Is there an organization that holds parliamentarians accountable?

[Guest Guest]

Is there a national organization or one in California that holds licensed parliamentarians accountable?  If so, how does one report to them conduct by a parliamentarian that appears to rubber-stamp actions by the chair of our organization's meetings egregiously violate our bylaws, democracy and RONR?

[Guest Guest]

Sorry for the typo.   It should say "actions by the chair of our organization's meetings that egregiously violate our bylaws, democracy and RONR"

?

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/7/2023 at 6:22 PM, Guest Guest said:

Is there a national organization or one in California that holds licensed parliamentarians accountable?  If so, how does one report to them conduct by a parliamentarian that appears to rubber-stamp actions by the chair of our organization's meetings egregiously violate our bylaws, democracy and RONR?

There is no such thing as a "licensed" parliamentarian.

There are at least two voluntary organizations (NAP and AIP) that have set up systems in which they grant credentials to persons they deem worthy to receive them, and they have adopted a code of ethics to which their members are expected to adhere.  If your parliamentarian is a member of either, I suspect you could complain to it.

 

[Weldon Merritt]

First of all, parliamentarians are not "licensed." Anyone can call themselves a parliamentarian and serve as such. But there are two major organization, the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians, that each administer a credentialling program. Most professional parliamentarians are members of at least one, and often both, of those organizations.

If the parliamentarian you are referring to is not a member of at least one of those organizations, then you are out of luck as far as any formal complaint goes. Or at least I know of no mechanism to resolve such a complaint.

If the parliamentarian  is a member of one of the argentations, you may file a complaint with the appropriate one. For NAP, go to https://www.parliamentarians.org/about/resources, and scroll down t find copies of teh Code of Professional Responsibility, the Professional Responsibility Complaint Rules, and the Complaint Form. For AIP. go tohttps://aipparl.org/governing-documents, where you will find the equivalent rules and forms. Note that the Code of Professional Responsibility is a joint code, so it will be identical for both organizations. The complaint forms and the process for handling complaints differ a bit between the two. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/7/2023 at 6:22 PM, Guest Guest said:

Is there a national organization or one in California that holds licensed parliamentarians accountable?  If so, how does one report to them conduct by a parliamentarian that appears to rubber-stamp actions by the chair of our organization's meetings egregiously violate our bylaws, democracy and RONR?

I'm not sure how a parliamentarian can "rubber-stamp" anything in the first place.  Parliamentarians do not have the power to approve, reject, or otherwise stamp actions of the chair.

The role of a parliamentarian is to give advice to the chair.  If the chair decides not to follow that advice, the matter never gets referred back to the parliamentarian for stamping.  The chair is responsible for the chair's own decisions, and the chair is accountable only to the assembly, not to the parliamentarian.

[Guest Guest]

On 11/7/2023 at 9:09 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm not sure how a parliamentarian can "rubber-stamp" anything in the first place.  Parliamentarians do not have the power to approve, reject, or otherwise stamp actions of the chair.

The role of a parliamentarian is to give advice to the chair.  If the chair decides not to follow that advice, the matter never gets referred back to the parliamentarian for stamping.  The chair is responsible for the chair's own decisions, and the chair is accountable only to the assembly, not to the parliamentarian.

I should have been more precise. I meant that the parliamentarian explicitly announced to the meeting participants that the chair of the meeting was acting properly in denying an appeal to the chair's ruling that a motion was out of order for exactly the same reason he had ruled the main motion out of order. That is, the chair ruled a new business item out of order because, in his view, the motion would violate the organization's bylaws. A member who disagreed with that interpretation of the bylaws moved to appeal to the decision of the chair (and had a second), but the chair denied the appeal because the NBI would violate the bylaws—the same reason he gave for ruling the motion out of order. The parliamentarian backed the chair up by admonishing the members, "There is no reason to have bylaws if you are not going to follow them."

The chair did the same thing regarding two other motions at that meeting and on another item at a subsequent meeting, ruling a motion out of order because (according to him) it violated the bylaws and then disallowing an appeal to his decision on the very same basis: that the main motion violated the bylaws. The parliamentarian explicitly affirmed the chair's action in each case, once by activating his thumbs up emoji (all of the meetings have been on Zoom). On other occasions, this parliamentarian is never shy about intervening to correct the chair regarding his view of parliamentary procedures. (e.g., the parliamentarian believes that members should not be allowed to abstain, so he always corrects the chair when he calls for abstentions. I don't believe that is a sound position, but it's an example.)

So, while I understand that the chair is responsible for each of his rulings, I believe this parliamentarian is violating a few provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians, adopted by The National Association of the Parliamentarians to which he belongs, including  "Advise the client on the proper application of the accepted rules of parliamentary procedure." (4.2) and "Make reasonable efforts to call to the attention of the client significant deviations from the rules that may be harmful to the rights of members of the assembly, as is required by the role of the parliamentarian." (4.6)

[Atul Kapur]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:05 PM, Guest Guest said:

so he always corrects the chair when he calls for abstentions. I don't believe that is a sound position, but it's an example.

I take no position on whether there are any violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

But on this particular item, RONR is clear that a chair should not call for abstentions. RONR (12th ed.) 4:35 says

Quote

The chair does not call for abstentions in taking a vote

and 4:35 goes on to explain that this is because 

Quote

the number of members who respond to such a call is meaningless. To “abstain” means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response if “abstentions” are called for abstains just as much as one who responds to that effect (see also 45:3).

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/13/2023 at 7:05 PM, Guest Guest said:

the parliamentarian believes that members should not be allowed to abstain

Has the parliamentarian said that he "believes that members should not ne allowed to abstain," or is that an assumption on your part? So far as RONR is concerned, members do have a righty to abstain, but I agree that the char should not call for abstentions. 

[Richard Brown]

Guest Guest, is the Parliamentarian credentialed by either of the two national credentialing organizations for Parliamentarians, namely, the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) or the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP)?  In other words, does he have the NAP credential of Registered Parliamentarian (RP) or professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP)? Or, if he is a member of AIP, does he have the designation of certified Parliamentarian (CP) or certified professional Parliamentarian (CPP)?

I agree completely with the answer by Dr. Kapur (and with the answer just posted by Mr. Merritt) regarding whether the chair should call for abstentions. RONR is clear that he should not.

I have concerns, however, about the chair, apparently frequently ruling that motions are out of order because they violate the bylaws, and that the Parliamentarian states that those rulings by the chair are correct. RONR is clear that rulings of the chair may be appealed unless “there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions“. 39:3 (RONR 12th ed.). See also 24:3 (2) (b):  “ when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory, and is not allowed“.

So, the question is not about whether the chair believes the motion violates the bylaws, but whether there can possibly be different reasonable interpretations as to whether it violates the bylaws. If reasonable minds can disagree as to whether the proposed motion violates the bylaws, the appeal should be permitted.

Edited November 14, 2023 at 04:41 AM by Richard Brown
Added that I agree with the answer by Mr. Merritt and made a typographical correction

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:05 PM, Guest Guest said:

(e.g., the parliamentarian believes that members should not be allowed to abstain, so he always corrects the chair when he calls for abstentions. I don't believe that is a sound position, but it's an example.)

This jumped out at me, too.  The parliamentarian is not saying that members should not  be allowed to abstain.  He is merely saying that abstentions should not be called for or counted since anyone who does not vote Yes or No has abstained.  And their number doesn't matter.

[Joshua Katz]

However, the members should not be aware of the parliamentarian frequently admonishing the chair about abstentions, because the parliamentarian should be advising the chair quietly. The parliamentarian should not be "admonishing" the assembly, either. He should be quiet and advise the chair. 

[Josh Martin]

On 11/13/2023 at 8:05 PM, Guest Guest said:

I meant that the parliamentarian explicitly announced to the meeting participants that the chair of the meeting was acting properly in denying an appeal to the chair's ruling that a motion was out of order for exactly the same reason he had ruled the main motion out of order.

Sounds like you need a better chair, and they can appoint a better parliamentarian.

On 11/13/2023 at 8:05 PM, Guest Guest said:

That is, the chair ruled a new business item out of order because, in his view, the motion would violate the organization's bylaws. A member who disagreed with that interpretation of the bylaws moved to appeal to the decision of the chair (and had a second), but the chair denied the appeal because the NBI would violate the bylaws—the same reason he gave for ruling the motion out of order. The parliamentarian backed the chair up by admonishing the members, "There is no reason to have bylaws if you are not going to follow them."

This misunderstands the basis of the appeal. (Or at least I assume it does.) Certainly, the rule that a main motion which conflicts with a rule in the bylaws is out of order is a rule on which there cannot be two reasonable opinions.

But I am doubtful that was the basis of the appeal. More likely, a member was appealing because the member disagreed with the chair's interpretation of the bylaws and that, under the member's alternate interpretation, the motion did not conflict with the bylaws. While I cannot say for certain since I have not seen the wording of the bylaws in question, I am generally skeptical of a ruling that a rule in the society's bylaws is so clear that it cannot be subject to two reasonable interpretations.

Even to the extent there is an instance where that is the case, the chair should at least say as much in his ruling, rather than simply repeating that the motion violates the bylaws.

On 11/13/2023 at 8:05 PM, Guest Guest said:

The parliamentarian explicitly affirmed the chair's action in each case, once by activating his thumbs up emoji (all of the meetings have been on Zoom).

Do the bylaws or applicable law permit meeting electronically?

On the central question, I also wonder if a parliamentary inquiry might lead to learning something (or might not). That is, a member might ask, "Suppose members disagree with the chair's interpretation of the bylaws in a particular case. What is the proper course of action for the assembly in that instance?"

On 11/13/2023 at 8:05 PM, Guest Guest said:

On other occasions, this parliamentarian is never shy about intervening to correct the chair regarding his view of parliamentary procedures. (e.g., the parliamentarian believes that members should not be allowed to abstain, so he always corrects the chair when he calls for abstentions. I don't believe that is a sound position, but it's an example.)

Well, in this instance, the parliamentarian gave the correct advice but for the wrong reason (to the extent you are correctly interpreting the reason).

Members have a right to abstain. However, the chair should not call for abstentions, because members can abstain simply by remaining silent. Therefore, calling for abstentions is meaningless and a waste of time.

"The chair does not call for abstentions in taking a vote, since the number of members who respond to such a call is meaningless. To “abstain” means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response if “abstentions” are called for abstains just as much as one who responds to that effect (see also 45:3)." RONR (12th ed.) 4:35

On 11/13/2023 at 8:05 PM, Guest Guest said:

So, while I understand that the chair is responsible for each of his rulings, I believe this parliamentarian is violating a few provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians, adopted by The National Association of the Parliamentarians to which he belongs, including  "Advise the client on the proper application of the accepted rules of parliamentary procedure." (4.2) and "Make reasonable efforts to call to the attention of the client significant deviations from the rules that may be harmful to the rights of members of the assembly, as is required by the role of the parliamentarian." (4.6)

Questions concerning the NAP Code of Ethics are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum, and concerns regarding such matters should be directed to the appropriate authorities at NAP.

Given that I have limited facts available, I wish to make clear that I express no view on whether the conduct at issue constitutes a violation of the NAP Code of Ethics.

Edited November 14, 2023 at 04:03 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Guest]

I am extremely grateful to all of you for your thoughtful and knowledgable responses. I only cited the abstentions issue as an example to indicate that this parliamentarian is not passive when he believes the chair needs guidance, but I did learn something from your responses on this point: although members have the right to abstain, the parliamentarian is correct on the point that the chair should not call for abstentions.  

In response to a question regarding this parliamentarian's credentials: He is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian and a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians. I have not yet determined whether he is also a member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians.  

Regarding the permissibility of electronic meetings: Our standing rules for this body allow them.  

On 11/14/2023 at 7:32 AM, Josh Martin said:

More likely, a member was appealing because the member disagreed with the chair's interpretation of the bylaws and that, under the member's alternate interpretation, the motion did not conflict with the bylaws.

This is correct. Nobody has argued that a main motion that is in conflict with the bylaws should be allowed.

I appreciate the caution not to take a position on a parliamentarian's conduct.  Because the parliamentarian has openly indicated his support for the denying appeals to the decision of the chair, a few members of this representative body will write to the parliamentarian to communicate our concerns before filing a complaint with the NAP.  We realize that the chair is responsible for all rulings, not the parliamentarian, but the chair is not responsive to our concerns and merely cites the parliamentarian's expert advice. Yes, we need a new chair. But, as this professional parliamentarian's pronouncements play a major role in legitimizing the chair's decisions, we feel that we should hold him accountable as well. 

On 11/14/2023 at 7:32 AM, Josh Martin said:

On the central question, I also wonder if a parliamentary inquiry might lead to learning something (or might not). That is, a member might ask, "Suppose members disagree with the chair's interpretation of the bylaws in a particular case. What is the proper course of action for the assembly in that instance?"

Thank you for this excellent suggestion!  

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/14/2023 at 2:04 PM, Guest Guest said:

Regarding the permissibility of electronic meetings: Our standing rules for this body allow them.  

But do your bylaws allow them? A standing rule alone is not sufficient. The authorization must be in the bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/14/2023 at 4:04 PM, Guest Guest said:

Regarding the permissibility of electronic meetings: Our standing rules for this body allow them.  

That's not sufficient.  Such provisions must be in the bylaws.  See 9:30

[Josh Martin]

On 11/14/2023 at 3:04 PM, Guest Guest said:

In response to a question regarding this parliamentarian's credentials: He is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian and a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians. I have not yet determined whether he is also a member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians.  

I will add at this point that while I stand by my statements based upon the limited facts presented here, this person will be more knowledgeable of the specific scenarios involved, and it may be that the parliamentarian believes that the rules in question are so clear that there cannot be two reasonable interpretations. I have not seen the rules in question, and am not aware of the alternate interpretations, and therefore express no view on that point.

On 11/14/2023 at 3:04 PM, Guest Guest said:

Regarding the permissibility of electronic meetings: Our standing rules for this body allow them.  

A standing rule is not sufficient to authorize electronic meetings.

Perhaps something to ask the parliamentarian about if the other areas of disagreement can get smoothed over.

"Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined in 8:2(1), a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present." RONR (12th ed.) 9:30, emphasis in original

Edited November 15, 2023 at 01:16 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

I agree that RONR is clear that meetings may not be conducted electronically unless authorized in the bylaws. However, it is possible that state law in the state where this organization exists might authorize electronic meetings, unless specifically prohibited in the bylaws.  In addition, I don’t recall that we have been told that this organization has officially adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority.