When presiding officer ignores misconduct

[TheAdvocate]

Last year, at what can be best described as a mass meeting, our presiding officer appointed me as parliamentarian. I am a newbie at RR, but I still know 20x more than most people there, and 10x more than the presiding officer.

Anyway, our standing rules say one can speak for one minute only, which is fine for our purposes. When it was my turn to speak, I was tongue-tied for the first 5 seconds, and someone yelled out "Time!" and many in the assembly laughed. I was indignant and demanded that the time keeper restart the clock. He refused. I kept insisting. He wouldn't. I looked to the presiding officer, but he did nothing. I let it go, it didn't seem worth it to me.

Of course, I made the mistake of addressing our timekeeper directly, but I should have done it through the chair. (I was upset) But what would be the best procedure to use when someone is disrespecting my speech while I'm being timed? Do I call a point of order? If I do, should the clock be stopped in the middle of my speech?

[David A Foulkes]

Last year, at what can be best described as a mass meeting, our presiding officer appointed me as parliamentarian. I am a newbie at RR, but I still know 20x more than most people there, and 10x more than the presiding officer.

Anyway, our standing rules say one can speak for one minute only, which is fine for our purposes. When it was my turn to speak, I was tongue-tied for the first 5 seconds, and someone yelled out "Time!" and many in the assembly laughed. I was indignant and demanded that the time keeper restart the clock. He refused. I kept insisting. He wouldn't. I looked to the presiding officer, but he did nothing. I let it go, it didn't seem worth it to me.

Of course, I made the mistake of addressing our timekeeper directly, but I should have done it through the chair. (I was upset) But what would be the best procedure to use when someone is disrespecting my speech while I'm being timed? Do I call a point of order? If I do, should the clock be stopped in the middle of my speech?

Assuming you are a member of the organization, as parliamentarian you still retain the rights of membership (including making motions, speaking in debate, and voting) but abide by the same requirement of impartiality imposed on the chair, and thus do not exercise those rights (in this case, speaking in debate) except voting when by ballot. So you should not have spoken. (RONR 11th ed., p. 467 ll. 8-12)

As for timing a member's speech, although I don't recall seeing this explicitly in RONR, I'd say the clock starts ticking when the chair recognizes you (or a bare second or two after). Even if you want to spend your entire minute standing up there silently glaring at the members, that's your choice, but it counts against your time. How you spend your minute (talking or not) is your choice. Assuming you had been recognized by the chair, when that person yelled out "Time" and the members laughed, the chair might have said something like "The assembly will come to order. Mr. Advocate has the floor", and if it did not happen again, no (more) harm done and you should have continued.

So, was this actually a "mass meeting" as defined on p. 543? Why do you describe it as such?

[sMargaret]

When it was my turn to speak, I was tongue-tied for the first 5 seconds, and someone yelled out "Time!" and many in the assembly laughed. I was indignant and demanded that the time keeper restart the clock. He refused. I kept insisting. He wouldn't. I looked to the presiding officer, but he did nothing. I let it go, it didn't seem worth it to me.

From the 10th edition of RONR (apologies for it being 10th):

"Only on the most involved matters should the parliamentarian actually be called upon to speak to the assembly; and the practice should be avoided if at all possible. "

"After the parliamentarian has expressed an opinion on a point, the chair has the duty to make the final ruling and, in doing so, has the right to follow the advice of the parliamentarian or to disregard it. But if the parliamentarian's advice on important procedural issues is habitually disregarded, he may find it necessary, at the end of the present engagement or session, to resign."

I think that as a general rule, the person serving as parliamentarian should behave in a dignified manner throughout the meeting, and should have a good grasp of the principals of parliamentary procedure. The poster was speaking when perhaps he/she should not have been, didn't react well to a joke, challenged the time keeper directly on an issue rather than the chair, seems to have thought that the 1 minute of time given to members actually referred to 1 minute of speaking, and "kept insisting" to the timekeeper rather than appealing to the chair.

[Chris Harrison]

<snip>

Well, the poster admitted that he or she is a newbie where RONR is concerned (which should grant some leeway right there in any criticism that we give) and did come here seeking guidance which is more than I can say for a lot of organization's parliamentarians who think that since they are a "parliamentarian" that everything they do is right and that they know everything and have all the answers. Granted The Advocate did err in how the situation was handled but I want to commend him or her for being able to recognize that those errors probably did take place and coming here to find out how to properly handle it in the future.