Guest Gretchen Posted February 18, 2019 at 06:13 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 at 06:13 PM Our parliamentarian is appointed and has also been appointed as the bylaws chairman as well. We meet bi-annually (every six months) and we have adopted RONR as our parliamentary authority in our bylaws. I have two questions: Can he (the parliamentarian) give the report of the bylaws committee If the bylaws committee wants to make a recommendation via their report. Can he place the motion on the floor to adopt the recommendations since they are coming from a committee ( I assume that he is restricted from participating in any debate on the matter as the parliamentarian!) Thank you for your professional opinion on this matter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:19 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:19 PM 34 minutes ago, Guest Gretchen said: Our parliamentarian is appointed and has also been appointed as the bylaws chairman as well. We meet bi-annually (every six months) and we have adopted RONR as our parliamentary authority in our bylaws. I have two questions: Can he (the parliamentarian) give the report of the bylaws committee If the bylaws committee wants to make a recommendation via their report. Can he place the motion on the floor to adopt the recommendations since they are coming from a committee ( I assume that he is restricted from participating in any debate on the matter as the parliamentarian!) Thank you for your professional opinion on this matter! This is getting into a grey and perhaps dangerous area as far as RONR is concerned. Here is the pertinent language from page 467 of RONR re the duty of a member parliamentarian to maintain an appearance of impartiality and to not participate in debate, make motions or vote except when the vote is by ballot: "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." I'm sure others will weigh in with their opinions, but I think that if it is desired that the member parliamentarian be allowed to do those things you mentioned, it is best that the society adopt a special rule of order specifically permitting the parliamentarian, if a member of the society, to serve on and to chair the bylaws committee, to participate fully in its deliberations, to report on behalf of the committee, to make motions on behalf of the committee (and, if desired, to participate in debate and or make motions and vote in the assembly regarding recommendations of the bylaws committee). Such a special rule can be tailored to fit your particular needs. I am assuming that he was appointed to the committee by the chair or the assembly and that the bylaws do not specify that he shall serve on or chair the committee. If the bylaws specify that the parliamentarian shall serve on or chair the committee, that changes things somewhat. Another alternative, if this is a one-time occurrence and not routine, is to suspend the rules so as to permit the parliamentarian to participate fully in the deliberations and report of the bylaws committee and in the deliberations and votes on committee recommendations when the recommendations are being considered by the assembly. Stay tuned and check back regularly. I suspect some of our regular posters may be of the opinion that the member parliamentarian may not do any of those things without suspending the rules or adopting a special rule of order. There may also be others who see nothing wrong with the parliamentarian doing the things you specifically mentioned in your quoted post. Ultimately it is up to your society to determine to what extent the member parliamentarian can participate in these enumerated activities. If someone raises a point of order that it is not permitted, the chair should rule on the point of order. If there is no appeal, then that is that: the chair's ruling is final. If there is an appeal from the chair's ruling, which requires one member to appeal and another member to second the appeal, the issue is decided by a vote of the assembly. It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. A tie vote sustains the chair's ruling. The decision of the assembly on an appeal is final and is precedent (until overturned) on the same issue if it comes up again at a future session. Keep in mind that even if the chair (or the assembly) rules that the anticipated actions are not permitted, the rules may still be suspended by a two thirds vote to permit it in this particular case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:30 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:30 PM (edited) In theory, a non-member chair of a committee may make a report. In that regard, the parliamentarian could, since it is not a right of membership, nor dependent upon membership (p. 496, ll. 26-30). Moving a recommendation in the report, however, would have to made by a member. The member parliamentarian is suppose to maintain impartiality (p. 467, ll. 8-19). That includes not making motions. So, in that case, he could not move a recommendation in a report. Edited February 19, 2019 at 12:03 AM by J. J. "Not" hole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:30 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:30 PM 11 minutes ago, Richard Brown said: I'm sure others will weigh in with their opinions, My opinion remains the same as on other threads - this sort of issue just illustrates why a member parliamentarian is more trouble than its worth. Nothing prevents the chair from consulting anybody he wishes. Why create an office with so many inherent conflicts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:32 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:32 PM (edited) I had held off replying because I didn't have that exact quote in front of me. BTW, the answer below presumes that the parliamentarian is a member of the organization. I think that it would be best for another member of the committee to present the report and move the recommendations. This is specifically authorized in RONR (under the section on committee reports). That way, the parliamentarian can continue to maintain impartiality at the meeting. I agree with Mr. Brown that you could Suspend the Rules to permit the parliamentarian to do either or both things (give the report, move the recommendations) and could also add the ability to participate in debate. Or a Special Rule of Order could allow for this, if it's more than a one-time occurrence. I don't see anything in the quote RONR citation suggesting that the parliamentarian cannot fully participate in and even chair a committee. The need for impartiality only applies at the meeting itself. In some contentious organizations or situations, it may be seen that participating in the committee deliberations shows partiality, in which case the parliamentarian should not be appointed to the committee. Edited February 18, 2019 at 07:34 PM by Atul Kapur clarified a word in 3rd paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:46 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 at 07:46 PM 8 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said: I think that it would be best for another member of the committee to present the report and move the recommendations. This is specifically authorized in RONR (under the section on committee reports). That way, the parliamentarian can continue to maintain impartiality at the meeting. I agree with this and had actually intended to suggest it in my answer. It may be the best way to avoid a possible awkward situation. For the parliamentarian to remain silent during debate on the recommendations might take a bit more self-control unless the rules are suspended to permit him to speak in debate. I think he might also be expected to respond to questions (requests for information) on the proposed changes. (Note: I'm not suggesting that the rules be suspended....but merely pointing out that option). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake Savory Posted February 20, 2019 at 07:46 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2019 at 07:46 PM If a committee of more than one member includes a motion as part of its report a second is not needed because it is presumed that a second committee member agrees the motion should be brought before the assembly, why couldn't the same presumption be made here if two members other than the parliamentarian are on the committee, specifically that the two non-parliamentarian members feel the motion should come before the assembly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 20, 2019 at 07:56 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2019 at 07:56 PM 7 minutes ago, Drake Savory said: If a committee of more than one member includes a motion as part of its report a second is not needed because it is presumed that a second committee member agrees the motion should be brought before the assembly, why couldn't the same presumption be made here if two members other than the parliamentarian are on the committee, specifically that the two non-parliamentarian members feel the motion should come before the assembly. They could make the motion. The parliamentarian could read the report and state, "The committee recommends ________ ." Another member of the body could make the motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 20, 2019 at 08:30 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2019 at 08:30 PM (edited) 44 minutes ago, Drake Savory said: If a committee of more than one member includes a motion as part of its report a second is not needed because it is presumed that a second committee member agrees the motion should be brought before the assembly, why couldn't the same presumption be made here if two members other than the parliamentarian are on the committee, specifically that the two non-parliamentarian members feel the motion should come before the assembly. No one has suggested that the motion should not come before the assembly, or that a second is required. The only question is whether it is appropriate for the parliamentarian to make the motion, or if another member of the committee should make the motion. I am inclined to think that another member of the committee should make the motion, since the parliamentarian making the motion could interfere with his appearance of impartiality. Edited February 20, 2019 at 08:32 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake Savory Posted February 20, 2019 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2019 at 08:42 PM 1 minute ago, Josh Martin said: No one has suggested that the motion should not come before the assembly, or that a second is required. The only question is whether it is appropriate for the parliamentarian to make the motion, or if another member of the committee should make the motion. I am inclined to think that another member of the committee should make the motion, since the parliamentarian making the motion could interfere with his appearance of impartiality. I get that but if the parliamentarian is acting qua committee chair reporting out on the committee's decisions then they are acting impartially especially if they do not debate the motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted February 20, 2019 at 09:25 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2019 at 09:25 PM The parliamentarian must maintain, not only impartiality, but the appearance of impartiality. I do not think making motions looks impartial. 43 minutes ago, Drake Savory said: I get that but if the parliamentarian is acting qua committee chair reporting out on the committee's decisions then they are acting impartially especially if they do not debate the motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 20, 2019 at 10:14 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2019 at 10:14 PM 1 hour ago, Drake Savory said: I get that but if the parliamentarian is acting qua committee chair reporting out on the committee's decisions then they are acting impartially especially if they do not debate the motion. I think most people would generally conclude that making a motion, even on behalf of a committee, indicicates support for the motion, and therefore making the motion would undermine the parliamentarian’s appearance of impartiality. Furthermore, even if it is correct that the parliamentarian could maintain the appearance of impartiality by simply reporting the committee’s recommendation and making the motion to implement that recommendation, but then remaining silent in debate, this seems to be a disservice to the committee. It seems preferable to select a reporting member who could not only give the report and make the motion, but also speak in favor of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 21, 2019 at 05:07 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 at 05:07 AM 7 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: The parliamentarian must maintain, not only impartiality, but the appearance of impartiality. I do not think making motions looks impartial. I think it could look impartial if moved "at the direction of the committee". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Zook Posted February 21, 2019 at 06:50 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 at 06:50 AM Appearance, they say, is in the eye of the beholder. And if there is any divisiveness (as opposed to mere debate) regarding the committee report, what do we expect the eyes of those not happy with the report to see? While I can agree that among Vulcans, "Madame chairman, at the direction of the committee, I move the adoption of the report" preserves impartiality, I cannot agree that it does among humans who are feeling wronged already. Moreover, as others have said, this creates a weird situation where the mover of the motion must forgo the right to speak first to it. Do we suggest some sort of special rule that the Chairman give preference to some committee member to speak in favor of the motion? Which one? It's just needlessly complicated. I agree that for organizations of modest size, it is natural, perhaps even expected, that the Parliamentarian actively participate in a bylaws committee, not merely advise. I can also see that they might serve as chairman. But for them to bring the report to the body as opposed to some other committee designate is just asking for either trouble or complication. (Likely both.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted February 21, 2019 at 07:40 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 at 07:40 AM If the president appointed the parliamentarian and then also appointed him as chairman of the Bylaws Committee, then I would keep my eye open for some strange proposals coming out of the Bylaws Committee. If the assembly, however, committed these two acts then I would just chalk this up to carelessness. Yes, you can call me cynical in this case, but I think something weird is going on and it would not surprise me if events took a while to unfold. I'm advocating caution, that is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Zook Posted February 21, 2019 at 07:52 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2019 at 07:52 AM So what if the chairman was drafted by the only experienced parliamentarian, who also chaired the nominations committee, had his wife chair credentials, instructed the chairman as to the composition of the nominations committee and the method of composing the other committees, wrote the special rules for the convention, and named the chairman of the rules committee? I dubbed it "Convention by Zook", and it was the most peaceful convention that had been had in twenty years. (The next convention--even more so.) It all depends on the intent of the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts