Guest Betsey Posted December 30, 2013 at 04:25 PM Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 at 04:25 PM I am pretty familiar with Roberts Rules of order and have the book. I was under the impression that the president cannot make motions. At times there is a need for me as president to explain or provide information. Someone from the board then makes a motion and we go through the process as described in the book. However, it was requested of me by our parliamentarian to come to the meeting with a motion that I make on behalf of the executive committee. Is this something I can and should be doing as president? Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 30, 2013 at 04:28 PM Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 at 04:28 PM I am pretty familiar with Roberts Rules of order and have the book. I was under the impression that the president cannot make motions. At times there is a need for me as president to explain or provide information. Someone from the board then makes a motion and we go through the process as described in the book. However, it was requested of me by our parliamentarian to come to the meeting with a motion that I make on behalf of the executive committee. Is this something I can and should be doing as president? Thank you! No, you should not be making motions while presiding. See FAQ #1 for more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted December 30, 2013 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 at 05:24 PM No, you should not be making motions while presiding. See FAQ #1 for more details.Wouldn't that depend on whether Betsey would be making the motion at a Board meeting and if the Small Board rules (which is covered in FAQ #1) apply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 30, 2013 at 07:22 PM Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 at 07:22 PM Wouldn't that depend on whether Betsey would be making the motion at a Board meeting and if the Small Board rules (which is covered in FAQ #1) apply? Yes, that's why I suggested that Betsey see FAQ #1 for more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 30, 2013 at 10:31 PM Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 at 10:31 PM And you might want to share the info found in FAQ#1 (and page references therein) with your parliamentarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 14, 2014 at 09:47 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 at 09:47 PM In a situation like this, the proper thing to do would be for you to hand the responsibility of presiding over the meeting to the next in line while the issue is being considered. You would then be able to function as any other member during that time and the vice-president (or whatever this person's title is) would be the person to whom the restrictions applied. The reason for the restrictions is because it is necessary for the presiding officer to attempt to be unbiased toward both sides of the debate. What frequently happens when this person speaks is that they tend to silence debate by responding to the discussion. It is better when the presiding officer knows he has no option to discuss the issue, and focuses he attention to providing an opportunity for all sides to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 14, 2014 at 09:49 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 at 09:49 PM In a situation like this, the proper thing to do would be for you to hand the responsibility of presiding over the meeting to the next in line while the issue is being considered. You would then be able to function as any other member during that time and the vice-president (or whatever this person's title is) would be the person to whom the restrictions applied. The reason for the restrictions is because it is necessary for the presiding officer to attempt to be unbiased toward both sides of the debate. What frequently happens when this person speaks is that they tend to silence debate by responding to the discussion. It is better when the presiding officer knows he has no option to discuss the issue, and focuses he attention to providing an opportunity for all sides to be heard. Alternately, another member of the Executive Committee could make the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 14, 2014 at 10:43 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 at 10:43 PM Alternately, another member of the Executive Committee could make the motion. Yes, this is the prescribed procedure (p. 505, ll. 9-11). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 17, 2014 at 01:44 AM Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 at 01:44 AM In a situation like this, the proper thing to do would be for you to hand the responsibility of presiding over the meeting to the next in line while the issue is being considered. You would then be able to function as any other member during that time and the vice-president (or whatever this person's title is) would be the person to whom the restrictions applied. The reason for the restrictions is because it is necessary for the presiding officer to attempt to be unbiased toward both sides of the debate. What frequently happens when this person speaks is that they tend to silence debate by responding to the discussion. It is better when the presiding officer knows he has no option to discuss the issue, and focuses he attention to providing an opportunity for all sides to be heard. Opinions regarding the proper thing to do might be more persuasive if they came from someone with a name other than Guest Guest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.