Third party serving as Chair

[A Brown]

The bylaws state:

Quote

The President shall preside at all meetings of the Delegates or, in the absence of the President, a Vice President shall preside in order of rank.

With use of the word SHALL, does this mean the President cannot delegate the duties of Chair to a non-member third party, and the VP must assume it instead?  What if both refuse to chair? Is the delegate body allowed to vote as to whether they want a third party to chair the meeting with the bylaws written as is?

Edited May 6, 2022 at 02:49 PM by A Brown

[Bruce Lages]

You are correct that the president cannot delegate the duties of chair to a third party (member or non-member) on his own. That would be true even without that bylaw statement, though, if RONR is your parliamentary authority. If the VP is present, and has not otherwise disqualified himself from presiding - e.g., by engaging in debate on the pending question - then, yes, the VP would be expected to assume the chair if the president cannot do so. If both refuse to preside, then either the president can recommend someone to serve as chair pro tem who can then do so with the assembly's approval, or the assembly itself can then elect someone to serve as chair pro tem. This is true even in the presence of a bylaw statement such as the one you quoted - see RONR, 12th ed. 62:12 (especially footnote 5).

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/6/2022 at 10:42 AM, A Brown said:

The bylaws state:

With use of the word SHALL, does this mean the President cannot delegate the duties of Chair to a non-member third party, and the VP must assume it instead?  What if both refuse to chair? Is the delegate body allowed to vote as to whether they want a third party to chair the meeting with the bylaws written as is?

This situation can most commonly occur when the president feels compelled to enter into debate on a particular issue, but the principle could apply in other situations.  This is discussed in 43:29.

 

[Atul Kapur]

You should review 47:13 "Invited temporary presiding officer."

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:01 PM, Atul Kapur said:

You should review 47:13 "Invited temporary presiding officer."

Yes, good on-point citation.

Essentially, if the president and vice president agree, then a chair pro-tem can be elected by a majority vote.  If they do not agree, then it will take a two-thirds vote to do so over their objection. (As it requires a suspension of the rules.)

[George Mervosh]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:10 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, good on-point citation.

Essentially, if the president and vice president agree, then a chair pro-tem can be elected by a majority vote.  If they do not agree, then it will take a two-thirds vote to do so over their objection. (As it requires a suspension of the rules.)

But since they have the rule in their bylaws on who presides, wouldn't it take a 2/3 vote to suspend that rule regardless of the President/VP's agreement?

[Josh Martin]

On 5/6/2022 at 9:42 AM, A Brown said:

The bylaws state:
The President shall preside at all meetings of the Delegates or, in the absence of the President, a Vice President shall preside in order of rank.

With use of the word SHALL, does this mean the President cannot delegate the duties of Chair to a non-member third party, and the VP must assume it instead?  What if both refuse to chair? Is the delegate body allowed to vote as to whether they want a third party to chair the meeting with the bylaws written as is?

I concur with my colleagues, but I would add that this wording seems to imply that there are multiple Vice Presidents. If this is correct, the President and all of the Vice Presidents would need to agree in order for a majority vote to be sufficient, otherwise a 2/3 vote will be required.

On 5/6/2022 at 11:20 AM, George Mervosh said:

But since they have the rule in their bylaws on who presides, wouldn't it take a 2/3 vote to suspend that rule regardless of the President/VP's agreement?

It will ultimately be up to the organization to interpret the meaning of the rule, but I find it doubtful that it was intended to prevent the President and Vice Presidents from relinquishing the chair or to require a 2/3 vote to elect a different chairman in the event this occurs.

Edited May 6, 2022 at 04:38 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:20 PM, George Mervosh said:

But since they have the rule in their bylaws on who presides, wouldn't it take a 2/3 vote to suspend that rule regardless of the President/VP's agreement?

No.

The president may decide unilaterally not to preside, for example in order to engage in debate, or to allow a temporary invited chair.  This requires no vote of any kind, let alone two thirds.

If the vice president(s) agree, they are also declining to preside (possibly because they have already spoken on an issue).  This requires no vote either.

Now, having no presiding officer, the assembly is compelled to elect one. This is not open to debate, much less a vote.  The question now is not whether to elect a chair pro-tem, but merely who should be elected.  And this requires only a majority vote.

The only time the rule needs to be suspended is if someone in the normal succession of chairs insists on its enforcement.