Is "Sergeant at Arms" a required position? Can we modify title?

[AZBoard]

Hello - I am the President-Elect of a non-profit professional networking association.  Our Executive Board recently engaged in a lengthy strategic planning process, re-envisioned our focus and some of the Officer titles and position descriptions, and updated the bylaws.  We revised the "Sergeant at Arms" position to "Board Liaison Officer" and kept the past responsibilities of the Sergeant at Arms while adding a few additional roles to better meet the needs of our evolving organization and membership.  Our Board meetings are typically only 10 people at full capacity, and does not require some of the more dated room set up or other responsibilities.  

The new Board Liaison Position responsibilities:
·         Assist the President in conducting business during the Executive Board, regular, and special meetings of the Association, ensuring order and conduct by attendees;
·         Ensure completion and collection of signed Board Member Agreements, and coordinate documentation with the Secretary;
·         Orient new Board members;
·         Provide oversight to Board and Committee activities.
·         Liaison with external partners, vendors, stakeholders as necessary.

We are following the current bylaw procedures and provided the updated bylaws for membership review and comment prior to voting on approval. 

One of the comments received was: "I completely disagree with the change of title from Sergeant of Arms to Board Liaison Officer. Under Roberts Rules of Order this position has the right to enforce its rules and expect ethical and honorable conduct from its members including the Board. If the Board feels it needs to add this position that's fine (which as been done with the reassign of position on page 6)."

My question is: is there any reason we would need to adhere to the exact title "Sergeant at Arms" if we feel the new "Board Liaison Officer" fulfills that duty and more? This position will certainly enforce our rules and expect ethical and honorable conduct from its members including the Board, but there was a recognized need for a position to absorb these additional Board Liaison responsibilities, and frankly the Sergeant at Arms position was underutilized and felt they didn't have anything to do or contribute.  The Board is also in agreement that the revised title is more appropriate for our organization's mission, vision, and operating environment.  As long as we comply with bylaws in the revision of titles and revision of the bylaws, I find we are following our Board protocols and more appropriately meeting the needs of our Board and members.  

While this one comment does not prevent us from moving forward with majority approval, I would greatly appreciate the expertise from this group on whether the "Sergeant at Arms" title is required, or if we can modify the title with Board and Membership approval consistent with our Bylaws.  Thank you!

[Weldon Merritt]

2 minutes ago, AZBoard said:

I would greatly appreciate the expertise from this group on whether the "Sergeant at Arms" title is required,

It is not.

2 minutes ago, AZBoard said:

or if we can modify the title with Board and Membership approval consistent with our Bylaws. 

You may. 

[Joshua Katz]

As a general rule, you can do pretty much anything by putting it in your bylaws. Your bylaws outrank RONR. At the same time, RONR does contain many suggestions as to good things to put in (or not), and you deviate from them at your peril. But you still can.

52 minutes ago, AZBoard said:

One of the comments received was: "I completely disagree with the change of title from Sergeant of Arms to Board Liaison Officer. Under Roberts Rules of Order this position has the right to enforce its rules and expect ethical and honorable conduct from its members including the Board. If the Board feels it needs to add this position that's fine (which as been done with the reassign of position on page 6)."

 

I have no idea what this member means. RONR says you need a presiding officer and a recording officer. And yes, the membership should enforce its rules and expect honorable conduct from the Board. But I don't see what follows.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Katz, RONR does not require a sergeant at arms or anything of the sort.  RONR does list a sergeant at arms as one of several optional officer positions which an organization may or may not desire to have. The position is entirely optional and  If you have one, that officer may be assigned whatever duties the organization desires.

See Section 47:40 of the 12th edition of RONR for information on such "other officers" that an organization might have.  If you have the 11th edition, it is on pages 461-463.

Edited September 16, 2020 at 11:46 PM by Richard Brown
Addded citation to RONR

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, AZBoard said:

One of the comments received was: "I completely disagree with the change of title from Sergeant of Arms to Board Liaison Officer. Under Roberts Rules of Order this position has the right to enforce its rules and expect ethical and honorable conduct from its members including the Board.

Robert's Rules of Order says nothing of the sort. The Sergeant at Arms, as the position is described in RONR, does not have the right to enforce the assembly's rules, let alone to enforce ethical and honorable conduct. The responsibility of enforcing the rules falls to the presiding officer and to the assembly itself, and the responsibility of enforcing ethical and honorable conduct falls to the society's membership. The Sergeant at Arms may be called upon to assist the presiding officer in this regard, but it is not the right or responsibility of the Sergeant at Arms to attempt to enforce the assembly's rules on his own initiative.

"A sergeant-at-arms (or warden, or warrant officer, as sometimes called), who, on the floor of the meeting hall, assists in preserving order as the chair may direct. In a convention or large meeting this officer may have charge of the ushers. He may handle certain physical arrangements in the hall as well, such as being responsible in some cases for seeing that the furnishings are in proper order for each meeting. In a legislative or public body that has the power to penalize or compel the attendance of its members, the sergeant-at-arms may have the duty of serving warrants or notices of fines, or of arresting absent members in the event of a Call of the House (40:13–16)." RONR (12th ed.) 47:40

In any event, the duties of this position are quite clearly defined in your bylaws, and those duties remain the same regardless of what the position is called.

2 hours ago, AZBoard said:

My question is: is there any reason we would need to adhere to the exact title "Sergeant at Arms" if we feel the new "Board Liaison Officer" fulfills that duty and more?

No. Indeed, it makes complete sense to me that a different title may be desired, since it seems that the duties normally associated with the Sergeant at Arms make up only a small portion of the duties of this position.

2 hours ago, AZBoard said:

While this one comment does not prevent us from moving forward with majority approval, I would greatly appreciate the expertise from this group on whether the "Sergeant at Arms" title is required, or if we can modify the title with Board and Membership approval consistent with our Bylaws.

The organization is not required to have a Sergeant at Arms at all, and even if it does have a person who performs some or all of the duties normally associated with the Sergeant at Arms, the society can call this position whatever it wants.

[AZBoard]

Thank you all for your time in responding.  You all seem to echo my President and my thoughts on the matter, but as this member invoked Robert's Rules of Order, I thought it would be fitting to put it to this forum for comment.  Appreciate it, stay healthy and orderly all. 

[Gary Novosielski]

Oops, looks like I missed you.

The proper transitive verb form of "liaison" is "to liaise".

Edited May 28, 2022 at 05:16 AM by Gary Novosielski