Can an organization parliamentarian and a Vice Chair be the same individual

[DJGarvin]

Can an individual who was elected as Vice Chair take on actions similar to parliamentarian and can they just blurt-out that something is incorrect or must they advise the chair and they make a statement?

 

[Joshua Katz]

1.  The Vice chair can, I suppose, be the parliamentarian, so long as they are willing to give up the right to vote and to participate in debate.

2.  No one, including the parliamentarian, should just be "blurting out" that something is incorrect.  A member may raise a point of order.  The parliamentarian, if a member - I suppose it's a grey area and my betters will weigh in, but I do not think the parliamentarian should be raising points of order, but should rather discretely advise the chair.  

3.  In support of the "blurting out" matter, recall that no person may provide advice to the chair on parliamentary matters (except the parliamentarian) unless requested.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

What actions? A parliamentarian's role is to provide advice.

[DJGarvin]

The individual has pointed out something is incorrect to the whole organization, not in discreet advisement to the Chair, also the advisement was not asked for

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The chair would make a ruling on a point of order.

[DJGarvin]

So basically the parliamentarian can't just "blurt-out"

If this is done couldn't any member make a motion that requires a point of order statement?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Yes, any member can raise a point of order.

[Dan Honemann]

21 minutes ago, DJGarvin said:

So basically the parliamentarian can't just "blurt-out"

If this is done couldn't any member make a motion that requires a point of order statement?

That's right, it's not proper for the parliamentarian to "blurt-out" that something is not proper.

However, you had better rephrase your question. I have no idea what you mean by "a motion that requires a point of order statement".

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, DJGarvin said:

Can an individual who was elected as Vice Chair take on actions similar to parliamentarian and can they just blurt-out that something is incorrect or must they advise the chair and they make a statement?

The problem here may be with the use of the term "blurt out".  You might read what is said on page 466 regarding the parliamentarian, part of which I have copied and pasted here.  Note that RONR says that the parliamentarian should discreetly call the chair's attention to breaches of the rules which can affect the substantive rights of members.  Here is the quoted provision:

"During a meeting the work of the parliamentarian should be limited to giving advice to the chair and, when requested, to any other member. It is also the duty of the parliamentarian—as inconspicuously as possible—to call the attention of the chair to any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or may otherwise do harm. There should be an understanding between the parliamentarian and the presiding officer that there will probably be occasions when it may be essential for the chair to listen to suggestions being made by the parliamentarian, even if it means momentarily not giving full attention to others or asking the assembly to stand at ease during the consultation (see p. 82; p. 250, ll. 2–5). This practice will enable the chair to be in a position to act promptly at the correct time and be fully informed. In advising the chair, the parliamentarian should not wait until asked for advice—that may be too late. An experienced parliamentarian will often see a problem developing and be able to head it off with a few words to the chair. Only on the most involved matters should the parliamentarian actually be called upon to speak to the assembly; and the practice should be avoided if at all possible. The parliamentarian should be assigned a seat next to the chair, so as to be convenient for consultation in a low voice,"

Has your vice president been officially appointed to serve as the parliamentarian?  Or is he just a member who is knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure?  A member does have the right to call attention to a breach of the rules by raising a point of order.  I can't tell from your post exactly what this member's official  role  is or what sort of "blurting out" he is doing.  He may well be overstepping the bounds of decorum....and he may not, depending on the nature of this "blurting out".  That is how points of order sometimes have to be made.  It's not always possible to get timely recognition by the chair.

[Richard Brown]

Since we don't know if this member is the organization's official parliamentarian, it may be that he is not the official parliamentarian but is rather serving in the role of an "experienced member" as RONR contemplates 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."

So, he may not be the official parliamentarian, but is a knowledgeable or experienced member who the chair calls on for advice and the members have to come to consider this person to be the official parliamentarian even though he has never been appointed as such.  If he's not the parliamentarian, but rather a knowledgeable member, he is just as free as any other member to make points of order.

I think we need to know a bit more about what is going on and just what this person's true position is.  I note that you never said he is the parliamentarian, but rather than he is taking on actions similar to a parliamentarian.   I suspect the member is overstepping his bounds, but I don't know enough to say so with any degree of confidence.

I believe this issue might best be resolved with a couple of private conversations with the presiding officer:  One with you when you bring it to his attention and then possibly one between the president and the vice president. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

My guess is that this is the same person who opined (blurted out?) that Working Groups must be called Committees because Working Groups are not a valid term in RONR. If so, and if she's not the official parliamentarian, it doesn't appear to be the case that she is a knowledgeable or experienced member either.

But who knows. 

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Honemann.  Perhaps the president, the vice president aka "is he or is he not the parliamentarian" and DJ Garvin might study the "Suggestions for Inexperienced Presiding Officers" starting on page 454 and particularly this passage from page 456:

"The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgment is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business."

Perhaps their Grand Council of Most Exhalted Poo-Bahs can resolve the issue, provided the "parliamentarian" will allow a board to be called that since it isn't listed in RONR.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

2 hours ago, DJGarvin said:

Can an individual who was elected as Vice Chair take on actions similar to parliamentarian and can they just blurt-out that something is incorrect or must they advise the chair and they make a statement?

 

2 hours ago, DJGarvin said:

The individual has pointed out something is incorrect to the whole organization, not in discreet advisement to the Chair, also the advisement was not asked for

See "POINT OF ORDER".

See "APPEAL".

See "QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE".

See "PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY".

See "REQUEST FOR INFORMATION"

Interruptions are defined and allowed within Robert's Rules of Order.

If the "blurting out" follows the proper interruption method of Robert's Rules of Order, then there should be no problem in what to do and how to respond.

A POINT OF ORDER is not to be discreet, nor an APPEAL. You must be timely, as the window of opportunity is tight, and easily lost.

[DJGarvin]

Thank you on this