he show you where the conflict exists).

I'm not sure I can support this with a reference to RONR but it seems that make an 'out of order' ruling if the proposed amendment hopelessly conflicted the bylaws themselves. Consider an organization with a set of bylaws that are complicated already. Standing committees exist and must coordinate their work product with each to prepare an annual budget process whose timing is spelled out in the bylaws. The proposed amendment injects complications by changing the date of the annual meeting to a time and location that makes the entire process impossible. Consider an organization with a highly structured system. Adding or eliminating one or more boards or officer positions would make other provisions unworkable.

In such a case, the chairman should refuse to accept the proposed amendment until the issues can be resolved. If doing so would violate the limits of scope of notice or (even if not) would require major rewriting of the proposed amendment, the chairman should refuse to accept it for debate.

-Bob

[Gerry4000]

I'm writing a bylaw to allow a NON member Professional Parliamentarian into our membership meetings.

I will need to write it perfectly as I'm sure our meeting Chairperson wants nothing of it.

If you were the Parliamentarian, (which many of you are) how would you write the bylaw amendment to make

it as iron clad as possible. Remember the Chair will shoot it down if at all possible.

OK, suppose you get such a bylaw passsed, and a parliamentarian is appointed/employed/engaged. The parliamentarian show up, starts the billing meter running and the Chairman never asks for guidance/opinions/etc.? What have you accomplished (other than spending the organization's time and money)?

[Robert B Fish]

OK, suppose you get such a bylaw passsed, and a parliamentarian is appointed/employed/engaged. The parliamentarian show up, starts the billing meter running and the Chairman never asks for guidance/opinions/etc.? What have you accomplished (other than spending the organization's time and money)?

As you know, even if the chairman asks for advice from the parliamentarian, he/she is not obligated to follow it. Further, much of the parliamentarian's work is done BEFORE the meeting. No issues might be the result of good pre-meeting work.

Further, no parliamentary issues at the June meeting does not assure there won't be a major need for parli-help at the June meeting.

-Bob

[gregory]

As you know, even if the chairman asks for advice from the parliamentarian, he/she is not obligated to follow it. Further, much of the parliamentarian's work is done BEFORE the meeting. No issues might be the result of good pre-meeting work.

Further, no parliamentary issues at the June meeting does not assure there won't be a major need for parli-help at the June meeting.

-Bob

Also, isn't it possible that if the bylaw amendment specifically states to "assist the membership" then the Parliamentarian

may also lend his expertise to the Members to assist in the writing of any motions. Money well spend. And by the way, is

there a going rate for parliamentarians? Is 90.00 per hour about average?

[tctheatc]

I'm writing a bylaw to allow a NON member Professional Parliamentarian into our membership meetings.

I will need to write it perfectly as I'm sure our meeting Chairperson wants nothing of it. ....

sounds to me you're pissing in the wind right there.

I shave my head. Have for years. One year I actually got hair care products as a gift. didn't want 'em, didn't use 'em. The giver's time and money in getting them was completely wasted. Just sayin'...

[Gary Novosielski]

Appointing a parliamentarian whom the chair does not trust is a waste of time and money. The parliamentarian cannot overrule the chair, and can only advise the chair--advice which the chair is not compelled even to consider, let alone agree with.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but I can almost guarantee that this is not the way to do it.

[Gary c Tesser]

I suspect that what may be going on is a befuddled and overwhelmed, intimidated, and misled membership being hoodwinked and browbeaten by an entrenched oligarchy. How it looks to me is, the proposal gregory is working on would see, for example, a situation wherein a motion is made, with the overbearing chairman immediately pronouncing "All in favor motion passes, next" -- but a member having a bylaws-level recourse to shout "Parliamentarian! Don't we have a right to debate, amend, or vote no?" -- and get an affirmative answer.

And don't tell me the membership needs to grow a spine. Not everyone can be as gutsy and pugnacious as us armchair Internet parliamentarians (even aspiring armchair Internet parliamentarians like me).

Oh, and gregory, I ask for $4.50 an hour. But I can deal.

[Edited]

[tctheatc]

Gary, no doubt your assesment is correct, at least close. But even with the affirmative answer from the parliamentarian, they have a chair who can (and likely will) ignore the advice. So they don't need spine as much as they need a new chair, which is an election away. But that's assuming the membership is not happy with the chair. far as we know, maybe only the OP is...

[Gary c Tesser]

Gary, no doubt your assessment is correct, at least close. But even with the affirmative answer from the parliamentarian, they have a chair who can (and likely will) ignore the advice. So they don't need spine as much as they need a new chair, which is an election away. But that's assuming the membership is not happy with the chair. far as we know, maybe only the OP is...

I'm thinking that, once armed with the knowledge supplied by the guerilla parliamentarian, OP gregory and his allies will be relieved of much of the befuddlement, overwhelmitude, intimidation, misleading, hoodwinkness and browbeatment, allowing them to march courageously to the tune of p. 642 and even the demi-mythical Oklahoma Script (Chris, you still got that link handy?).

(I'm fairly confident from other threads posted by OP gregory that he's surrounded with fellow disgruntled members)

[David A Foulkes]

Further, no parliamentary issues at the June meeting does not assure there won't be a major need for parli-help at the June meeting.

When these sort of logic questions showed up on tests in high school, I always had trouble with them.

[Josh Martin]

If you were the Parliamentarian, (which many of you are) how would you write the bylaw amendment to make

it as iron clad as possible. Remember the Chair will shoot it down if at all possible.

I wouldn't. Firstly, there is no need for an amendment to the Bylaws to permit a Parliamentarian (or any non-member) to attend the meeting, and attempting to force a Parliamentarian onto a chair who doesn't want one is pointless, since the Parliamentarian's role is to advise the chair. If you have a problematic chair, the solution is to get a new chair, not to get a babysitter for him. See FAQ #20 for more information.

Also, isn't it possible that if the bylaw amendment specifically states to "assist the membership" then the Parliamentarian

may also lend his expertise to the Members to assist in the writing of any motions. Money well spend.

Again, you don't need a Bylaw amendment. An ordinary main motion is sufficient for such a purpose. If this is your goal, I would plan to meet with the parliamentarian prior to the meeting in order to have him assist the membership in preparing for it. The role of a parliamentarian during a meeting is to advise the chair, and I don't believe a professional parliamentarian would be comfortable with doing otherwise.

You might wish to seek the parliamentarian's aid in preparing the appropriate steps to replace the chair, so you don't have to bring him back before every meeting.

And by the way, is there a going rate for parliamentarians? Is 90.00 per hour about average?

I don't know, and such a question is beyond the scope of this forum. You should contact NAP and/or AIP for more information on actually hiring a professional parliamentarian.

[Shmuel Gerber]

And by the way, is

there a going rate for parliamentarians? Is 90.00 per hour about average?

I don't know, and such a question is beyond the scope of this forum. You should contact NAP and/or AIP for more information on actually hiring a professional parliamentarian.

I don't either know whether it is "average", but that is certainly not too much to pay a parliamentarian who knows what he or she is doing (despite the availability of perfectly competent, in an aspirational sense, $4.50/hr scabs ).