parliamentarian speaking and voting in convention

[Guest Sarah]

What is the proper procedure for a sitting parliamentarian to speak to a motion or amend a motion on the floor at Convention?

[Chris Harrison]

I'm assuming the Parliamentarian is a member of the convention.  If so, the member parliamentarian shouldn't (almost to the point of can't) unless your rules say otherwise.  See RONR p. 467 ll 8-19.

[Josh Martin]

35 minutes ago, Guest Sarah said:

What is the proper procedure for a sitting parliamentarian to speak to a motion or amend a motion on the floor at Convention?

There is no proper procedure for the parliamentarian to speak to or amend a motion. It is not proper for the parliamentarian to do either of these things.

“A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 467)

[Richard Brown]

Guest Sarah, I agree with the responses above by Mr. Harrison and Mr. Martin.  However, it it is desired that the parliamentarian be permitted to speak in debate on a motion or to propose an amendment, the assembly may suspend the rules by a two thirds vote to permit him to do so, either on a case by case basis or for the duration o)f the convention.

Note:  We are all assuming that this is a "member parliamentarian", meaning he is a member of the organization.  The rule quoted by Mr. Harrison and Mr. Martin applies to a "member parliamentarian", but a non-member parliamentarian, not being a member of the society, has no right to make motions or speak in debate, either.  I will also note that It is proper, if requested by the chair, for the parliamentarian to respond to an inquiry about the rules, but this should rarely be necessary.

[Nathan Zook]

On the occasions that I've been ask to serve as parliamentarian, I've consistently said that the chair had gotten smart and figured out how to shut me up.  That's about 25% joking.  The worst case was a political convention where I did not have warning.  I had to cover up the shirt I was wearing as soon as I realized--which was hours before the caucus meeting that I served as parliamentarian for.  And while it was not required formally, I avoided even conversations that would have compromised my appearance of neutrality in the intervening hours. Not that my views were unknown, quite the contrary--I had given a nominating speech at a previous convention.  But if I was to serve as parliamentarian at the caucus, I needed to demonstrate that such advice as I was about to give was going to be as neutral as I could make it.  When the caucus was done, I made a big show of uncovering my shirt.  That got a laugh, of course.  I hope it made my point as well.

It is not enough for the chairman to be impartial.  In order to effectively chair a meeting, the chairman needs to maintain the confidence of the body as to their impartiality.  The parliamentarian has the unique position of privately advising the chair as to procedure, even to the point (which must be rare) of signalling the chairman during the conduct of business.  If the parliamentarian is seen as being partial in doing so, this could seriously compromise the image of the chair.

The parliamentarian's relationship to the bylaws committee is a special case.  Even here, however, the parliamentarian must conduct themselves with absolute deference to the determinations of the committee.  I recall a recent question here about the parliamentarian chairing the bylaws committee.  The consensus was that a) this was improper but permitted and b) it is absolutely preferable that someone else present the report of the committee and move its adoption.

It appears that .sig lines are only visible to members.  I'm going to quote mine here because I think it very much applies in this case:  "You asked me if you could do it. You didn't say a thing about if you should."  Yes, the rules can be suspended to "allow" the parliamentarian to conduct themselves as a common member of the assembly.  But please don't.

 

 

[Benjamin Geiger]

A serious question, once I've been struggling with since the prohibition on the parliamentarian participating in debate was pointed out to me: What power, precisely, would I have as the parliamentarian of an organization that I wouldn't have as "that guy in the back who knows Robert's Rules"? What sort of abuse would be possible as the de jure parliamentarian that isn't already possible as the de facto parliamentarian?

The consensus here seems to be that while a de jure parliamentarian cannot speak in debate, a de facto one can. Why?

Literally the only advantages I've found to being a parliamentarian for an organization would be a more comfortable seat and perhaps access to a power outlet. I'm not willing to trade my right to debate for that, so I've explicitly declined the role.

Edited February 15, 2019 at 07:27 AM by Benjamin Geiger
Added middle paragraph to reduce non-sequitur-ness.

[Nathan Zook]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

A serious question, once I've been struggling with since the prohibition on the parliamentarian participating in debate was pointed out to me: What power, precisely, would I have as the parliamentarian of an organization that I wouldn't have as "that guy in the back who knows Robert's Rules"? What sort of abuse would be possible as the de jure parliamentarian that isn't already possible as the de facto parliamentarian?

The consensus here seems to be that while a de jure parliamentarian cannot speak in debate, a de facto one can. Why?

Literally the only advantages I've found to being a parliamentarian for an organization would be a more comfortable seat and perhaps access to a power outlet. I'm not willing to trade my right to debate for that, so I've explicitly declined the role.

I've long held that a "lively" society needs at least two-and-a-half parliamentarians: one on the floor, to advise members about things without gumming up the meeting.  One to advise the chair on the more subtle points--and the chair themself needs to be half-way-good in the first place.  If you are "that guy", on the floor, you aid the society only to the extent that you are seen as using your knowledge for the whole of the society.  If you become known as the enforcer, or some pejorative, you do more harm than good.  Not that "that guy" on the floor cannot or even should not engage in full debate, only that he better be ready to give accurate and timely advice to those who are opposing him during the meeting.  Yes, I've even done this pro-actively.

Second, acceding to a request to act as parliamentarian is an act of service to the body, straight up.  Especially in politics, everyone present is likely to have strong views on what they want the outcome to be.  The body needs someone to formally set aside their passions for the issues in favour of their passion for the process, if only for the duration of the meeting.  Hopefully, enough of these people exist for there to be a rotation of some degree.

Finally, there is in fact an important power that the parliamentarian has.  The parliamentarian can signal the chair.  This is a huge power, and it should not be discounted, even if it should only be exercised rarely.

I have made it clear that I would prefer not to be the parliamentarian.  But I don't refuse either.  When I was in Texas, we had enough to rotate, which we did, if in an irregular and informal fashion.  In Washington, the chairmen have made it clear that they had sought someone else for the role and had failed.

 

All of this has been about being the parliamentarian for a meeting.  Being the permanent parliamentarian is of course a much larger sacrifice, but it also comes with a substantial additional "benefits".  Human nature being what it is, the parliamentarian, if they can cultivate their image of neutrality in process, can become the go-to guy for parliamentary complaints between meetings.  That is, they become the arbiter of parliamentary disputes beyond the meetings.  Furthermore, bylaws committees tend to be very deferential towards the parliamentarian.

Power? 0.  Influence?  Oh, yes.

[Joshua Katz]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

 The consensus here seems to be that while a de jure parliamentarian cannot speak in debate, a de facto one can. Why?

 

Because there is no such thing as a de facto parliamentarian. "The guy in the back of the room who knows the rules" is not privately advising the chair, and it is prohibited for anyone to advise the chair without the chair so requesting. "The guy in the back" is likely raising points of order, which is part of how people know he knows the rules. Knowing the rules is not a form of being parliamentarian.

7 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

 Literally the only advantages I've found to being a parliamentarian for an organization would be a more comfortable seat and perhaps access to a power outlet. I'm not willing to trade my right to debate for that, so I've explicitly declined the role.

I think the practice of an organization having a member serve as parliamentarian is, in general, a poor practice. Either operate without one (and, preferably, have a chair who knows how to preside) or hire one. An organization to which I used to belong used to have the practice, which I found interesting, of both hiring a parliamentarian and having an "inside parliamentarian" simultaneously, who sat together. 

[Josh Martin]

8 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Because there is no such thing as a de facto parliamentarian. "The guy in the back of the room who knows the rules" is not privately advising the chair, and it is prohibited for anyone to advise the chair without the chair so requesting. "The guy in the back" is likely raising points of order, which is part of how people know he knows the rules. Knowing the rules is not a form of being parliamentarian.

I think the practice of an organization having a member serve as parliamentarian is, in general, a poor practice. Either operate without one (and, preferably, have a chair who knows how to preside) or hire one. An organization to which I used to belong used to have the practice, which I found interesting, of both hiring a parliamentarian and having an "inside parliamentarian" simultaneously, who sat together. 

I think what is meant by a “de facto” parliamentarian is that there is a particular member the chair generally calls on for parliamentary advice, but this person does not formally serve as the parliamentarian.

While it is all well and good to suggest that a society should either elect a chair who is skilled enough to have no need for a parliamentarian and/or to hire a professional, my own experience is that there are many organizations which elect a chairman who does have need of a parliamentarian (due to the chair’s other qualities which are beneficial for the position, since the officer who serves as chairman generally also has other duties) and also do not have the resources to hire a parliamentarian, at least not on a regular basis. Such an organization will need to either have a member serve as a parliamentarian (either officially or in a “de facto” capacity) or else have the Chairman muddle through. In my opinion, the former is preferable.

The other alternative, I suppose, is for the society to create a separate office exclusively charged with presiding, but most societies seem to not go with this route.

Edited February 15, 2019 at 10:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

 The other alternative, I suppose, is for the society to create a separate office exclusively charged with presiding, but most societies seem to not go with this route.

This was discussed by the bylaws committee of an organization to which I belonged (not the one you know me from) but, as you suggest, it did not succeed.

I suppose I can't help but agree that if neither having a chair who can preside well and in accordance with the rules nor hiring a parliamentarian is an option, then a member parliamentarian is all that is left. It seems to me, though, that it creates much trouble - such as the opportunity to appoint a parliamentarian with whom the president happens to disagree on some issues in order to shut him up. The "de facto" route avoids that, but creates its own difficulties. I think the best option might be, as you have suggested before, adopting a special rule of order on the matter rather than leaving it as a "de facto" situation with unclear rules. 

[Benjamin Geiger]

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think what is meant by a “de facto” parliamentarian is that there is a particular member the chair generally calls on for parliamentary advice, but this person does not formally serve as the parliamentarian.

Yes, that's precisely it. I've become known as "that Robert's Rules guy" (in addition to being the chair of the Bylaws committee).

Sadly, our parent organization and our bylaws require that the chair of the organization preside over meetings. Our bylaws require that the chair appoint a member parliamentarian.

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think the best option might be, as you have suggested before, adopting a special rule of order on the matter rather than leaving it as a "de facto" situation with unclear rules. 

Which special rule would that be?

Edited February 16, 2019 at 03:34 AM by Benjamin Geiger

[Joshua Katz]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Sadly, our parent organization and our bylaws require that the chair of the organization preside over meetings. Our bylaws require that the chair appoint a member parliamentarian.

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Sounds like a rule of order that can be suspended (the first part, that is). 

 

9 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Which special rule would that be?

A special rule of order allowing the member parliamentarian to participate and vote was Mr. Brown's past suggestion. You can customize as you wish, though.

[Richard Brown]

There are several threads (well, a few, at least) in this forum which discuss adopting a special rule of order that permits the member parliamentarian to participate in meetings to the same extent as all other members..... or  to whatever extent is desired.  My own local NAP unit has adopted such a special rule of order because too many of the most knowledgeable members were not willing to give up their right to participate in debate and make motions in order to serve as parliamentarian.

An alternative is for an organization to not actually appoint a member parliamentarian, but to have one or more members who are willing to serve informally as an "experienced member" who the chair can call on for questions regarding parliamentary procedure as described 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."  (Emphasis added).   I imagine such a person might be considered the "de facto" parliamentarian mentioned in previous posts.

The special rule of order which my local NAP unit adopted regarding the "member parliamentarian" reads as follows:  "The Unit Parliamentarian shall retain all rights of membership."   It's not wording which I would have preferred, but it is what it is and we all know the purpose of it.  We also know that a special rule or order cannot bestow the right to vote to a non-member, but I suspect this rule might have the effect of granting the right to speak in debate and to make motions to a parliamentarian who is not a member of the unit.   I would have preferred language which specifically makes the rule applicable only to a parliamentarian who is a member of the unit.  Such language could be, "The Unit Parliamentarian, if a member of the unit, shall retain all rights of membership".

Edited to add:  Our unit bylaws do require the president to "appoint a Parliamentarian subject to the approval of the elected officers".  The bylaws do not specify whether the parliamentarian shall be a member, but I'm not aware that a non-member has ever been appointed parliamentarian. 
 

Edited February 16, 2019 at 04:19 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Nathan Zook]

I expect that rights may only be "retained" that exist in the first place.

While I can certainly agree that in theory, having an outside parliamentary is desirable, there are problems in practice.  The first is cost.  Again, most of my experience is with political parties.  County parties are generally far from cash-flush, and an awful lot of politics is done via in-kinds donations.  If a party can do something for free, there is an expectation that it will do it for free.  Furthermore, there is the matter of airing dirty laundry.  I would expect there to be protests if the chair were to hire an outside parliamentarian.

And to be clear--I in no way have committed to always say "yes" when asked to serve as parliamentarian.  But to date, the needs of the many have outweighed the needs of the one.

 

[Benjamin Geiger]

Quote

9.1 The Chairperson shall appoint one (1) member of the HCDEC to serve as Parliamentarian of the HCDEC.  The Parliamentarian shall serve at the pleasure of the Chairperson. 

So yeah, ours explicitly do require a member parliamentarian.

[Joshua Katz]

Yes, rights can only be retained if they exist. But if we're talking about a member parliamentarian, we're talking, by definition, about someone who has those rights, but, ordinarily, would be expected not to exercise them as parliamentarian. 

Quite a few of us have experience with political parties. I was a state chair and a national committeeman. Another regular here was employed by a party as parliamentarian. The RNC, as I previously pointed out, has a rule requiring an RP or PRP be retained for its meetings. But yes, in my experience, we operated without professional parliamentarians much of the time. When I was chair, I hired a parliamentarian once, when a particularly contentious issue arose, but I hired her only for before the fact opinions, not to attend the nominating convention. But the way we ordinarily did it, which I suggest works just fine, was simply not having a parliamentarian. I consider that to be better than formally appointing a member parliamentarian, so long as the chair has a clue (which can't, of course, be assumed). I was a member parliamentarian of another organization, and thought it was a poor arrangement - as just one example, it leads to the member with the most knowledge of the rules being unable to raise points of order or speak about appeals. I tried my best - in addition to meeting with the chair before and after each meeting, I held office hours where people could tell me what they want to achieve and I would advise them on how to do it. I made scripts, and I tried my best to shut up. But it was uncomfortable. If I knew an out of order item was coming, I was left with no good options. I could wait and let it happen, knowing I couldn't raise a point of order, the chair might ignore me, and no one else might know. I could talk to someone and tell them to raise a point of order, but that felt wrong to me. So if it is to be done, I agree with the suggestion that the member parliamentarian be able to participate.

But I still think there are other issues - and I think some of them are particularly serious in the political context. Parties are often factional (as are other organizations, but I've seen more of a tendency in the political arena). The member parliamentarian is going to belong to a faction, and is going to be under suspicion by the opposing faction(s) at all times. If the parliamentarian whispers to the chair, and the chair acts, it can lessen the perceived legitimacy of the chair's action. 

So I personally think it is best, if you can't have an outside parliamentarian, to simply  not have one. And I've acted on that. For instance, in law school, the Student Bar Association has an elected parliamentarian. I am sure I was the only RP in my class, but I didn't run. That's not the needs of the few being put before the needs of the many; it's me refusing to participate in something I personally think is a bad idea.

In any case, what I was originally objecting to, and still object to, is the notion that the "guy in the back who knows the rules" is somehow a "de facto parliamentarian." Such a person is simply a member who knows the rules, and even if people ask questions and he gives advice, he's not a parliamentarian.

Finally, what I do think is useful is having a help table, particularly at large conventions, where people can go and ask how to achieve what they want to achieve. 

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

So yeah, ours explicitly do require a member parliamentarian.

It still seems to me you could, if you wish, adopt a special rule of order permitting the member parliamentarian to participate. 

I've seen bylaws like that often. I just happen to think they're a bad idea. Of course, if you have them, you should follow them. 

[Benjamin Geiger]

6 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

In any case, what I was originally objecting to, and still object to, is the notion that the "guy in the back who knows the rules" is somehow a "de facto parliamentarian." Such a person is simply a member who knows the rules, and even if people ask questions and he gives advice, he's not a parliamentarian.

Which really cuts back to the question I raised several posts ago: What power does a member parliamentarian have that J. Random Member doesn't?

EDIT: I guess a better question would be, what does an appointed parliamentarian do during a meeting other than answer questions and give advice? If that role is being filled by some putz in the audience, would that not make that putz a de facto parliamentarian?

Edited February 17, 2019 at 06:27 AM by Benjamin Geiger
Expanded thoughts.

[Joshua Katz]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

What power does a member parliamentarian have that J. Random Member doesn't?

The power, without a special rule, to shut up and not participate. 😉

When I take a "gig," I always explain ahead of time what I need - I need a seat right next to the chair, where I can whisper, without a microphone in front of my face, I need the chair to promise to have the assembly stand at ease when I display my "stop sign" card, etc. Presumably, a member parliamentarian would ask for those things. So unlike J. Random Member, he's sitting next to the chair, and the chair has agreed to listen to him if he thinks there's something urgent.

[Nathan Zook]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Quite a few of us have experience with political parties. ...

But I still think there are other issues - and I think some of them are particularly serious in the political context. Parties are often factional (as are other organizations, but I've seen more of a tendency in the political arena). The member parliamentarian is going to belong to a faction, and is going to be under suspicion by the opposing faction(s) at all times. If the parliamentarian whispers to the chair, and the chair acts, it can lessen the perceived legitimacy of the chair's action. 
...

That's not the needs of the few being put before the needs of the many; it's me refusing to participate in something I personally think is a bad idea.

...

Finally, what I do think is useful is having a help table, particularly at large conventions, where people can go and ask how to achieve what they want to achieve. 

In the cases where I have served, I did not believe that my unique contributions to the process as an active member would have mattered so much to the outcome so as to outweigh the benefits of having a parliamentarian.  There were also personal political benefits from accepting the role that went beyond the caucus in question. Especially in Texas, where there were a number of RPs in the caucuses I was in, your experience of having to worry about serious miscalls was not something I have faced. And as I mentioned, I made a big deal of setting aside my factional loyalties when I accepted the role as parliamentarian.

Our state rules in Texas have required a PRP at the convention as well.  Unfortunately, these have gone very poorly more than once.  An abusive chair is going to bring in a hired gun, it seems.

The help table is an interesting idea.  The organization of the convention in Texas probably made that less necessary, as the rules committee had a member from each of the caucuses.  Therefore knowledgeable people were known and spread throughout the body.

I like the idea, raised in other posts, of having a separate office to chair meetings.  This was often done for the state convention in Texas, and they did better than most of the party chairman.  But the sociological aspects for a regularly meeting body would seem to preclude that, unfortunately.

I think we strongly agree that the actual and perceived neutrality and competence of the chair is the goal.  We pursue this in each situation as best we can.