Co-Parliamentarians

[Curious]

Our bylaws allow the president to appoint a member to serve as Parliamentarian.  For the first time (I've been a member for 23 years), the new president appointed two members to serve as co-Parliamentarians.  Please advise on the challenges and advantages of this.

[J. J.]

The disadvantages are these:

1.  Which one advises the chair.

2.  If both are members, they couldn't exercise most of their membership rights.

The advantages are that two heads are often better than one. 

[Guest puzzling]

Concurring with JJ also

- the big problem for parliamentarian to be not allowed to engage in the debate, not allowed to vote (except secret votes) and that then times 2

- the need for talks between the both parliamentarians (before during and after the meeting) 

Was thinking as alternative to have one parliamentarian for membership meetings and an other parliamentarian for the board and committee meetings. 

But all and all I still think being the official parliamentarian of your own organization is not a good idea.

[Josh Martin]

17 hours ago, Curious said:

Our bylaws allow the president to appoint a member to serve as Parliamentarian.  For the first time (I've been a member for 23 years), the new president appointed two members to serve as co-Parliamentarians.  Please advise on the challenges and advantages of this.

I would first note that if the bylaws "allow the president to appoint a member to serve as Parliamentarian," it is not entirely clear that this provision does, in fact, even allow for the appointment of "co-parliamentarians," although it is difficult to say for certain without reviewing the exact wording of the provision. If the provision does not allow for this, then the question of advantages and disadvantages seems moot, unless the assembly intends to consider amending the bylaws.

RONR generally advises strongly against two people attempting to hold a single office. Although the below citation applies principally to "co-chairmen," much of it is applicable generally.

"The anomalous title “co-chairman” should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position." RONR (12th ed.) 13:17

These dilemmas are perhaps somewhat lessened in the case of the parliamentarian, since the role of this position is simply to advise, and it is the role of the chairman to actually rule on questions of order.

It is fairly unusual for an organization to have need of multiple parliamentarians. Even in the event that an organization does have multiple parliamentarians, as is sometimes done in organizations with particularly intensive parliamentary needs, such as legislative assemblies or large conventions, generally one person serves as the head parliamentarian and the others are assistants. I have only ever heard of "co-parliamentarians" once before, and that was also on this forum where someone was asking a very similar question to this one.

[Joshua Katz]

26 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I would first note that if the bylaws "allow the president to appoint a member to serve as Parliamentarian," it is not entirely clear that this provision does, in fact, even allow for the appointment of "co-parliamentarians," although it is difficult to say for certain without reviewing the exact wording of the provision. If the provision does not allow for this, then the question of advantages and disadvantages seems moot, unless the assembly intends to consider amending the bylaws.

 

I don't know that the bylaws can actually prevent such an appointment. The President can simply appoint one person, and ask the other for advice, too. Which is a problem with this system - the first person will be prevented from voting, while the second will not. 

[Josh Martin]

10 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't know that the bylaws can actually prevent such an appointment. The President can simply appoint one person, and ask the other for advice, too. Which is a problem with this system - the first person will be prevented from voting, while the second will not. 

The bylaws could prevent the person's formal appointment as parliamentarian, or "co-parliamentarian." It is correct, however, that certainly nothing would prevent the chairman from also asking for advice from other persons on questions of order.

"Before rendering his decision, the chair can consult the parliamentarian, if there is one. The chair can also request the advice of experienced members, but no one has the right to express such opinions in the meeting unless requested to do so by the chair." RONR (12th ed.) 23:17

[Rob Elsman]

If the president is so poorly prepared to preside that he feels the need for two parliamentariians, I would submit that he should resign his office.

[Richard Brown]

55 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

If the president is so poorly prepared to preside that he feels the need for two parliamentariians, I would submit that he should resign his office.

I would not go so far as to make such a statement.  We know nothing  about this organization, its president, the relative skills and expertise of the two potential parliamentarians, or the parliamentary issues the organization faces.  We also have no idea why the president wants to have two parliamentarians. He might have a perfectly good reason. 

From the standpoint of answering questions based on the rules in RONR,  which is what we are supposed to be doing, RONR is silent on that point.  It does contain a general caution as to two people sharing  the functions of a single position, but an organization having two parSliamentarians does not seem to violate any  specific rule in RONR.  As Mr. Martin pointed out in his first post above, the role of a parliamentarian is to advise, not to actually make rulings.

As to the issue of a member parliamentarian giving up certain rights, I will note that some organizations adopt a special rule of order providing that a member serving as parliamentarian may exercise all of the rights of membership and need not give up any of those rights by serving as parliamentarian.

[Gary Novosielski]

23 hours ago, Curious said:

Our bylaws allow the president to appoint a member to serve as Parliamentarian.  For the first time (I've been a member for 23 years), the new president appointed two members to serve as co-Parliamentarians.  Please advise on the challenges and advantages of this.

If the bylaws allow the president to appoint a member, then appointing two members is a violation of the bylaws.  If the bylaws authorize an office called "Parliamentarian" then there is no such office as "Co-parliamentarian".

[Gary Novosielski]

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

"Before rendering his decision, the chair can consult the parliamentarian, if there is one.

But presumably not if there are two. 🙂

[Rob Elsman]

I'm sticking to my guns.  The book describes the presiding officer as "well versed in parliamentary law" and "chosen principally for the ability to preside", RONR (12th ed.) 47:6.  He "make[s] every effort to know more parliamentary procedure than other members", ibid. 47:15.  By proper preparation, he avoids any "signs of unsureness", ibid., that can be detected and exploited, sometimes with "disastrous results", ibid. 47:14.  The expressed need for two parliamentarians is just such a "sign[] of unsureness" or "slightest weakness", ibid., of the improperly prepared presiding officer that can sometimes have such "disastrous results".

[J. J.]

I will note that congressional parliamentarians have assistant parliamentarians. 

[Atul Kapur]

6 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

parSliamentarians

The only thing a parSliamentarian (I spell it parsley-amentarian) can advise on is whether to chop it coarsely or finely.

So, I doubt you need co-parSliamentarians.

[Gary Novosielski]

17 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

The only thing a parSliamentarian (I spell it parsley-amentarian) can advise on is whether to chop it coarsely or finely.

So, I doubt you need co-parSliamentarians.

Perhaps not.  I yield back the balance of my Thyme.

[Atul Kapur]

4 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Perhaps not.  I yield back the balance of my Thyme.

I'm glad you decided to follow my Sage advice.

[Guest Puzzling]

15 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I'm sticking to my guns.  The book describes the presiding officer as "well versed in parliamentary law" and "chosen principally for the ability to preside", RONR (12th ed.) 47:6.  He "make[s] every effort to know more parliamentary procedure than other members", ibid. 47:15.  By proper preparation, he avoids any "signs of If unsureness", ibid., that can be detected and exploited, sometimes with "disastrous results", ibid. 47:14.  The expressed need for two parliamentarians is just such a "sign[] of unsureness" or "slightest weakness", ibid., of the improperly prepared presiding officer that can sometimes have such "disastrous results".

Does this mean that  electing a president who is not well versed in parliamentary law needs a 2/3 majority vote? (Just joking)

Still I prefer the option that a president put the question to the assembly or that he asks advice of better versed members. Both are possible under RONR.

The only good uses for a member-parliamentarian I see are:

- as parliamentarian for a board or committee (if he cannot be an ordinary member of it)

- as chairman pro tempore (any use)

- general adviser for parliamentary matters.

 

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The only good uses for a member-parliamentarian I see are:

- as parliamentarian for a board or committee (if he cannot be an ordinary member of it)

- as chairman pro tempore (any use)

- general adviser for parliamentary matters.

I think perhaps you don't realize how common member-parliamentarians are.  I would say that far more organizations have a member-parliamentarian than an outside or retained parliamentarian.  By far.  Overwhelmingly.  And with most of them the member parliamentarian participates in the meetings just like all the other members except possibly in those situations where he is a member of the organization but not a member of the board.  At the general membership meetings he would be a member parliamentarian but In board meetings he might be serving as a non-member parliamentarian since he probably has no vote.  I've been in that situation a few times.

In my experience, most organizations (and their member parliamentarians) either are not aware that the member parliamentarian is not supposed to participate in debate, make motions or vote except when by ballot or they simply ignore the rule.  I've known of very few that actually adopted a special rule of order permitting the member parliamentarian  to participate fully.  Not surprisingly, I have seen that most often in parliamentary groups, such as NAP units.

BTW, isn't the  primary role of just about ALL parliamentarians.... not just member parliamentarians.... to serve as a "general advisor for parliamentary matters", to use your phrase?  i

[Joshua Katz]

5 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I think perhaps you don't realize how common member-parliamentarians are.  I would say that far more organizations have a member-parliamentarian than an outside or retained parliamentarian.  By far.  Overwhelmingly.  And with most of them the member parliamentarian participates in the meetings just like all the other members except possibly in those situations where he is a member of the organization but not a member of the board.  At the general membership meetings he would be a member parliamentarian but In board meetings he might be serving as a non-member parliamentarian since he probably has no vote.  I've been in that situation a few times.

 

I was member-parliamentarian for a medium-sized organization (and Secretary). I did not participate in debate or vote unless by ballot and, perhaps owing to the nature of the organization, I felt I was able to do less to encourage proper procedure in that role than I could have had I not been parliamentarian. If I was ignored by the chair, that was the end of it. If I were able to participate, I could have appealed if a point of order was ruled not well-taken.

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

BTW, isn't the  primary role of just about ALL parliamentarians.... not just member parliamentarians.... to serve as a "general advisor for parliamentary matters", to use your phrase?  i

But then: a non member parliamentarian cannot interrupt any procedings for any reason, without breaking parliamentary rules.  So arriving in a catch 22, a member (non official parliamentarian) at least may interrupt with a point of order.

But this all a bit besides the subject of this question.(I suppose)

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The only good uses for a member-parliamentarian I see are:

- general adviser for parliamentary matters.

This is what a parliamentarian does whether or not the person is a member.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I think perhaps you don't realize how common member-parliamentarians are.  I would say that far more organizations have a member-parliamentarian than an outside or retained parliamentarian.  By far.  Overwhelmingly.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I frequently see these blanket claims (often from persons who work as professional parliamentarians) that an organization should never appoint a member parliamentarian due to the issues regarding the parliamentarian's participation, insisting that an organization either 1) should have no need for a parliamentarian since the presiding officer obviously should be an expert in parliamentary procedure and/or that 2) if the organization does have need of a parliamentarian, it should absolutely hire a nonmember as parliamentarian. These arguments always struck me as rather oblivious to the realities of many organizations.

RONR does say that "The presiding officer of an assembly—especially of a large one—should be chosen principally for the ability to preside." RONR (12th ed.) 47:6

Except in the case of organizations which create an officer position separate from the President which has the exclusive role to preside at meetings, however, it is exceedingly rare for organizations to follow this advice. An organization generally chooses its President on the basis of the President's ability to perform the other duties the organization assigns to the office by rule or custom, which generally include serving as the organization's chief executive and administrative officer, and also serving as the spokesman and symbolic leader of the organization. Sometimes the organization considers presiding ability as a factor, but not the principal one. Often no thought is given to presiding ability at all.

Due to this, the President frequently will not be the person in the organization most knowledgeable regarding parliamentary procedure, and the presiding officer may well have need of a parliamentarian for advice. Many organizations' finances are such, however, that it is not practical to hire a nonmember parliamentarian for all of its meetings, and so such a person will be called upon only when there is a particular need. The choices then are for the organization to flounder about with no parliamentarian at all or to have a member parliamentarian (or to have a member serve in this role in an unofficial capacity as the "experienced member" referred to in 23:17). I personally think the latter is the preferable option.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

And with most of them the member parliamentarian participates in the meetings just like all the other members except possibly in those situations where he is a member of the organization but not a member of the board.  At the general membership meetings he would be a member parliamentarian but In board meetings he might be serving as a non-member parliamentarian since he probably has no vote.  I've been in that situation a few times.

In my experience, most organizations (and their member parliamentarians) either are not aware that the member parliamentarian is not supposed to participate in debate, make motions or vote except when by ballot or they simply ignore the rule.  I've known of very few that actually adopted a special rule of order permitting the member parliamentarian  to participate fully.  Not surprisingly, I have seen that most often in parliamentary groups, such as NAP units.

My personal preference is that if an organization prefers to permit the member serving in this capacity to continue to exercise the rights of membership, that the organization should forego formally appointing a parliamentarian and instead have a member serve as an "unofficial" parliamentarian as the "experienced member" discussed in 23:17. I agree, however, that the organization may take the paths you describe if it prefers to do so.

Back in my student government days, our governing documents provided for a position of parliamentarian but specified that this person must not be a member. Since most of the people with the skills or interest for this position were members, this in practice meant that the position generally went unfilled and a member served as a sort of "de facto" parliamentarian, while continuing to exercise the rights of membership. I served in this capacity myself.

33 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

But then: a non member parliamentarian cannot interrupt any procedings for any reason, without breaking parliamentary rules.  So arriving in a catch 22, a member (non official parliamentarian) at least may interrupt with a point of order.

While it is certainly correct that a member parliamentarian has the right to interrupt with a Point of Order, I do not think it is appropriate to do so. The parliamentarian's role is to discreetly bring such matters to the attention of the presiding officer. If a situation arises in which the presiding officer ignores the member parliamentarian's advice, and the member feels it is of such importance that the member should follow up with a Point of Order (and presumably an appeal), then the member is free to do so, however, I think the member should resign from his position as parliamentarian in such a case.

Edited January 8, 2021 at 03:46 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Puzzling]

24 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

My personal preference is that if an organization prefers to permit the member serving in this capacity to continue to exercise the rights of membership, that the organization should forego formally appointing a parliamentarian and instead have a member serve as an "unofficial" parliamentarian as the "experienced member" discussed in 23:17. I agree

I think we all agree on this,but would like to hear from others who disagree with it.

 

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

My personal preference is that if an organization prefers to permit the member serving in this capacity to continue to exercise the rights of membership, that the organization should forego formally appointing a parliamentarian and instead have a member serve as an "unofficial" parliamentarian as the "experienced member" discussed in 23:17. . . .

I agree and make that suggestion frequently. 

[Gary Novosielski]

15 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Does this mean that  electing a president who is not well versed in parliamentary law needs a 2/3 majority vote? (Just joking)

No, just a simplified majority.