Recording names of seconders in minutes?

[Richard Brown]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

. . . If  we so chose, how would we basically nullify the language on p. 467? Should we do so? Something like "The Parliamentarian retains all rights of membership of [the organization] and is permitted to participate in debate and cast votes"?

I know of several organizations which have used language similar to that which you suggested to allow their member Parliamentarians to participate as fully as all other members.

Edited to add: such a provision can be adopted as a Special Rule of Order. It does not need to be in the bylaws.

Edited January 11, 2018 at 03:13 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

If we so chose, how would we basically nullify the language on p. 467 (edit: ll. 8-19)? Should we do so? Something like "The Parliamentarian retains all rights of membership of [the organization] and is permitted to participate in debate and cast votes"?

I don’t see what’s wrong with you just continuing to serve as de facto parliamentarian.

But if you insist, I suggest simply “The Parliamentarian is free to participate in debate, make motions, and vote in all cases.” It is not necessary to say that the Parliamentarian retains the rights of membership, because he already does. Under RONR, the parliamentarian refrains from exercising those rights (except to vote when the vote is taken by ballot). I concur with Mr. Brown that a special rule of order is sufficient.

Edited January 11, 2018 at 07:40 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

55 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

That was the original plan. I think I'll ask the president to hold off on making the switch until we have a chance to update our bylaws. Our parent organization is updating theirs, so we'll have to update ours, and I think I'm going to suggest a full revision instead of patchwork amendments. Some of the existing bylaws are confusingly written.

If we so chose, how would we basically nullify the language on p. 467 (edit: ll. 8-19)? Should we do so? Something like "The Parliamentarian retains all rights of membership of [the organization] and is permitted to participate in debate and cast votes"?

The chair may permit "knowledgeable or interest members" to speak on a point of order (p. 249, ll. 19-20), without that going into debate.  He may also engage in "brief research" in deciding a point of order (p. 250, l. 3).  That would include asking you, as a member, about a pending point of order, as that would be "brief research."  That certainly would not prohibit you, as a member, from raising a point of order.

The chair has a general duty to enforce the rules of order (p. 450. ll. 9-11).  In carrying out that duty, in my opinion, he could ask a member how to proceed, if he is unsure; should he choose to do so, he would doing so as part of his duty as the presiding officer. 

If you were the parliamentarian, you would have a duty to advise the chair on matters of order and  to "maintain a position of impartiality (pp. 466-7).  As a member, you have no such duty.  If you are not the parliamentarian, you have no duty to advise the chair or to be impartial.  If the chair should ask you a procedural question, you are not obliged to give him an answer. 

[Richard Brown]

Along the lines of the post immediately above by J.J., Mr. Geiger might take note of this language at the top of page 254 regarding the chair consulting with someone other than an official parliamentarian:  "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."  (Emphasis added by me)

Perhaps you can serve unofficially as the "experienced member" that the chair might call on from time to time with questions about procedure.

[J. J.]

13 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Along the lines of the post immediately above by J.J., Mr. Geiger might take note of this language at the top of page 254 regarding the chair consulting with someone other than an official parliamentarian:  "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."  (Emphasis added by me)

Perhaps you can serve unofficially as the "experienced member" that the chair might call on from time to time with questions about procedure.

First, thank you for the citation I couldn't find. 

Secondly,  I agree that a special rule would sufficient let a member parliamentarian to enter debate, make motions and vote, in the same manner as any other member.