Parliamentarian's Attendance at Executive Session

[Josh Martin]

On 11/25/2023 at 1:28 PM, Drake Savory said:

I disagree.  There are people that an organization may want to have the right to attend meetings but yet in no way want to be considered a member.  For example, a planning commission may want the city mayor or city attorney to be allowed in all meetings due to their specialized knowledge that can assist them.

This seems like a bad example, because public bodies are quite frequently governed by applicable rules and laws on this matter.

But setting that aside, I would suggest that what you propose can be accomplished without granting a right to attend meetings. The persons that the assembly desires can be permitted to attend meetings when desired, and not permitted to attend meetings when their attendance is not desired.

In any event, it still seems to me there is no practical difference between calling someone a "non-member" but granting them certain rights of membership or calling someone a "member" but only granting them certain rights of membership, provided that the person has the same rights in either case.

On 11/25/2023 at 2:27 PM, Drake Savory said:

My experience with questions on this board and organizations I belong to in dealing with honorary members, quasi-members, affiliate members, members that do not have the right to do X, etc. that members often do not understand what it means to be a member.

I agree completely. So stick with the nice, neat, divide provided for in RONR, where members have all of the rights of membership and non-members have none of the rights of membership. Mucking about with that divide on either side of the equations causes problems.

Edited November 26, 2023 at 04:11 PM by Josh Martin

[Drake Savory]

On 11/26/2023 at 9:10 AM, Josh Martin said:

But setting that aside, I would suggest that what you propose can be accomplished without granting a right to attend meetings.

I agree to this.  I would have it be that the Parliamentarian shall be in attendance at the request of the Chair including executive sessions.  That way it is a right of the Chair to have an advisor at their discretion.

[Josh Martin]

On 11/26/2023 at 10:18 AM, Drake Savory said:

I agree to this.  I would have it be that the Parliamentarian shall be in attendance at the request of the Chair including executive sessions.  That way it is a right of the Chair to have an advisor at their discretion.

I would personally leave these matters at the discretion of the assembly, not the chair, but certainly the assembly can adopt a rule of this nature if desired.

[Joshua Katz]

I'm inclined to agree with leaving it to the Chair, rather than the assembly, since the parliamentarian is an advisor to the chair. But regardless, I'm not sure about this language:

On 11/26/2023 at 11:18 AM, Drake Savory said:

I would have it be that the Parliamentarian shall be in attendance at the request of the Chair including executive sessions.

Now I share the concern that this *obligates* the parliamentarian to be there when the chair calls. What if he's out of town?

[Josh Martin]

On 11/26/2023 at 10:28 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I'm inclined to agree with leaving it to the Chair, rather than the assembly, since the parliamentarian is an advisor to the chair. But regardless, I'm not sure about this language:

Now I share the concern that this *obligates* the parliamentarian to be there when the chair calls. What if he's out of town?

Any rule imposing a duty on an officer "obligates" the officer to perform that duty. What happens when an officer fails to perform that duty in a particular instance will be at the discretion of the appointing power, and will require reviewing the applicable facts.

Edited November 26, 2023 at 04:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

On 11/26/2023 at 11:10 AM, Josh Martin said:

no practical difference between calling someone a "non-member" but granting them certain rights of membership or calling someone a "member" but only granting them certain rights of membership, provided that the person has the same rights in either case.

I see a difference in real examples where, despite strong entreaties, the organization has not explicitly enumerated which rights an individual does and does not have. If a member, they can be presumed to have any rights not explicitly excluded. If a non-member, vice-versa.

[Weldon Merritt]

My original question has generated a lot more discussion than I anticipated. I actually settled fairly early in the discussion on the language I intend to propose ("The parliamentarian will attend meetings of the board of directors in a advisory capacity," possible with the insertion of "including executive sessions," although the insertion probably isn't necessary). But the discussion makes for interesting reading.