Parliamentarian

[Guest David Jacobi]

I have been the Parliamentarian for a Fraternal organization for a few years and have not had any problems.  Now the Chairman of the Organization wants to add another person to be Co-Parliamentarians.  Isn’t that a problem because I have always been told that their should be 1 Parliamentarian to avoid conflict.  Can someone give me advice?

[Atul Kapur]

Paging Dr. Stackpole.

Paging @jstackpo

[jstackpo]

If the parliamentarian(s) are really restricted to advising the chair (their proper roll) and they can settle between themselves who is in the advice giving position at any moment (and the other one keeps quiet), that might work out.  But if they have any other duties see https://www.dropbox.com/s/jbcnnjcq5l9eaux/Problems With co-anything.docx?dl=0

Why does the org want to do this?  It is easy to think up invidious reasons.

Will they have divided loyalties?

Is the org willing to pay a double fee for their professional services?

Edited September 18, 2019 at 08:41 PM by jstackpo

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Guest David Jacobi said:

I have been the Parliamentarian for a Fraternal organization for a few years and have not had any problems.  Now the Chairman of the Organization wants to add another person to be Co-Parliamentarians.  Isn’t that a problem because I have always been told that their should be 1 Parliamentarian to avoid conflict.  Can someone give me advice?

RONR notes that “The anomalous title "co-chairman" should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 176)

Generally, I think this advice is equally applicable to other positions. I suppose it may be somewhat less problematic in the case of a parliamentarian since the parliamentarian merely advises the chair, and the chair makes the rulings (subject to appeal to the assembly), so there is already a built-in method to resolve conflicts.

Still, this arrangement is rather unusual. Even in organizations which have multiple parliamentarians (such as legislative assemblies, or perhaps in large conventions), there is generally still one “head” parliamentarian.

Ultimately, however, it seems to me the President has (or at least should have) the right to do this if he wishes, unless the organization’s rules provide otherwise, although the organization would need to approve any additional fees.

”If a parliamentarian is needed by an organization, the president should be free to appoint one in whom he has confidence. The board or society must approve any fee that will be required, however.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 465)

While the text assumes there will only be one parliamentarian, I do not think it prohibits multiple parliamentarians.

I get the impression, however, that the President just wants a new parliamentarian and doesn’t want to hurt your feelings. Perhaps you should assure him that you respect his right to appoint a parliamentarian of his choice and offer to resign.

Edited September 18, 2019 at 11:02 PM by Josh Martin