Mr. Chang

[Guest Member X]

Can one person claim two position at the same time at a meeting?  Here is the situation...our president of our organization is also the Mr. Chairman.  During the meeting, he is acting chairman of the meeting.  After some discussion/debate on an issue, without voting on the issue because argument wasn't done/doesn't goes anywhere.  He/Mr. Chairman stand and said, "since there's no agreement on the issue, I'm as your president want you to do this way.....," then he moved on saying "this is what I want everyone to do so, no more discussion/debate".   He doing this; without stepping down from Mr. Chairman. Can he or can't he?  What does Robert's rule said about this issue.

Thanks

[Joshua Katz]

The word "president" means presiding officer. It is proper, then, for the President to preside. Beyond that, I have little grasp of what is being described, except that it appears the presiding officer at a meeting said what he wanted and then, apparently, forbade further discussion. The presiding officer has no such power (unless given in the bylaws or a special rule of order) so no, that isn't proper. I probably don't have enough understanding of the different positions in your organization, which apparently include a president, a chairman, and an acting chairman, to say any more than that.

[Guest Member X]

Thanks, maybe I didn't make it clear.  I know, the way I described my scenario, I also confused it, too.  Let me put it the way it happened.  We are a church,  our pastor is Mr. Chairman.  When a meeting was held in the congregation and a issue came up.  We discussed/debated the issue for a while.  The issue seem to go no where, no solution, and no voting.  Mr. Chairman stand up and said..."I am as your pastor, I want you to do like this (this issue have nothing to do with spiritual issue/sense).....then he moved on saying "this is what I want everyone to do so, no more discussion/debate".  Then he sit back down...Can he or can't he, without stepping down as Mr. Chairman and then speaking as the pastor.  Second, one of the issue is about the pastor.  Since the pastor is the chairman, when the issue is about the pastor; can he still be chairman or he need to excuse himself off as chairman, let vice-chairman to chair and then vice-chair as Mr. chairman at this point, then excuse the pastor out of the room?

 

Thanks  

[Joshua Katz]

Well, to start with, it sounds like the meeting was conducted improperly, because it seems like there was debate without a motion (which tends to lead to exactly the back and forth without resolution you describe). The chair/pastor/whoever is presiding should require that there be a motion before debate, which will prevent endless discussions.

That said, no member, whether presiding or not, can simply end debate and declare a motion (or decision, when no motion has been made) adopted because he feels like it, nor can any member, whether presiding or not, end debate because he feels like it (although, as mentioned, the debate was likely out of order to begin with). 

Next, as to presiding: a presiding officer should not enter into debate, but it sounds like no point of order was made on that, or any, grounds at the time, so it's a bit late to worry about it. But he did far more than enter into debate here - he did what most of us call "acting like a dictator." 

Finally, members have the right to participation, although they should (but cannot be forced to) recuse themselves when a motion impacts their pecuniary interests not in common with others. If your rules make your pastor a member, he has the right to participate, but should not vote (but can) when a question concerns him. But it's not clear, from what we're told, that they do. We know they make him Chairman (of the board? the congregation?) but officers are not always members. Is he a member of the assembly that is meeting?

But you say the question is somehow about him acting as pastor and Chairman at the same time. Do you have some special rules allowing your pastor to cut off debate? If not, then I don't think it's really about that, just about someone acting like a dictator who should be ignored, and about a meeting which is being conducted too informally to get anything done.

[Richard Brown]

Like Mr. Katz. I don't have a clear understanding of the situation, but it sounds to me like the chairman/pastor abused his position as presiding officer.  However, from what I have read so far, I would say that no "continuing breach" has occurred and that what is done is done.  A timely point of order would have been necessary.

If something was adopted that the members are not happy with, they can move to rescind or amend something previously adopted.  It is subject to special vote requirements for adoption.   If a motion failed, it can be "renewed".... that is, simply re-submitted as if it had never been submitted before, and debated and voted on again at any future meeting.

If we still haven't adequately answered your question(s), let us know and we will try again.

[Guest Zev]

49 minutes ago, Guest Member X said:

Since the pastor is the chairman, when the issue is about the pastor; can he still be chairman or he need to excuse himself off as chairman, let vice-chairman to chair and then vice-chair as Mr. chairman at this point, then excuse the pastor out of the room?

Quote

Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly's consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also pp. 394-95).

RONR, 11th edition, page 451. So the answer is "probably," depending on the nature of this issue. And "no," he does not need to leave the room unless what has transpired is a trial to remove him and the assembly is deliberating what the punishment should be.

In some churches the pastor sees himself as the spiritual leader of the group. Whenever the church meets to make a business-related decision and it gravitates toward something the pastor does not agree with, on occasion he sees this as an affront to his leadership. Conflating his spiritual leadership with his chairmanship became the source of the problem.
 

[Guest Member X]

thank you all so much.  It very, very helpful.