Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

ethical parliamentary role


Eli

Recommended Posts

I find it perfectly proper. I can certainly see cases where members in the assembly, especially a minority faction, may wish to have professional advice to protect their rights and and perhaps provide appropriate strategy.

There's no assurances the parliamentarian advising the chair is willing, or permitted by those who hired him/her, to provide professional advice to members in the assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a discussion recently as to whether it is ethical for a parliamentarian who was invited to the Assembly by a faction to give it advice when the assembly already had a fully certified parliamentarian on the dais advising the president. Any thoughts on this

This is not an uncommon employment of a professional parliamentarian. Some groups find it helpful to have an adviser along to help them frame motions, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a discussion recently as to whether it is ethical for a parliamentarian who was invited to the Assembly by a faction to give it advice when the assembly already had a fully certified parliamentarian on the dais advising the president. Any thoughts on this

I think that it is ethical, and often times it will help the parliamentarian advising the president.

Occasionally, I've had situations where the client declines to take my advise. I am ethically bound to serve that client through the current session. If my client is the chair, I am bound to serve that client for the remainder of the session (see pp. 451). The only thing I can say, privately, to the chair is, "If you do this, I will have to resign, citing the reasons in writing, and so testify if you are sued over the issue."

The mere presence of a "fully certified parliamentarian" does not guarantee that the procedure is correct, even assuming that this parliamentarian is both ethical and accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thomas J. Balch

It is indeed not uncommon to have "floor parliamentarians" serving a faction. In one political organization in which I served the chair as parliamentarian, there was a very close and contentious election. I actively encouraged the two factions each to hire a parliamentarian, and they both did so. At my suggestion, the convention standing rules allowed parliamentarians designated by delegates the privileges of the floor, and even permitted a delegate to yield to his/her parliamentarian adviser to explain a point of order, raise a parliamentary inquiry, or debate an appeal.

The result was significantly elevated discussion of parliamentary procedure. The ethical obligation for a floor parliamentarian, it seems to me, is similar to that of an attorney: to advocate on behalf of the client's interests using parliamentary arguments that can be made in good faith -- that is, that are not frivolous. It was very helpful to me, in advising the chair, to have the points of order raised with professionalism and citations to the bylaws or RONR.

I am also confident that the advice of floor parliamentarians prevented the raising of clearly erroneous points of order, and thus streamlined the proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is indeed not uncommon to have "floor parliamentarians" serving a faction. In one political organization in which I served the chair as parliamentarian, there was a very close and contentious election. I actively encouraged the two factions each to hire a parliamentarian, and they both did so. At my suggestion, the convention standing rules allowed parliamentarians designated by delegates the privileges of the floor, and even permitted a delegate to yield to his/her parliamentarian adviser to explain a point of order, raise a parliamentary inquiry, or debate an appeal.

The result was significantly elevated discussion of parliamentary procedure. The ethical obligation for a floor parliamentarian, it seems to me, is similar to that of an attorney: to advocate on behalf of the client's interests using parliamentary arguments that can be made in good faith -- that is, that are not frivolous. It was very helpful to me, in advising the chair, to have the points of order raised with professionalism and citations to the bylaws or RONR.

I am also confident that the advice of floor parliamentarians prevented the raising of clearly erroneous points of order, and thus streamlined the proceedings.

I'm fairly certain this site would allow you to be a member of the forum, should you tire of being a "guest." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is indeed not uncommon to have "floor parliamentarians" serving a faction. In one political organization in which I served the chair as parliamentarian, there was a very close and contentious election. I actively encouraged the two factions each to hire a parliamentarian, and they both did so. At my suggestion, the convention standing rules allowed parliamentarians designated by delegates the privileges of the floor, and even permitted a delegate to yield to his/her parliamentarian adviser to explain a point of order, raise a parliamentary inquiry, or debate an appeal.

The result was significantly elevated discussion of parliamentary procedure. The ethical obligation for a floor parliamentarian, it seems to me, is similar to that of an attorney: to advocate on behalf of the client's interests using parliamentary arguments that can be made in good faith -- that is, that are not frivolous. It was very helpful to me, in advising the chair, to have the points of order raised with professionalism and citations to the bylaws or RONR.

I am also confident that the advice of floor parliamentarians prevented the raising of clearly erroneous points of order, and thus streamlined the proceedings.

Although the rules can be suspended ad actum to permit a non-member to make a motion or speak in debate in a particular case, I think I am of the opinion that a standing rule of a convention to grant non-members a right per sessionem to make motions or speak in debate in defined circumstances is out of order on account that, in effect, it creates another class of membership in breach of the organization's bylaws concerning the selection and qualifications of delegates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the rules can be suspended ad actum to permit a non-member to make a motion or speak in debate in a particular case, I think I am of the opinion that a standing rule of a convention to grant non-members a right per sessionem to make motions or speak in debate in defined circumstances is out of order on account that, in effect, it creates another class of membership in breach of the organization's bylaws concerning the selection and qualifications of delegates.

I do not believe that is correct. While it is a Fundamental Principle of Parliamentary Law (FPPL) that states only a member may vote (pp 408-9), and while while RONR "shifts" this function specifically to the bylaws (p. 409), there is no such rule requiring the ability to debate or to make motions to be "expressly stated in the bylaws."

A rule at the level of a special rule would be sufficient to grant the nonmember, or a class of nonmembers, the ability to participate in a meeting, provided that participation does not include the right to vote.

Also see, "Parliamentary Authorities’ Rule Shift Function," Parliamentary Journal, January 2005, pp. 3-12. They may be an underlying FPPL in this, but as I'm not a member of NAP/AIP/CAPP/SEAP/RRA Joint Committee on Identifying and Defining FPPL's, I'll leave it them to do the hard work. :)

(And besides, there is no money in it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe that is correct. While it is a Fundamental Principle of Parliamentary Law (FPPL) that states only a member may vote (pp 408-9), and while while RONR "shifts" this function specifically to the bylaws (p. 409), there is no such rule requiring the ability to debate or to make motions to be "expressly stated in the bylaws."

A rule at the level of a special rule would be sufficient to grant the nonmember, or a class of nonmembers, the ability to participate in a meeting, provided that participation does not include the right to vote.

Also see, "Parliamentary Authorities’ Rule Shift Function," Parliamentary Journal, January 2005, pp. 3-12. They may be an underlying FPPL in this, but as I'm not a member of NAP/AIP/CAPP/SEAP/RRA Joint Committee on Identifying and Defining FPPL's, I'll leave it them to do the hard work. :)

(And besides, there is no money in it.)

I think the principle to be applied is that the specific authorization of one or more classes of a kind in the bylaws implies that there no other authorized classes of the same kind. In other words, if the bylaws specifically provide for one or more classes of delegates to the convention, it is to be understood that there are no other classes of delegates provided. The standing rule of the convention, in this case, authorizes certain persons who are not delegates under the bylaws to exercise at will, in prescribed circumstances, some of the rights of delegates for the remainder of the session (even over multiple meetings, apparently) without suspending the rules for the purpose in each instance. This looks to me very much like the creation of another class of delegates, which I believe to be in conflict with the organization's bylaws having to do with the selection and qualifications of delegates. The adoption of such a standing rule of the convention creates a continuing breach.

It is not my intent to opine that the convention is without the power to suspend the rules in a particular instance for a particular purpose to allow a non-delegate to make a motion or give a speech in debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the principle to be applied is that the specific authorization of one or more classes of a kind in the bylaws implies that there no other authorized classes of the same kind. In other words, if the bylaws specifically provide for one or more classes of delegates to the convention, it is to be understood that there are no other classes of delegates provided. The standing rule of the convention, in this case, authorizes certain persons who are not delegates under the bylaws to exercise at will, in prescribed circumstances, some of the rights of delegates for the remainder of the session (even over multiple meetings, apparently) without suspending the rules for the purpose in each instance. This looks to me very much like the creation of another class of delegates, which I believe to be in conflict with the organization's bylaws having to do with the selection and qualifications of delegates. The adoption of such a standing rule of the convention creates a continuing breach.

It is not my intent to opine that the convention is without the power to suspend the rules in a particular instance for a particular purpose to allow a non-delegate to make a motion or give a speech in debate.

Except this is not a class of membership. It is a grant of some parliamentary functions of membership, but it does not (and can not) grant them membership. As noted in RONR, some of the functions of membership may be granted to nonmember (p. 255 fn.).

You do seem to be arguing that the assembly does not have the power to do that.

The only difference would be that the rule can bind a future session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to Rob, I don't think this is quite the same think as arguing that the rule cannot be suspended.

Rob is basically arguing that by granting some nonmembers the ability to do certain procedural things, enter into debate or make motions, within a meeting, this creates a class of membership.

I would argue that it does not. One reason it cannot is that the rules can be suspended to permit this; the suspension, if Rob is right, would create a temporary class of members (who can make motions and enter into debate, but not vote). The fact that the rule prohibiting nonmembers from speaking in debate or making motions can be suspended is a very strong argument against Rob's position.

Just for the record, I hope I'm not mis-characterizing Rob's position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob is basically arguing that by granting some nonmembers the ability to do certain procedural things, enter into debate or make motions, within a meeting, this creates a class of membership.

If that's what he means it's an interesting argument, but the tedium of suspending the rule every time to allow it boggles my mind. I think Mr. Balch's solution was quite ingenious, and within the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's what he means it's an interesting argument, but the tedium of suspending the rule every time to allow it boggles my mind. I think Mr. Balch's solution was quite ingenious, and within the rules.

If that is what Rob means. I'd prefer not to create a straw man, and then attack it. I'd prefer that Rob indicate that my characterization is correct.

I could, and would, argue that a rule might not be unsuspendable, but it could still be superseded by a special rule. I think Mr. Balch, writing elsewhere, has provided us with an example. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is what Rob means. I'd prefer not to create a straw man, and then attack it. I'd prefer that Rob indicate that my characterization is correct.

I could, and would, argue that a rule might not be unsuspendable, but it could still be superseded by a special rule. I think Mr. Balch, writing elsewhere, has provided us with an example. smile.gif

I do not intend to indicate one way or the other, since it is neither here nor there. The rule upon which I am claiming that the adoption of the standing rule of the convention was invalid is RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 10-11. Since the organization's bylaws almost certainly prescribed one or more classes of delegates, other classes of delegates are understood to have been prohibited. The standing rule of the convention proposed, in effect, to establish another class of delegates who were empowered to exercise at will some of the rights of membership in certain prescribed circumstances for the remainder of the convention in conflict with what the bylaws exhaustively prescribed. If the organization intends to establish another class of delegates, it should amend the bylaws appropriately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not intend to indicate one way or the other, since it is neither here nor there. The rule upon which I am claiming that the adoption of the standing rule of the convention was invalid is RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 10-11. Since the organization's bylaws almost certainly prescribed one or more classes of delegates, other classes of delegates are understood to have been prohibited. The standing rule of the convention proposed, in effect, to establish another class of delegates who were empowered to exercise at will some of the rights of membership in certain prescribed circumstances for the remainder of the convention in conflict with what the bylaws exhaustively prescribed. If the organization intends to establish another class of delegates, it should amend the bylaws appropriately.

First, you are assuming a fact not in evidence, that this creates a "class of members." It does not. It grants, to some nonmembers, the ability to do certain procedural things, specifically enter into debate and make motions.

The question is, can a rule, as opposed to a bylaw, grant to nonmembers the ability to debate and make motions?

Second, is there anything in RONR that would indicate that, this grant to nonmembers, would be a breach of a continuing nature. In other words, the assembly was, for some reason, without the power to create this rule. In this case, RONR notes that the assembly can grant these abilities to nonmembers, without it being a violation rising to the level of being a breach of a continuing nature (p. 255 fn.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At my suggestion, the convention standing rules allowed parliamentarians designated by delegates the privileges of the floor, and even permitted a delegate to yield to his/her parliamentarian adviser to explain a point of order, raise a parliamentary inquiry, or debate an appeal.

The standing rule of the convention, in this case, authorizes certain persons who are not delegates under the bylaws to exercise at will, in prescribed circumstances, some of the rights of delegates for the remainder of the session (even over multiple meetings, apparently) without suspending the rules for the purpose in each instance.

It seems to me that Mr. Elsman's description of the standing rule which was adopted in this case is overstated, but, in any event, nothing in RONR prohibits the adoption of such a rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...