WHY should the presiding officer stand while... page 451

[Dr Mark]

 I am a parliamentarian.  One of my responsibilities is to a convention of about 500-1000 people.  While most of RONR is quite logical and lends to efficiency, there are some things I question as to the purpose.  One issue I would appreciate feedback on from other parliamentarians is does anyone know why  "the presiding officer should stand while calling a meeting to order or declaring it adjourned, and while putting a question to vote. He should also stand—without leaving the chair—while explaining his reasons for a ruling on a point of order..." RONR page 451, 8-15

I appreciate your thoughts and feedback.

[Guest Zev]

He could say, "I recognize myself," or some words to that effect, but it sounds kind of weird and are not the usual words he uses when recognizing others. Instead he stands as a form of claiming the floor. After all, other members of the assembly stand and are then recognized. Consistent, and not complicated.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Why not?

[Chris Harrison]

In larger assembles two reasons why it would be a good idea come to mind.  First, a person's voice will carry better when they are standing as opposed to sitting.  With a lot of people in the room that could be helpful to make sure the people farther away can hear him or her.  Also, having the person who is speaking to the assembly stand allows everyone to see who is talking to them and to orient their attention onto him or her.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

It may be worth noting that in small boards, the "chairman need not rise while putting questions to a vote" (RONR 11th ed., p. 488, ll. 16-17).

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Dr Mark said:

One issue I would appreciate feedback on from other parliamentarians is does anyone know why  "the presiding officer should stand while calling a meeting to order or declaring it adjourned, and while putting a question to vote. He should also stand—without leaving the chair—while explaining his reasons for a ruling on a point of order..." RONR page 451, 8-15

I think a lot of the business about standing (for the members or the chairman) relates to the simple fact that it is easier to see and hear a person who is standing. The situations described in the cited paragraph are all cases in which it is critical that the members can see and hear the chairman.

Modern technology may somewhat alleviate the need for such requirements.

Edited April 19, 2019 at 12:59 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with Mr. Martin. I would also like to stress that the custom should in no way be understood to preclude a person who is disabled from serving as presiding officer on account of his inability to stand.

[George Mervosh]

4 minutes ago, reelsman said:

I agree with Mr. Martin. I would also like to stress that the custom should in no way be understood to preclude a person who is disabled from serving as presiding officer on account of his inability to stand.

And I hope Dr. Mark will make sure accommodations are made for those in the assembly who cannot stand or go to a microphone in order to make a motion or enter into debate.  But I digress.

[Dr Mark]

I greatly appreciate the responses here. 

Guest Zev... "Instead he stands as a form of claiming the floor. "  That makes logical sense.

Chris Harrison- 1. Voice and 2. Visibility.

Hieu H. Huynh - noting the contrast to small boards.

Josh Martin's wisdom that concerning sound and visibility, "Modern technology may somewhat alleviate the need for such requirements."

Reelsman's thoughtful concern "I would also like to stress that the custom should in no way be understood to preclude a person who is disabled from serving as presiding officer on account of his inability to stand."

George Mervosh echoing the concern and expanding it to the floor. The Sargent in Arms has things well designed.  There will be interpreters for the hearing impaired, and accomodations are made for the handicapped.  

George, as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, do you have any further insight you wish to offer as to Josh Martin's idea that "Modern technology may somewhat alleviate the need for such requirements."?   The Chair is on a well-elevated platform assuring excellent visibility.  He is mic'd and will have excellent audio. The Chair is also opting for the use of the gavel.  In your opinion, could this suffice for the requirement of RONR? 

Thank you to all for weighing in. 

Edited April 19, 2019 at 02:47 PM by Dr Mark

[George Mervosh]

I agree with Mr. Martin, PRP, and it seems you have everything covered.  Enjoy your convention!

[Atul Kapur]

Agreeing with Guest Zev and Mr. Harrison, I think the rationale is well summarized a few lines further from your quote where it talks about the chair being able to "command the attention" of the assembly.

If, in everyone's assessment, the technical facilities provide the chair with the ability to do that easily, you're well covered.

[Dan Honemann]

The simple fact of the matter is that a presiding officer ought to look like a presiding officer. Maintaining an appearance of being in control of the proceedings helps to ensure that he will be.