President reporting recommendations regarding to expected motion.

[Sean Hunt]

Is it appropriate within the bounds of impartiality and within the scope of the President's report for, when notice has been given of a significant motion such as a bylaw amendment or a special rule of order, the President to report a recommendation with regards to the motion, including an amendment? On the one hand, I could see this as being seen as either not in the President's purview and thus not a good subject of his report, or else that it would violate impartiality since it involves the presiding officer expressing an opinion on a motion, even if it is not before the assembly. On the other hand, I think that this could be a useful tool for the President to present his opinion to the assembly once and then, having presented it for consideration in advance (no less than he could have before the meeting), be able to preside over it in a more neutral fashion (more similar to when presiding over his own election).

[George Mervosh]

I would view it as inappropriate. He gets to speak in debate regarding a proposed motion while it's not pending, and he gets to do so without leaving the chair? If he did that I wouldn't expect him to preside in a neutral fashion whatsoever, and I would move to suspend the rules an elect a chairman pro-tem when that proposed motion does become pending. That's just my take on it.

[Burke Balch]

The president typically has two functions. So far as parliamentary procedure is concerned, that function is to be a presiding officer and in that context, indeed, the appearance of impartiality must be observed. The other is as an administrative officer, and perhaps chief executive officer, of the organization. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 456-57. It is in this latter capacity that the president presents an officer's report. I have rarely, if ever, served as parliamentarian at a meeting at which the president did not use that report to express opinions, and often make recommendations, concerning the organization. As with the report of any other officer, motions implementing those recommendations need to be made by another member. RONR (11th ed.), p. 356, ll. 5-8. During consideration of such motions, I advise the president to relinquish the chair as described on page 395.

While I recognize that RONR (11th ed.), p. 394, l. 32 says occasions when the chair relinquishes the chair to participate in debate "should be extremely rare," in my experience, it would be utterly unrealistic to suggest, let alone to attempt to enforce as a rule, the notion that the president can express no opinions and make no recommendations in the course of his or her officer's report. In that light, considering the specific question in this thread, it seems to me that if the president chooses to express an opinion in his or her officer's report concerning a bylaw amendment or other significant motion, or even to suggest an amendment thereto, that cannot be prevented -- but when the matter later comes before the assembly, the president must relinquish the chair during its consideration.

I have worked with organizations that separate the functions of presiding officer, which they assign to someone with a title of "chairman," from those of chief executive officer or president, precisely to avoid this dilemma. It is similar to the procedure in the British Parliament, where the presiding officer is the impartial Speaker, while the Prime Minister, with executive responsibilities, does not hesitate to engage in extremely partisan and quite robust debate.

[Guest Delegate]

If I recall correctly, and Mr. Balch will recall it better than most, at the last NAP Covnention, this issue was skillfully avoided by having other well respected members, during their reports, offer opinions, and basically lobby for the adoption of issues that were deemed crucial, while the President simply avoided putting himself in the position of having to relinquish the chair.