Chair's participation on procedural suggestions

[Sean Hunt]

When a chairman has recommendations for the assembly to consider in the way of suggestions of rules with a more permanent view in mind (as opposed to the chairman offering a suggestion to a member as to a motion that the member could make to accomplish a desired goal), what is the best way for the chairman to present such a suggestion? While he could certainly leave the chair and simply make and debate the motion as any other member, would it also be appropriate for the chairman, on the basis that the suggestion relates to his function as a presiding officer (cf. p. 395 ll. 22-26) to make the recommendation and even debate it from the chair, as long as his debate is limited to why, as a chair, he feels that the suggestion is worth of implementation?

If no, could he, in your opinion, reasonably report the recommendation and preside over a member moving its adoption without relinquishing the chair?

[Trina]

Probably a morning lack of caffeine on my part... but, could you provide an example of what you mean by 'suggestions of rules with a more permanent view in mind'?

[Burke Balch]

A distinction must be made between the chair's role as presiding officer and, if the chair is the president with a role as an executive leader of the organization, the president's role in fulfilling what RONR (11th ed.), p. 456 refers to as "Administrative Duties of the President of a Society." It would be entirely proper for the president, in giving his or her officer's report (see pp. 355-56 and pp. 476-77), to recommend proposed special rules of order or standing rules, just as it would be proper to recommend any other matter on which the society's assembly might take action. When a motion is made to adopt or implement any such recommendation (see p. 477, ll. 2-4), however, the president must relinquish the chair "until the pending main question has been disposed of, since he has shown himself to be a partisan as far as that particular matter is concerned." Id, p. 395, ll. 15-18.

Unless the assembly is functioning under small board rules (see esp. p. 488, ll. 18-20), it is not proper for the presiding officer to recommend substantive positions to the assembly as ones the officer personally supports, as distinct from cases in which the presiding officer is impartially and properly facilitating the business of the assembly, such as, in Mr. Hunt's words, "the chairman offering a suggestion to a member as to a motion that the member could make to accomplish a desired goal," helping to reword a motion so that it is clear (p. 39, l. 33 to p. 40, l. 4) or assuming a motion (p. 54, ll. 35-36; p. 291, ll. 7-9; p. 438, ll. 31-34; p.507, ll. 24-29; p. 520, ll. 22-24; p. 524, ll. 21-25; p. 610, ll. 13-16; p. 647, ll. 23-27).

[Gary Novosielski]

It would be entirely proper for the president, in giving his or her officer's report (see pp. 355-56 and pp. 476-77), to recommend proposed special rules of order or standing rules, just as it would be proper to recommend any other matter on which the society's assembly might take action. When a motion is made to adopt or implement any such recommendation (see p. 477, ll. 2-4), however, the president must relinquish the chair "until the pending main question has been disposed of, since he has shown himself to be a partisan as far as that particular matter is concerned." Id, p. 395, ll. 15-18.

The citation (p. 395) refers to the president's re-claiming of the chair, having earlier relinquished it for the purpose of taking part in debate. But I don't read that as requiring him to relinquish the chair in this situation.

I believe that if a motion is made by someone else to implement the president's suggestions, and the president does not intend to participate in debate on the issue while it is pending, then he is under no obligation to relinquish the chair, and may preside as usual, just as with any motion with which he might be known to be in aggreement.

[Burke Balch]

I believe that if a motion is made by someone else to implement the president's suggestions, and the president does not intend to participate in debate on the issue while it is pending, then he is under no obligation to relinquish the chair, and may preside as usual, just as with any motion with which he might be known to be in aggreement.

I believe you're wrong Effectively, the president has already participated in debate by speaking, in his report, on behalf of his own recommendations. It is important "to maintain the chair's necessary position of impartiality." RONR (11th ed.), p. 22, ll. 28-29. In the role of presiding officer, "Normally, especially in a large body, he should have nothing to say on the merits of pending questions." Id., p. 394, ll. 30-31. When the president, while giving an officer's report, has taken a clear position on the merits of a matter to the extent of making a recommendation of how to address it, and the motion based on that recommendation is before the assembly, the appearance of impartiality cannot be maintained.

[Sean Hunt]

Probably a morning lack of caffeine on my part... but, could you provide an example of what you mean by 'suggestions of rules with a more permanent view in mind'?

it is not proper for the presiding officer to recommend substantive positions to the assembly as ones the officer personally supports, as distinct from cases in which the presiding officer is impartially and properly facilitating the business of the assembly

The example I was thinking of was something along the lines of the chair presenting a report along the lines of "The chair has observed that there have been delays in the past few meetings and members have been complaining about this, and that no member has, in the chair's best judgment, used their opportunity to speak twice on a motion for anything other than to obstruct the proper business of the assembly. As such the chair suggests the adoption of a special rule of order limiting each member to one speech on each motion."

In presenting this as described, the chair is, in my personal view, attempting to facilitate the business of the assembly in an impartial manner, the chief distinction from situations such as suggesting a motion being that in this case, the suggestion is offered to the assembly as a whole rather than to any individual member. The recommendation, in my view, stems directly from the chair's role in presiding and his ability to be more dispassionate about the debate since he is not participating.

[Gary Novosielski]

I believe you're wrong Effectively, the president has already participated in debate by speaking, in his report, on behalf of his own recommendations. It is important "to maintain the chair's necessary position of impartiality." RONR (11th ed.), p. 22, ll. 28-29. In the role of presiding officer, "Normally, especially in a large body, he should have nothing to say on the merits of pending questions." Id., p. 394, ll. 30-31. When the president, while giving an officer's report, has taken a clear position on the merits of a matter to the extent of making a recommendation of how to address it, and the motion based on that recommendation is before the assembly, the appearance of impartiality cannot be maintained.

I understand, but permit me some latitude for argument's sake. I may be taking the text too literally, but technically the the matter was not pending during the president's report, and was, in fact, not debatable at that time. Later, when it was pending, the president did not enter into debate.

If he is obligated to relinquish the chair, and then does not participate in debate, what has this accomplished?

The text says "Normally, especially in a large body, he should have nothing to say on the merits of pending questions." [emphasis added] And in this scenario he has not.

He did have something to say about the merit of an idea that was not a pending question and may never have become one. And when his idea, or one substantially similar to it (or perhaps one diametrically opposed to it) comes before the assembly, he does not debate it. The fact that he favors the proposal (or is diametrically opposed to it) may be known by the assembly, but he does not interrupt his task of presiding to enter into formal debate.

What about a situation where, on the way into the meeting room, some members are discussing whether to paint the clubhouse blue, and the president, overhearing the conversation, says, "Oh, I think that would look terrible!" in a voice loud enough for all to hear. Later, a member moves to paint the clubhouse blue. Must the president relinquish the chair because his view on the matter is known?

[Guest Guest]

He did have something to say about the merit of an idea that was not a pending question and may never have become one.

But if it becomes one, he needs to vacate the chair, since he has had something to say about it. I choose to think that's what Mr. Balch is saying.

[Josh Martin]

I understand, but permit me some latitude for argument's sake. I may be taking the text too literally, but technically the the matter was not pending during the president's report, and was, in fact, not debatable at that time. Later, when it was pending, the president did not enter into debate.

If he is obligated to relinquish the chair, and then does not participate in debate, what has this accomplished?

The text says "Normally, especially in a large body, he should have nothing to say on the merits of pending questions." [emphasis added] And in this scenario he has not.

He did have something to say about the merit of an idea that was not a pending question and may never have become one. And when his idea, or one substantially similar to it (or perhaps one diametrically opposed to it) comes before the assembly, he does not debate it. The fact that he favors the proposal (or is diametrically opposed to it) may be known by the assembly, but he does not interrupt his task of presiding to enter into formal debate.

As you say, I think you are taking the text too literally. The key principle here is that the presiding officer should present the appearance of impartiality so that the assembly may have confidence in his objectivity. The specific rules presented in RONR on this topic serve for the chair's guidance in applying this principle and I think it is a mistake to interpret them too literally or take them as an exhaustive list. If the president has presented a recommendation as part of his report, then he has displayed a position on the issue while presiding. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself, since the recommendation is presumably in accordance with his duties as president. If and when this recommendation materializes into a motion, however, the president should relinquish the chair. This is especially true if the motion immediately follows the report, as is often the case.

What about a situation where, on the way into the meeting room, some members are discussing whether to paint the clubhouse blue, and the president, overhearing the conversation, says, "Oh, I think that would look terrible!" in a voice loud enough for all to hear. Later, a member moves to paint the clubhouse blue. Must the president relinquish the chair because his view on the matter is known?

When we leave the context of the meeting, I concede that matters become somewhat trickier. It is unreasonable to expect the president to remain impartial at all times, but on the other hand, the president must again take into account the basic principle that he must maintain the assembly's confidence in his fairness and good judgment. In this regard, the chair should still be careful with what he says outside of a meeting, particularly with respect to controversial issues which are likely to come before the assembly. What exactly this means will depend on the culture of the organization and will require the exercise of the chair's good judgment rather than a hard-and-fast rule from RONR.

With that said, if I were the chair in the hypothetical scenario you have provided, I would probably preside over the motion unless a member objected (or if there are other factors which might complicate the situation).

The example I was thinking of was something along the lines of the chair presenting a report along the lines of "The chair has observed that there have been delays in the past few meetings and members have been complaining about this, and that no member has, in the chair's best judgment, used their opportunity to speak twice on a motion for anything other than to obstruct the proper business of the assembly. As such the chair suggests the adoption of a special rule of order limiting each member to one speech on each motion."

In presenting this as described, the chair is, in my personal view, attempting to facilitate the business of the assembly in an impartial manner, the chief distinction from situations such as suggesting a motion being that in this case, the suggestion is offered to the assembly as a whole rather than to any individual member. The recommendation, in my view, stems directly from the chair's role in presiding and his ability to be more dispassionate about the debate since he is not participating.

I am inclined to agree with Mr. Balch. While it is appropriate for the president to recommend such a rule be adopted, he should relinquish the chair during its consideration. Given the context behind the motion, I can imagine the debate becoming very heated very quickly. The President was careful not to name individuals in his recommendation - other members may not be so careful. In such circumstances, it is essential that enforcing the rules of the assembly (especially decorum) be the chair's focus. Debating the motion could distract him from this issue, and could also lead quickly to allegations of unfair treatment (even if they are unfounded).

By the same token, if the president is relieved from the concerns of presiding he can focus on being a key supporter of the motion. Given his role as the assembly's regular presiding officer, his opinion is likely to carry great weight in the proceedings. This is problematic when serving as the presiding officer, but it is valuable when speaking as a member.

An alternative, of course, would be for the president to have some other member serve as the partisan for the motion, so that the president may serve as the impartial presiding officer. It will be up to the president to determine which is the wiser course of action, based on his knowledge of the assembly.

[Sean Hunt]

Thank you for your input!

[Tim Wynn]

The example I was thinking of was something along the lines of the chair presenting a report along the lines of "The chair has observed that there have been delays in the past few meetings and members have been complaining about this, and that no member has, in the chair's best judgment, used their opportunity to speak twice on a motion for anything other than to obstruct the proper business of the assembly. As such the chair suggests the adoption of a special rule of order limiting each member to one speech on each motion."

In presenting this as described, the chair is, in my personal view, attempting to facilitate the business of the assembly in an impartial manner, the chief distinction from situations such as suggesting a motion being that in this case, the suggestion is offered to the assembly as a whole rather than to any individual member. The recommendation, in my view, stems directly from the chair's role in presiding and his ability to be more dispassionate about the debate since he is not participating.

In this situation, the chair should have ruled the obstruction of business out of order.

It would make no sense to adopt a rule limiting proper debate with a view to ending improper debate.

If the chair is not willing to rule such action out of order, I would offer that as evidence that the debate in question is not as obstructive as the accusation purports and that the chair's argument is over zealous.

In all cases where there is some doubt about the chair's ability to properly make a motion, the best course is for the chair to solicit another member to make the motion.

[Tim Wynn]

Burke,

If a chair objects to the consideration of a question and the objection is not sustained by the assembly, would you say that he should relinquish the chair for the consideration of the question?

[Burke Balch]

The chair can, as chair, assume a motion in order to facilitate the business of the assembly. If assuming an objection to consideration of the question is something the chair does in response, let us say, to a parliamentary inquiry or in other circumstances in which it is clear the assumption of the objection is not intended to reflect the chair's personal views but simply to put forth the appropriate procedural step to reflect the apparent desires of a member, then I do not think the chair would need to be relinquished regardless of the outcome of the vote on objection to consideration.

On the other hand, I do NOT think the chair can, based on his or her personal belief that consideration of the question ought be objected to, himself or herself properly object to consideration while retaining the chair. The presiding officer who feels strongly that the motion ought to be objected to must FIRST relinquish the chair, THEN, as a member, object to consideration of the question. In such circumstances, then certainly the officer ought not resume the chair, if the objection to consideration does not prevail, until after the main motion's consideration is completed.

I now see that RONR (11th ed.), p. 268, ll. 23-25 expressly states, “The presiding officer, on his own initiative, can submit his objection of this kind to a vote, just as he can raise a question of order on his own accord.” Parliamentary Law, page 156, is even more explicit: “[A]s the chair can call a member to order, so he can, on his own responsibility, put the question on the consideration of a question that for any reason he thinks should not be considered during that session.” (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, whatever the chair’s general obligation to appear impartial, he or she nevertheless has the right, while presiding, to object to the consideration of a question.

The general rule requiring the presiding officer to relinquish the chair to participate in debate, and not to return to it until the pending main question has been disposed of, is prefaced with the statements, “If the presiding officer is a member of the society, he has– as an individual – the same rights in debate as any other member; but the impartiality required of the chair in an assembly precludes his exercising these rights while he is presiding. . . . On certain occasions–which should be extremely rare– the presiding officer may believe that a crucial factor relating to such a question has been overlooked and that his obligation as a member to call attention to the point outweighs his duty to preside at that time.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 394, l. 26 to p. 395, l. 1.

By contrast, the last paragraph under “Rule Against the Chair’s Participation in Debate” notes, “In debate on an appeal . . . or a point of order . . . that the chair has submitted to the judgment of the assembly . . ., the foregoing rule does not apply, since his participation in the debate relates to the function of presiding.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 395, ll. 22-26. The specific rule authorizing the presiding officer “on his own initiative” to object to the consideration of a question expressly equates that authority to the chair’s authority “to raise a question of order on his own accord.” Id, p. 268, ll. 24-25. Accordingly, the rule requiring relinquishment of the chair in debate does not apply when the chair has objected to the question and the objection has not been sustained, since the chair’s raising the objection, like the chair’s spontaneously ruling on a question of order, “relates to the function of presiding.” The presiding officer may remain in the chair during consideration of the main motion to whose consideration he or she unsuccessfully objected to considering.

[J. J.]

The chair can, as chair, assume a motion in order to facilitate the business of the assembly. If assuming an objection to consideration of the question is something the chair does in response, let us say, to a parliamentary inquiry or in other circumstances in which it is clear the assumption of the objection is not intended to reflect the chair's personal views but simply to put forth the appropriate procedural step to reflect the apparent desires of a member, then I do not think the chair would need to be relinquished regardless of the outcome of the vote on objection to consideration.

On the other hand, I do NOT think the chair can, based on his or her personal belief that consideration of the question ought be objected to, himself or herself properly object to consideration while retaining the chair. The presiding officer who feels strongly that the motion ought to be objected to must FIRST relinquish the chair, THEN, as a member, object to consideration of the question. In such circumstances, then certainly the officer ought not resume the chair, if the objection to consideration does not prevail, until after the main motion's consideration is completed.

How would the judgment be determined?

If chairing, I might move an objection on the basis of:

1. The discussion of the topic will be overly contentious.

2. The vast majority (obviously greater than 2/3) would not support the motion.

3. I simply think that the motion, if adopted, is not in the best interest of the organization.

In the first two cases, if I get to cast a vote, I might vote in favor of the motion; I could decide that even while objecting to that motion. Likewise, I could think all three.

How, apart from me knowing my own mind, maybe, would this distiction be determined?

[Tim Wynn]

The chair can, as chair, assume a motion in order to facilitate the business of the assembly. If assuming an objection to consideration of the question is something the chair does in response, let us say, to a parliamentary inquiry or in other circumstances in which it is clear the assumption of the objection is not intended to reflect the chair's personal views but simply to put forth the appropriate procedural step to reflect the apparent desires of a member, then I do not think the chair would need to be relinquished regardless of the outcome of the vote on objection to consideration.

On the other hand, I do NOT think the chair can, based on his or her personal belief that consideration of the question ought be objected to, himself or herself properly object to consideration while retaining the chair. The presiding officer who feels strongly that the motion ought to be objected to must FIRST relinquish the chair, THEN, as a member, object to consideration of the question. In such circumstances, then certainly the officer ought not resume the chair, if the objection to consideration does not prevail, until after the main motion's consideration is completed.

"The presiding officer, on his own initiative, can submit his objection of this kind to a vote, just as he can raise a question of order on his own accord." - p. 268, ll. 23-25.

The chair, if a member, has the right to make either of those motions, without this rule. Therefore, if the intention is not to give a nonmember presiding officer the right to object (which I don't believe is the intention), the inclusion of this sentence could only logically be to create or highlight an exception to the rules preventing the chair from making motions while presiding.

If a presiding officer must relinquish the chair to make a the motion to Object to the Consideration of a Question, the only similarity to a Point of Order would arise if the presiding office must relinquish the chair to raise a point of order on his own accord.

The language is very clear in comparing "HIS objection" and raising a question of order "on his own accord."

The language does not imply that it applies in any way to an assumed motion on behalf of the assembly.

[Burke Balch]

"The presiding officer, on his own initiative, can submit his objection of this kind to a vote, just as he can raise a question of order on his own accord." - p. 268, ll. 23-25.

The chair, if a member, has the right to make either of those motions, without this rule. Therefore, if the intention is not to give a nonmember presiding officer the right to object (which I don't believe is the intention), the inclusion of this sentence could only logically be to create or highlight an exception to the rules preventing the chair from making motions while presiding.

If a presiding officer must relinquish the chair to make a the motion to Object to the Consideration of a Question, the only similarity to a Point of Order would arise if the presiding office must relinquish the chair to raise a point of order on his own accord.

The language is very clear in comparing "HIS objection" and raising a question of order "on his own accord."

The language does not imply that it applies in any way to an assumed motion on behalf of the assembly.

You are entirely correct and I have edited my original post accordingly (leaving the original language in strikeout form so others can see to what you were responding.)