Duty to resign

[Gödel Fan]

I serve as internal parliamentarian to an incorporated entity.  This group (as discussed in prior threads) purports to have held a special meeting without notice - meaning they got together a quorum of people and took a vote to allocate $3k.  A point of order to this was raised at tonight's regular meeting; the chair ruled that it was valid to hold a special meeting with no notice.  This decision was upheld on appeal.  During debate on the appeal, members asked me to speak on the parliamentary questions, which I did - to little effect, apparently. 

 

I had, prior to the meeting, advised the chair that should such a point of order be raised, my advice was to (obviously) find it well-taken.  It's not shocking that he didn't, though. 

 

Later in the same meeting, a member was berated by the chair and treasurer, personally and by name, for having found out information from our accountant relevant to the company.  Points of order were raised to these attacks, which were ignored.  This member is the chair of a committee charged with investigating the non-profit status of the organization, so this meeting falls within that committee's duties, but the treasurer asked him to put off the meeting until the fall, which he did not do.  The chair and treasurer did not acknowledge the existence of this committee, despite its existence on our committee list, and even after being shown the relevant entry in the approved minutes they continued to insist that he had somehow done something wrong.  This organization, so far as I can tell, believes in enforcing rules that do not exist, but not those that do.

 

According to RONR, a parliamentarian has a duty to resign if his advice is routinely disregarded.  Does an egregious violation such as this qualify as a sufficient reason to resign?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I think that is a determination for you to make.

[Richard Brown]

I think that is a determination for you to make.

I agree with Hieu.  I think, however, you certainly have grounds to  resign.... not  that you need grounds unless you have a contract obligating you to continue to serve.

 

The chair is not obligated to follow the advice of the parliamentarian. but I would say he ignores your advice at his peril.  I believe that most professional parliamentarians would resign if the client habitually ignores their  advice on important issues.   You might look at section  4.8 of the Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians adopted by both the NAP and AIP.  That  provision says, "A parliamentarian shall not withdraw from employment without first taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable detriment to the client".  In other words, don't leave them in a lurch a critical time.  At least that's my interpretation of it.

 

And RONR does indeed say, on page 467:  "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 you are justified in resigning, but, as Hieu said, that is a judgment call which in the end only you can make. 

[Dan Honemann]

According to RONR, a parliamentarian has a duty to resign if his advice is routinely disregarded.  Does an egregious violation such as this qualify as a sufficient reason to resign?

 

RONR does not say that a parliamentarian has a duty to resign if his advice is routinely disregarded, just that he may find it necessary to do so. The reference here is primarily to a professional parliamentarian who may find it necessary to resign, under such circumstances, in order to protect his own professional reputation.

 

By the way, what's an "internal parliamentarian"?

[Gödel Fan]

I'm using internal parliamentarian (rather, the organization is) to refer to a member appointed to this position by the chair, as opposed to a hired consultant.  

 

I do not have a professional reputation to uphold, but I would like to have one in the future (I plan to take the PQC next summer, and I will enter law school in September.)  I also find it problematic for a group to be able to point to me and say "that's our parliamentarian" while they egregiously violate fundamental principles against my advice.  

[Richard Brown]

I'm using internal parliamentarian (rather, the organization is) to refer to a member appointed to this position by the chair, as opposed to a hired consultant.  

That sounds like what RONR and most of us regulars here refer to as a "member parliamentarian".  It's discussed on page 467 of RONR.  I'm assuming from your comments that you are a member of the group.

 

Since a member parliamentarian is not supposed to vote, make motions or take part in debate (RONR p. 467), it can sometimes be difficult to find a member willing to give up those rights in order to serve as parliamentarian.  To solve that problem, some organizations (like my local NAP unit) adopt a special rule of order that allows a member parliamentarian to participate just like other members.  Another option, if it becomes a problem, is for the organization to not have an official member parliamentarian, but for the president, when needing parliamentary advice during a meeting, to consult with an "experienced member" as discussed on page 254:  "Before rendering his decision, the chair can consult the parliamentarian, if there is one. The chair can also request the advice of experienced members, but no one has the right to express such opinions in the meeting unless requested to do so by the chair."

 

It's been my experience, though, that most organizations and their member parliamentarians either are not aware of the rule in RONR about the parliamentarian remaining impartial or they choose to ignore it.

 

Edited to add:  If an organization wants to have an official "Experienced Member", I wonder if the bylaws would have to be amended to provide for the position?  I guess there can be an "unofficial Experienced Member". 

[Gödel Fan]

We follow the impartiality rules.  At times, requests are made by members to hear from the parliamentarian, and the chair will usually give approval - I confine my answer to the procedural question without giving an opinion on the matter under discussion.  That happened this time - the members asked for a parliamentary inquiry to be directed to the parliamentarian asking what the rules are for special meetings and what notice is required.  I'm not sure why, since they then voted that no notice is needed.  The chair also had me answer a parliamentary inquiry as to whether or not a motion to rescind something done at the imaginary special meeting could be made with an appeal immediately pending.  

 

At other times, the chair asks me to explain how something works, which I do.  It seems to require explanation anytime a secondary motion is made - no matter how often it happens, anytime someone moves to postpone, refer, etc. someone will shout that "we have to deal with the motion that's been made first!"  

 

In this organization, it takes between one and three years to earn what the bylaws call regular membership, which allows one to vote.  I was appointed one month after I became a voting member, so I have had only one meeting at which I could vote (outside of by ballot.)

 

I believe the Chair likes having me unable to raise points of order, debate, and vote.  

 

To be clear, if I resign, I will also leave the organization, since I also don't enjoy being a member of a lawless organization.  As an elected official, I might then take other actions which would be difficult while a member.

[J. J.]

It has been said that someone in a similar position could do three thing, follow, fight, or flee.  You can acquiesce to the decision (following it).  You can fight, which you seem to have done, which has not solved your problem.  You can flee, which you are contemplating.

 

I agree with others that there is no absolute "duty" to resign.  However, I would note that even submitting a resignation might jar the majority into doing the right thing.  Personally, I would resign, diplomatically stating the reasons.