Is a 'de facto parliamentarian' subject to the same requirements as an appointed member parliamentarian?

[Benjamin Geiger]

I've become something of a de facto parliamentarian for my organization, as I seem to be the only person in the room who has read RONR and is also willing to speak up when questions arise. We have an appointed parliamentarian, but he rarely attends meetings.

By answering parliamentary questions and presenting myself as reasonably knowledgeable about parliamentary matters---relative to the rest of the organization, of course---do I put myself under the same restrictions placed upon appointed member parliamentarians (i.e. the requirement to appear impartial and refrain from voting)?

(I've been pushing for a bylaws amendment or special rule of order that would remove those restrictions on a member parliamentarian, under the premise that there is nothing I can do on the dais as the official parliamentarian that I can't do from the membership as "that guy who knows Robert's Rules", so I wanted to confirm that that premise is reasonable.)

[Dan Honemann]

No.

[jstackpo]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

I've become something of a de facto parliamentarian for my organization, ...

Seems to me you are just a (knowledgeable) member, raising appropriate points of order, and the like, as any member would have the right to.  Clearly that is not an "official" position.  So I'll double down on Dan's "No".

[Richard Brown]

It seems you are serving in the capacity of a knowledgeable or "experienced" member as contemplated by this provision on page 254 of RONR when referring to the chair's ruling on a point of order.  I imagine this is the passage Dr. Stackpole is referring to:

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)