complaints

[harper]

My organization retains a licensed parliamentarian. The person often volunteers legal opinions beyond Robert's Rules, though to the best of my knowledge has no law degree and isn't, of course, retained as a lawyer. Is there a place - some sort of governing body for parliamentarians, even this forum - to lodge a complaint? And if so, what sort of documentation is necessary? It has always been my understanding that parliamentarians advise the chair about meeting rules, but don't offer opinions beyond their purview.

 

Our organization uses Robert's Rules (latest edition) to conduct its meetings except where bylaws and laws supersede. 

 

Thank you.

 

Harper

[jstackpo]

In the U.S. anyway, there is no (state or federal) "license" to be a parliamentarian  --  so ask your person to explain what he/she is talking about.

 

The NAP and the AIP offer "Registration" or "Certification" respectively, based on pretty tough tests of parliamentary knowledge.  Contact either (or both) of them to find out if your parliamentarian is known to them.

 

National Association of Parliamentarians
213 South Main St.
Independence, MO  64050-3850

Phone: 888-627-2929
Fax: 816-833-3893;  
e-mail: hq@NAP2.org  
<<www.parliamentarians.org>>

or

American Institute of Parliamentarians
618 Church Street, Ste 220
Nashville, TN 37219

phone: 888-664-0428
e-mail: aip@aipparl.org
<< www.aipparl.org >>

And BTW, your understanding as to how much the parliamentarian should advise on is correct.

[Josh Martin]

My organization retains a licensed parliamentarian. The person often volunteers legal opinions beyond Robert's Rules, though to the best of my knowledge has no law degree and isn't, of course, retained as a lawyer. Is there a place - some sort of governing body for parliamentarians, even this forum - to lodge a complaint? And if so, what sort of documentation is necessary? It has always been my understanding that parliamentarians advise the chair about meeting rules, but don't offer opinions beyond their purview.

 

Our organization uses Robert's Rules (latest edition) to conduct its meetings except where bylaws and laws supersede. 

I don't know that this issue is too clear-cut. There are a great many laws which deal with parliamentary topics, and a society may well wish their parliamentarian to have some familiarity with such laws. We had a lengthy discussion on this subject in the Advanced Discussion forum. Some members of the Authorship Team provided some valuable insight.

[Transpower]

Parliamentarians handle parliamentary law and procedure.  Lawyers handle statutory law.  If the chair is dissatisfied with the parliamentarian, he should find another in whom he has trust.

[Richard Brown]

The problem is that there is often an overlapping between statutory law and parliamentary procedure, especially in the areas of non profit corporations and homeowner associations, for example.  I personally believe, strongly, that a professional parliamentarian needs to be generally familiar with such areas of overlap. 

 

I believe it is not only proper, but almost essential that a parliamentarian holding himself out as a professional parliamentarian and advising such organizations be familiar with the statutes governing the procedural and parliamentary aspects of the type entity he is advising.  At a minimum, he needs to know enough to know when there is likely to be a need to refer his client to an attorney.  I don't believe it constitutes any type of negligence or malpractice for a parliamentarian to point out, for example, statutory provisions governing such things as quorum requirements and required provisions for bylaws and provisions that can be waived in the bylaws.

 

Now, if your parliamentarian is not an attorney and is advising on things such as contract disputes and personnel issues, that's a different matter.... and something your state bar association or attorney licensing board or disciplinary board might be interested in.

 

btw, is he charging for these "legal opinions"  or offering them pro bono, sort of as friends discuss legal matters?

[harper]

The problem is that there is often an overlapping between statutory law and parliamentary procedure, especially in the areas of non profit corporations and homeowner associations, for example.  I personally believe, strongly, that a professional parliamentarian needs to be generally familiar with such areas of overlap. 

 

Now, if your parliamentarian is not an attorney and is advising on things such as contract disputes and personnel issues, that's a different matter.... and something your state bar association or attorney licensing board or disciplinary board might be interested in.

 

btw, is he charging for these "legal opinions"  or offering them pro bono, sort of as friends discuss legal matters?

 

The organization, a nonprofit, has retained the parliamentarian on a barter basis - free membership in exchange for his services. The parliamentarian is very good in a meeting context when asked about procedures stipulated in Robert's Rules. The individual is reckless in my opinion when advising fiduciaries of the organization on legal matters - what constitutes 'precedent', for instance. The organization is involved in multiple litigations, most involving personnel matters. 

 

My view, as one of the other experts mentioned: A parliamentarian should refrain from offering legal advise unless he's adequately trained in the law. Just as a matter of course. 

 

BTW: Does the latest edition of Robert's Rules stipulate (as my old 10th edition does on Page 16) that Robert's Rules is subordinate to 'local, state and national laws', etc., etc., etc.? I couldn't find a similar reference in the latest edition.

 

Thank you all for your input.

[Richard Brown]

BTW: Does the latest edition of Robert's Rules stipulate (as my old 10th edition does on Page 16) that Robert's Rules is subordinate to 'local, state and national laws', etc., etc., etc.? I couldn't find a similar reference in the latest edition.

Yes, it does, as do, I believe, all previous editions.  It's still on page 16 in the 11th edition.  So does RONR in Brief on page 94 84.

[harper]

Yes, it does, as do, I believe, all previous editions.  It's still on page 16 in the 11th edition.  So does RONR in Brief on page 94 84.

Thank you, sir. I've always believed that one of the great shortcomings of Robert's Rules as currently constructed is not to put that passage on Page One in boldface. A second is, at least in the case of my organization, the misuse of 'executive session'. Executive session doesn't mean that the secretary shouldn't take minutes, even record proceedings. It just means that those entitled to see those minutes are limited. But if necessary - such as in litigation - such minutes are not privileged. Again, thank you.

[Edgar Guest]

Executive session doesn't mean that the secretary shouldn't take minutes, even record proceedings. It just means that those entitled to see those minutes are limited.

Well, not exactly.

[Guest harper]

Well, not exactly.

 

Mr. Guest, what exactly if I may ask? Doesn't this issue get to the matter of Page 16 and the standing of national, state and local law vis-a-vis Robert's Rules and specifically privileged information? Again, my initial inquiry concerned my organization's parliamentarian offering legal opinions. I didn't raise the issue of privileged information at the outset, but I did mention in response to several comments that the organization is involved in multiple litigations. So I am curious, in light of your comment, where one draws the line? Thank you.

[Edgar Guest]

Mr. Guest, what exactly if I may ask?

 

You stated that meeting in executive session "just means that those entitled to see those minutes are limited". That's not accurate.

 

Access to minutes of all meetings is limited to the members of the body that is meeting, whether the meeting is held in executive session or not. The minutes of a board meeting (whether held in executive session or not) can be ordered read at a meeting of the general membership but, other than that, non-board members don't have access to board minutes.

 

What meeting in executive session does is impose confidentiality on the proceedings. It does not affect who is, or isn't, entitled to see the minutes.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you for your explanation. Off topic: I'm struggling to contact the forum moderators to remove the repetitions of my message. Can you offer a quick pointer? I apologize.

[Edgar Guest]

Thank you for your explanation. Off topic: I'm struggling to contact the forum moderators to remove the repetitions of my message. Can you offer a quick pointer? I apologize.

 

I've  already "reported" the duplicate posts (including one that reveals your e-mail address) to the moderators. I'm sure he'll clean up this thread.

[Guest Guest]

You stated that meeting in executive session "just means that those entitled to see those minutes are limited". That's not accurate.

 

Access to minutes of all meetings is limited to the members of the body that is meeting, whether the meeting is held in executive session or not. The minutes of a board meeting (whether held in executive session or not) can be ordered read at a meeting of the general membership but, other than that, non-board members don't have access to board minutes.

 

 

Mr. Guest,

 

Apologies for not responding more promptly. But to follow up: Who can access minutes would assume, of course, that an organization's bylaws or traditions - or the law - wouldn't trump the basic principle you've stated. Which gets back to Page 16 of the 11th edition and Page 84 of RONR in Brief. My organization stipulates in its bylaws that any member may review organizational records during office hours. Of course, they're not permitted to distribute those records without permission of the Board of Directors.

 

Traditionally, those records included financial and various committee reports PLUS minutes. In fact, depending on who served as secretary minutes were at different periods published on the organization's website. And for nearly half a century we taped our assembly meetings and made those tapes available for the membership to review. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a separate matter. I tend to err on the side of disclosure and transparency. If you've got nothing to hide, why keep secrets? Again, thank you for your comments.

[Richard Brown]

. . . But to follow up: Who can access minutes would assume, of course, that an organization's bylaws or traditions - or the law - wouldn't trump the basic principle you've stated. Which gets back to Page 16 of the 11th edition and Page 84 of RONR in Brief. My organization stipulates in its bylaws that any member may review organizational records during office hours. Of course, they're not permitted to distribute those records without permission of the Board of Directors.

I'm  not sure what point you are trying to make.  The bylaws (and applicable laws) trump everything else.  Unless you have a rule to the contrary, or there is some superior law to the contrary, minutes which are not minutes of an executive session are not secret and members who see them are under no obligation keep the contents confidential.  The rules in RONR address only who has the right to actually see the minutes.  Your rules would trump those rules....as would state law.

 

Getting back to the discussion about executive sessions, minutes, access to minutes, confidentiality of executive sessions and confidentiality of minutes, I'm not sure you completely understand the differences.... or that your rules trump what is in RONR and that your bylaws trump your other rules and customs and that any applicable state laws (which might address access to minutes and other records) trump all of those.    If that is the sort of thing that the parliamentarian is advising you on, I believe it is appropriate.

[Edgar Guest]

I tend to err on the side of disclosure . . . 

 

Well, of course it's best not to err at all. 

 

But when it comes to secrets, I think it's best to err on the side of keeping them since revealing them is irreversible.

[Guest harper]

Getting back to the discussion about executive sessions, minutes, access to minutes, confidentiality of executive sessions and confidentiality of minutes, I'm not sure you completely understand the differences.... or that your rules trump what is in RONR and that your bylaws trump your other rules and customs and that any applicable state laws (which might address access to minutes and other records) trump all of those.    If that is the sort of thing that the parliamentarian is advising you on, I believe it is appropriate.

 

Dear Mr. Brown,

 

I am quite clear about the order of things. Unfortunately, some people in my organization who depend on Robert's Rules have become blindly obedient to them. It's not the fault of Robert's Rules. It's the fault of those who employ them. Our organization's bylaws are also very clear about the natural order of things - the law of the land, followed by the articles of incorporation and bylaws, and only then Robert's Rules. And Robert's Rules kick in whenever procedures are not specified in our articles, bylaws or the law.

 

I daresay that our parliamentarian has not advised the organization appropriately because there are multiple instances in which he's offered legal opinions, even involving ongoing litigations. In such instances, he probably shouldn't offer any opinion beyond motions, amendments and general meeting and decorum rules. That's just my opinion, and I'm not a lawyer.

 

Naturally, there is sensitivity about what sort of information should be released and what sort of information shouldn't. I tend err on the side of full disclosure and more detailed minuting.

 

You have answered my questions. So has Mr. Guest. So has everyone who took the trouble to respond. Thank you all.

 

I will make two closing comments. One of the most valuable 'rules' in Robert's Rules is 'decorum at meetings'. It's common sense - basically to be mannerly in debate. But although it's common sense, it's often ignored.

 

Secondly, based on my organization's misuse of Robert's Rules (and OI suppose other organizations have a similar misunderstanding about the order of things), I do believe that it would helpful to put that Page 16 paragraph at the front of your guide. It's almost presented as a footnote when it's actually a core matter.

 

Again, thank you.

[Guest harper]

Well, of course it's best not to err at all. 

 

But when it comes to secrets, I think it's best to err on the side of keeping them since revealing them is irreversible.

Point taken. But if those secrets involve appropriating someone else's money - which is often the case with litigations - I don't think we have a choice but to disclose fully. Without revealing the organization's name and location, it is a nonprofit and members approve yearly budgets.