President chairing meetings despite bias?

[Guest Union member]

I understand that Robert's Rules requires the chair to be unbiased, and therefore the chair should step aside and let someone else chair if they have already expressed their opinion on the issue being discussed. However, the constitution (bylaws) of my union explicitly states that the president of my union chairs the meetings. I believe Robert's Rules is superseded bylaws, but I was wondering if there is some language in Robert's Rules that addresses a situation in which the designated chair (even if designated by the bylaws) has expressed a bias on the issue at hand. Thanks!

[George Mervosh]

18 minutes ago, Guest Union member said:

I understand that Robert's Rules requires the chair to be unbiased, and therefore the chair should step aside and let someone else chair if they have already expressed their opinion on the issue being discussed. However, the constitution (bylaws) of my union explicitly states that the president of my union chairs the meetings. I believe Robert's Rules is superseded bylaws, but I was wondering if there is some language in Robert's Rules that addresses a situation in which the designated chair (even if designated by the bylaws) has expressed a bias on the issue at hand. Thanks!

Is he expressing his opinions during the meeting itself or just outside of a meeting setting?

[Guest Union member (OP)]

He expressed his opinions during the meeting, before the matter came up on the agenda, and then continued to preside over that part of the agenda on the grounds that he had the constitutional authority to do so despite expressing bias.

[Josh Martin]

39 minutes ago, Guest Union member said:

I understand that Robert's Rules requires the chair to be unbiased, and therefore the chair should step aside and let someone else chair if they have already expressed their opinion on the issue being discussed. However, the constitution (bylaws) of my union explicitly states that the president of my union chairs the meetings. I believe Robert's Rules is superseded bylaws, but I was wondering if there is some language in Robert's Rules that addresses a situation in which the designated chair (even if designated by the bylaws) has expressed a bias on the issue at hand. Thanks!

 

10 minutes ago, Guest Union member (OP) said:

He expressed his opinions during the meeting, before the matter came up on the agenda, and then continued to preside over that part of the agenda on the grounds that he had the constitutional authority to do so despite expressing bias.

It is an interesting argument to suggest that the language in the bylaws which provides that the President presides at meetings takes precedence over the rules in RONR which require the chairman to relinquish the chair in order to speak in debate (see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 394-395).

In any event, however, it is clear that this rule is in the nature of a rule of order. As a result, the rules may be suspended (by a 2/3 vote) to remove the chairman from the chair against his will. This is the correct procedure whether it is the case that the chairman is required to relinquish the chair (and refuses to do so) or if he is indeed correct that the rule in the bylaws provides that he is not required to relinquish the chair. See Official Interpretation 2006-2 and RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 651-653.

Edited May 28, 2020 at 03:33 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

2 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

 

It is an interesting argument to suggest that the language in the bylaws which provides that the President presides at meetings takes precedence over the rules in RONR which require the chairman to relinquish the chair in order to speak in debate (see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 394-395).

 

Interesting, but flawed. A rule in the bylaws that the President is to preside over all meetings does not mean that he is authorized to do so improperly (unless the rule has some rather strange additional language attached to it).  

[Guest Union member (OP)]

Thanks everyone. The meeting attendees can be quite pedantic, so  I don't think a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules would succeed without some supporting text from RONR. Where in RONR could I find text or interpretations arguing that "a rule in the bylaws that the President is to preside over all meetings does not mean that he is authorized to do so improperly"? There is no additional language in the bylaws that explicitly say he is authorized to do so improperly.

[Richard Brown]

27 minutes ago, Guest Union member (OP) said:

Where in RONR could I find text or interpretations arguing that "a rule in the bylaws that the President is to preside over all meetings does not mean that he is authorized to do so improperly"?

On page 652 at lines 3 - 11 and also  the footnotes.

Lines 3-11 read as follows:  "If the chair is not an appointed or elected chairman pro tem, a motion to declare the chair vacant is not in order. However, a motion can be made to Suspend the Rules so as to take away from him the authority to preside during all or part of a given session.** When such a motion is made and seconded, after stating the motion he must turn the chair over to another following the procedure described on page 395, and the remedy for refusal or failure to do so is that the motion may be put to a vote by its maker."

The pertinent footnote reads as follows:  "This is true even if the bylaws contain a provision to the effect that the president shall preside at all meetings, since such a provision is clearly in the nature of a rule of order, which may be suspended even if in the bylaws. See page 17, ll. 22–25."

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/28/2020 at 12:33 PM, Guest Union member (OP) said:

Where in RONR could I find text or interpretations arguing that "a rule in the bylaws that the President is to preside over all meetings does not mean that he is authorized to do so improperly"?

Part of the duty of presiding over a meeting is relinquishing the chair when necessary.

Next thing you know, this president will try to preside over meetings from which he is absent. 

[Nathan Zook]

On 5/31/2020 at 11:42 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Part of the duty of presiding over a meeting is relinquishing the chair when necessary.

Next thing you know, this president will try to preside over meetings from which he is absent. 

I was thinking about his own trial...for abusing his role of chairing meetings. 

 

Slightly more seriously, many people fail to understand that the chair of a meeting gives up certain rights while gaining others.  The chair is the facilitator of the meeting, he does not "run" it.  In other than a small board, the chair is not to present regular motions, speak in debate (generally), or engage in behavior prejudicial to a vote.  Sadly, is it entirely possible for a person to be an excellent president of a society generally, while failing spectacularly as a chairman.  I've occasionally wondered about the feasibility of having separate roles for meetings chairman and president.

Edited June 2, 2020 at 06:28 AM by Nathan Zook
Role of the chair

[Josh Martin]

8 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I've occasionally wondered about the feasibility of having separate roles for meetings chairman and president.

It's certainly feasible. Some organizations do this, and it seems to work well enough for them.

[Guest Union member (OP)]

Excellent, thank you everyone.