A Parliamentarian's Protocol

[Tomm]

What’s the proper protocol for a Parliamentarian for the following scenario?

You’re at a meeting of a 9 member Board. One of the members wants to limit the length of time a member can speak and their intentions are that it will be a “from-now-on” change.

This, of course would require a special rule of order but the motion simply states, “To limit speech in debate to 3 minutes” and passes. It could be understood as simply being a poorly worded motion to suspend the rules and would be good for that one meeting only?

The motion doesn’t seem to violate any of RONR where an intervention would be necessary? It just proves that member who made the motion may need a better understanding of RONR?

So…knowing or believing that this motion was intended to be a permanent rule, what’s the proper protocol for a Parliamentarian? Do you say nothing and allow the members to pass this motion and let the chips fall where they may at a later date when another member challenges the validity of the motion or do you advise the Chair that if this motion is intended to be forever it needs to be offered as a special rule of order?

I'm kinda asking when does a Parliamentarian involve him or herself in the business of a meeting?

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, Tomm said:

What’s the proper protocol for a Parliamentarian for the following scenario?

You’re at a meeting of a 9 member Board. One of the members wants to limit the length of time a member can speak and their intentions are that it will be a “from-now-on” change.

This, of course would require a special rule of order but the motion simply states, “To limit speech in debate to 3 minutes” and passes. It could be understood as simply being a poorly worded motion to suspend the rules and would be good for that one meeting only?

The motion doesn’t seem to violate any of RONR where an intervention would be necessary? It just proves that member who made the motion may need a better understanding of RONR?

So…knowing or believing that this motion was intended to be a permanent rule, what’s the proper protocol for a Parliamentarian? Do you say nothing and allow the members to pass this motion and let the chips fall where they may at a later date when another member challenges the validity of the motion or do you advise the Chair that if this motion is intended to be forever it needs to be offered as a special rule of order?

I'm kinda asking when does a Parliamentarian involve him or herself in the business of a meeting?

The parliamentarian only gives advice to the chair.  And should not further invoke him or herself innate business of the meeting.

The motion as you say has already passed so nothing can be done anymore.

In general twill be clear what kind of motion was adopted (was there previous notice,  was it a main motion?, both are needed for a rule of order) 

 

 

[Tomm]

10 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The motion as you say has already passed so nothing can be done anymore.

In general twill be clear what kind of motion was adopted (was there previous notice,  was it a main motion?, both are needed for a rule of order) 

My curiosity really pertained to, if or when a parliamentarian should or would involve him or herself. Assuming it was a main motion and all the proper previous notice was given but the vote had not yet been taken, should the Parliamentarian have said anything to the Chair prior to the vote, or since no rules are being violated, just allow the members to vote on a poorly worded suspension of the rules and deal with the fact that it can or will be overturned with a future challenge?     

[Joshua Katz]

Opinions may vary, but just the fact that a rule is being violated is not enough to make me speak up (that is, whisper to the chair) without being asked. The only time I will say something to the chair absent a question is if rights are being significantly trampled. It is not the parliamentarian's job to ensure everything is done perfectly; that's the chair's job. The parliamentarian's job is to advise the chair. Most of the job, in my opinion, is answering questions (quietly, of course).

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Tomm said:

What’s the proper protocol for a Parliamentarian for the following scenario?

You’re at a meeting of a 9 member Board. One of the members wants to limit the length of time a member can speak and their intentions are that it will be a “from-now-on” change.

This, of course would require a special rule of order but the motion simply states, “To limit speech in debate to 3 minutes” and passes. It could be understood as simply being a poorly worded motion to suspend the rules and would be good for that one meeting only?

For starters, I assume the motion in question is made while no motion is currently pending. If this is not correct, please clarify.

I would note that the way the motion as made is worded, it's not clear what the duration of the motion is supposed to be at all. You say that it could be understood as applying only for the duration of the current meeting. I suppose this is correct, but for that matter, the motion could also be interpreted as applying for only a portion of the current meeting. The motion says nothing in regard to its duration, and there is no "default" duration to assume for an incidental main motion to Limit Debate. (In contrast, a privileged motion to Limit Debate is assumed to apply only to the immediately pending motion unless otherwise stated.)

Ultimately, this means that it is not clear what exactly the motion means, and it is the chair's responsibility to ensure that the question is clearly stated before putting it to a vote. The parliamentarian's responsibility is to advise and assist the chair. As a result, I would say the proper protocol would be for the parliamentarian to advise the chair to ask the member his intentions in regard to the duration of the motion.

I would also say that, even if it could be assumed that the motion would apply for the duration of the current meeting, I believe that if a member makes a motion which is contrary to the words the member has just said (and it is therefore clear the member intended to do something else), it is still the responsibility of the chair and the parliamentarian to assist the member in making the motion he actually wanted to make. So I would still advise the chair to ask the member for clarification regarding the intended duration of the motion.

2 hours ago, Tomm said:

The motion doesn’t seem to violate any of RONR where an intervention would be necessary? It just proves that member who made the motion may need a better understanding of RONR?

The situations in which the chair (or the parliamentarian) should intervene are not wholly limited to situations in which a violation of the rules has occurred. (Conversely, the fact that a violation has occurred does not necessarily mean it is time to intervene.) The chair also has a duty to assist and educate the assembly, and the parliamentarian has a duty to assist and educate the chair.

2 hours ago, Tomm said:

So…knowing or believing that this motion was intended to be a permanent rule, what’s the proper protocol for a Parliamentarian? Do you say nothing and allow the members to pass this motion and let the chips fall where they may at a later date when another member challenges the validity of the motion or do you advise the Chair that if this motion is intended to be forever it needs to be offered as a special rule of order?

I would advise the chair to ask the member to clarify the intended duration of the motion - and if it was indeed intended to be "forever," I would note it would need to be offered as a special rule of order.

2 hours ago, Tomm said:

I'm kinda asking when does a Parliamentarian involve him or herself in the business of a meeting?

It is always a bit of a judgment call. There are some situations where failure to address the issue at the time will cause harm to the assembly or the rights of its members, and I think this is such a situation, as the member is (due to his imprecise wording) failing to make the motion he intends to (and has a right to) make.

There are other times when I might make a note of an issue and talk to the chair about it after the meeting. This is especially common when an assembly is making errors that are taking up more of the assembly's time than the proper procedure, but are not otherwise causing problems. In such cases, trying to explain the correct rule on the spot might take up even more time, but I can discuss it with the chair afterward and correct the issue for the future.

Finally, there are things which may not be technically correct but aren't really hurting anything, and in those cases I probably won't say anything at all unless someone asks. I have worked with several assemblies which, for example, will refer to the motion to postpone as "tabling" a motion - but (other than using the incorrect word) the motion is correctly processed as a motion to postpone.

32 minutes ago, Tomm said:

My curiosity really pertained to, if or when a parliamentarian should or would involve him or herself. Assuming it was a main motion and all the proper previous notice was given but the vote had not yet been taken, should the Parliamentarian have said anything to the Chair prior to the vote, or since no rules are being violated, just allow the members to vote on a poorly worded suspension of the rules and deal with the fact that it can or will be overturned with a future challenge?     

If previous notice had been given of the motion to adopt a special rule of order to limit speeches in debate to three minutes, then interpreting it as a motion to limit debate only for the current meeting doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in my opinion.

In any event, however, the parliamentarian should indeed assist the chair in ensuring that all motions are clearly stated so that the assembly doesn't vote on poorly worded motions. Ensuring that all members of the assembly are clear on exactly what is pending is one of the most (if not the most) important duties of the chair, so the person who is appointed to assist the chair with parliamentary procedure should certainly assist with that.

Edited June 2, 2021 at 11:02 PM by Josh Martin