Obligation to Relinquish the Chair

[Weldon Merritt]

I was the chair of the bylaws committee at out last annual meeting, at which the committee proposed a revision to the bylaws, for which I was the primary drafter and proponent. During consideration, the revision was referred back to the committee with instructions to report at the next annual meeting. Then during our election, I was elected president.

\When the committee (with aa new chair) reports at the next annual meeting, the revision will again be before the assembly, and the committee will then make whatever recommendations and motions it has decided on. My question is, since I was the main proponent of the revision, and argued for it at the last annual meeting, do I have an obligation to turn the chair over to the vice president during consideration of the revision?

I may want to turn the chair over to the VP anyway so I can argue in favor of the revision, as I am not sure the new committee chair will be as strong an advocate. But it might go over better if I can legitimately cite RONR to say I am obligated to do so. The current bylaws, quite frankly, are a mess, so I really would like to get the revision adopted.
 

[Rob Elsman]

Since you do not mention that you possess information that others do not have, my sense of it is that you should remain in the chair and preside, which is your premier duty.  Not only do you not have an obligation to vacate the chair, what RONR has to say about the role of the presiding officer leaves me believing that you are not legitimately impeded from presiding, insofar as I have facts upon which to form an opinion.

Edited September 27, 2023 at 01:43 AM by Rob Elsman

[Atul Kapur]

On 9/26/2023 at 6:05 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

I was the chair of the bylaws committee at out last annual meeting, at which the committee proposed a revision to the bylaws, for which I was the primary drafter and proponent. During consideration, the revision was referred back to the committee with instructions to report at the next annual meeting. Then during our election, I was elected president.

\When the committee (with aa new chair) reports at the next annual meeting, the revision will again be before the assembly, and the committee will then make whatever recommendations and motions it has decided on. My question is, since I was the main proponent of the revision, and argued for it at the last annual meeting, do I have an obligation to turn the chair over to the vice president during consideration of the revision?

I may want to turn the chair over to the VP anyway so I can argue in favor of the revision, as I am not sure the new committee chair will be as strong an advocate. But it might go over better if I can legitimately cite RONR to say I am obligated to do so. The current bylaws, quite frankly, are a mess, so I really would like to get the revision adopted.
 

Just print out this post and use it as proof that you have publicly declared that you are not impartial and therefore must vacate the chair. 😉

[Dan Honemann]

... or just do what I did many, many years ago.

As President of the Maryland Association of Parliamentarians, I was presiding over its annual convention. A bylaw amendment I preferred to see adopted was pending, and of course, it required a two-thirds vote for its adoption.  When the time came for putting the question to a vote, I simply took a voice vote, declared that there were two-thirds in the affirmative and that the amendment was adopted, and moved on to the next business in order.  Nary a peep out of anyone.  🙂

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/26/2023 at 8:33 PM, Dan Honemann said:

... or just do what I did many, many years ago.

As President of the Maryland Association of Parliamentarians, I was presiding over its annual convention. A bylaw amendment I preferred to see adopted was pending, and of course, it required a two-thirds vote for its adoption.  When the time came for putting the question to a vote, I simply took a voice vote, declared that there were two-thirds in the affirmative and that the amendment was adopted, and moved on to the next business in order.  Nary a peep out of anyone.  🙂

I'm shocked, shocked.  

Sorta. 😏

[Weldon Merritt]

On 9/26/2023 at 6:33 PM, Dan Honemann said:

... or just do what I did many, many years ago.

I doubt I could get away with it. But it might be worth a try.😊

[Weldon Merritt]

On 9/26/2023 at 5:50 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Just print out this post and use it as proof that you have publicly declared that you are not impartial and therefore must vacate the chair. 😉

Now that's an idea! 😄

[Josh Martin]

On 9/26/2023 at 5:05 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

\When the committee (with aa new chair) reports at the next annual meeting, the revision will again be before the assembly, and the committee will then make whatever recommendations and motions it has decided on. My question is, since I was the main proponent of the revision, and argued for it at the last annual meeting, do I have an obligation to turn the chair over to the vice president during consideration of the revision?

I do not think these facts, in and of themselves, suggest you "have an obligation to turn the chair over to the vice president during consideration of the revision." (emphasis added)

Notwithstanding this, you should of course use your best judgment in this matter, and if you feel your past involvement in the revision will undermine your appearance of impartiality as presiding officer, then you should turn the chair over to the Vice President during consideration of the revision.

[Rob Elsman]

I do not believe that "...past involvement in the revision..." is an acceptable reason to step down from the chair if that involvement was something done outside the context of the assembly's meeting (e.g., committee work).  Again, the president's premier duty is to preside over the assembly's meetings.  It is often the case that some or all the members know the president's views on a matter before the assembly; however, as long as the president maintains the appearance of impartiality during the assembly's meetings, the president should remain in the chair.

An exception to what I have said arises when the chair is in possession of important information that is otherwise inaccessible to the other members.  In such a case (especially where the failure to convey that information may cause harm to the society or cause it to lose an important opportunity), the chair may actually have a duty to step down from the chair and participate in the debate.  These exceptions will be rare.  I see nothing in the present fact situation that leads me to believe that this is the case.

There may be other, rare situations (but not the present one) where the importance of the chair's participation in debate outweighs the burden of the president's premier duty to preside.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 9/27/2023 at 9:49 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I do not believe that "...past involvement in the revision..." is an acceptable reason to step down from the chair if that involvement was something done outside the context of the assembly's meeting (e.g., committee work). 

I agree with that view. But while my involvement in trying to further perfect the revision has been as an ex-officio committee member, I was certainly more directly involved in the original proposal when it was before the assembly at the last annual meeting. And that proposal is the one that will immediately be before the assembly when the committee reports. I guess I will see what the committee ultimately recommends and then decode.

[Drake Savory]

Is it possible under RONR that the Chair could explain his concern and ask if the assembly desires to move to Suspend the Rules to remove him from the Chair for the duration of the motion?  In other words let the members decide if they trust his impartiality.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 9/27/2023 at 6:13 PM, Drake Savory said:

Is it possible under RONR that the Chair could explain his concern and ask if the assembly desires to move to Suspend the Rules to remove him from the Chair for the duration of the motion?  In other words let the members decide if they trust his impartiality.

I think that is certainly possible. But I'm not sure if that's how I want to proceed. I may aske ask the board for theist their thoughts first.

Edited September 28, 2023 at 08:33 PM by Weldon Merritt
Corrected two typos.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:13 PM, Drake Savory said:

Is it possible under RONR that the Chair could explain his concern and ask if the assembly desires to move to Suspend the Rules to remove him from the Chair for the duration of the motion?  In other words let the members decide if they trust his impartiality.

I suppose the chair could do so, but frankly, if the chair is concerned enough that he feels the need to do this, I think the presiding officer should voluntarily relinquish the chair.

[Rob Elsman]

On 9/27/2023 at 8:48 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

I may aske the board for theist thoughts first.

Theist thoughts are always good. 😁

[Weldon Merritt]

On 9/28/2023 at 10:57 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Theist thoughts are always good. 😁

That one's a real doozy! And about as far as could be from what I could have meant. I could almost swear that some of those typos creep in after I post.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/28/2023 at 12:57 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Theist thoughts are always good. 😁

Amen and Hullabalooya.