Sean Hunt Posted November 19, 2012 at 08:16 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 at 08:16 PM This is something that I've never seen addressed: is it (in)advisable to have the parliamentarian also serve as secretary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 19, 2012 at 08:26 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 at 08:26 PM I don't know about you but if I'm busy writing stuff down, I can't pay attention to everything else that's going on....and that's inadvisable. IMO (no citation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted November 19, 2012 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 at 08:28 PM This is something that I've never seen addressed: is it (in)advisable to have the parliamentarian also serve as secretary?Advisable? I suppose that would depend on the particular circumstances.But note that the secretary who also serves as parliamentarian agrees not to exercise many of the rights of membership.And note that most ordinary (?) organizations have no ongoing need for a parliamentarian in the first place.On the plus side, both the secretary and the parliamentarian would be in the same seat next to the presiding officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 19, 2012 at 11:23 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 at 11:23 PM This is something that I've never seen addressed: is it (in)advisable to have the parliamentarian also serve as secretary?Are you really asking if the secretary should serve as parliamentarian? Or did you really mean having the parliamentarian serving as the secretary?If you have a parliamentarian but lack a secretary, I'd think the best plan would be to elect another member as secretary pro tem and let the parliamentarian does his job unencumbered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 19, 2012 at 11:54 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 at 11:54 PM And note that most ordinary (?) organizations have no ongoing need for a parliamentarian in the first place.That's why I prefer extraordinary organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 19, 2012 at 11:58 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 at 11:58 PM This is something that I've never seen addressed: is it (in)advisable to have the parliamentarian also serve as secretary?I've drafted minutes during a meeting, just to show the secretary how it's done. But I've never been asked to be secretary while I was serving as parliamentarian. They usually stick me with "timekeeper." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 20, 2012 at 12:05 AM Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 at 12:05 AM They usually stick me with "timekeeper." Huh! I would have guessed Seargant-at-Arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 20, 2012 at 02:17 AM Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 at 02:17 AM Huh! I would have guessed Seargant-at-Arms. Timekeeper-at-arms, rest assured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 22, 2012 at 02:30 AM Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 at 02:30 AM In some legislative bodies, the secretary does serve as parliamentarian. There is no rule that would prohibit it. The presiding officer can serve as secretary. which I would expect to be more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.