PARLIAMENTARIAN PRIVILEGES

[Guest LARRY FOX]

DOES A MEMBER OF A FRATERL ORGANIZATION WHO IS APPOINTED PARLIAMENTARIAN BY THE PRESIDENT LOSE HIS RIGHTS ANDPRIVELEGES AS A MEMBER. THE PARLIAMENTARIN IN SAID ORGANIZATION IS CONSIDERED A APPOINTED OFFICER OF THE ORGANIZATION. IF SO WHERE CAN IT BE FOUND IN ROBERS RULES OF ORDER SO IT CAN BE VERIFIED. IN SAID ORGANIZATION A PRLIAMENTARIAN WOULD HAVE TO BE A MEMBER BECAUSE NO OTHERS ARE ALLOWED IN THE MEETING. I AVE HEARD SEVERAL DIFFERNT IOPINIONS ON THIS SUBJECTY VUT NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO VERIFY THE IOINION

[hmtcastle]

WHERE CAN IT BE FOUND IN ROBERS RULES OF ORDER SO IT CAN BE VERIFIED.

See p. 451 and stop typing in ALL CAPS. It's hard to read and is considered "shouting" online.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Does [parliamentarian] lose his rights as a member?

No. It isn't his membership or his rights which are ever lost. But he does lose the option of exercising the right to make motions, and the right to debate. In a voice vote or rising vote, he loses the option of voting.

But that is due to his job. - As long as he wears that hat (as parliamentarian), he has assumed a duty to restrain himself, for the sake of the job.

But to underscore my point, no rights of membership are forfeited. - The rights don't go away. The parliamentarian merely agrees to not exercise them, for as long as he wishes to remain in position as the parliamentarian.

[Parliamentarian] is considered an appointed officer of the organization.

If you say so. If your bylaws say so, really.

An appointed parliamentarian is not an officer of the organization, by default, per Robert's Rules of Order.

But if your rules say otherwise, then that is that.

Where can it be verified in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, tenth edition?

See "duties of the parliamentarian", page 449.

In said organization, a parliamentarian would have to be a member because no others are allowed in the meeting.

Not true. The organization is free to have a non-member parliamentarian, a non-member chairman, a non-member secretary, etc., as it wishes, short of a bylaw saying otherwise.

[Guest larry fox]

See p. 451 and stop typing in ALL CAPS. It's hard to read and is considered "shouting" online.

thiks for the info and i am sorry that i typed in caps i am legally blind and it is easier for me to read with my magnifiert but since you were so offended by it i promise i wont ever do it again

[Guest PJE]

Larry since a Parliamentarian cannot step down durig a meeting, he might ask to have the President appoint another Parliamentarian for a particular meeting if he wants to exercise his usual priviledges. I do not know what your bylaws indicate regarding that. It appears cruel to appoint someone, in an organization, to a position because of his knowledge and not let him participate for a lengthy period of time in its business. In the Toastmasters organization, the President can appoint a Parliamentarian at a meeting. However the position only is his until the meeting is adjourned and he could decline the appointment.

Perhaps the organizations bylaws could be modifed to permit various members be appointed the Parliamentarian at different meetings. Otherwise, If I knew the next meeting would have business that I need to participate in, I would resign as Parliamentarian at the end of a meeting so the President could appoint someone new at the next meeting.

[J. J.]

thiks for the info and i am sorry that i typed in caps i am legally blind and it is easier for me to read with my magnifiert but since you were so offended by it i promise i wont ever do it again

Larry, this site does permit you to use large size fonts. I'm sure if you ask for responses in it, people would be happy to oblige.

[Guest Gary]

I believe that there is no problem at all with the parliamentarian voting in ballots votes.

[hmtcastle]

thiks for the info and i am sorry that i typed in caps i am legally blind and it is easier for me to read with my magnifiert but since you were so offended by it i promise i wont ever do it again

I wasn't offended and certainly didn't mean to offend you.

As noted, you can increase the size of text in these messages.

Alternatively, you can click "Ctrl+" to increase the size of all text.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

i am sorry that i typed in caps i am legally blind and it is easier for me to read with my [magnification]

A tip.

Original posters (and those who reply) can compose your question (or compose your answer) in your own word processor of choice, and then cut-and-paste your text into the text box of this forum.

Historical note:

Don Marquis of New York had a little friend in the 1920s, a cockroach named Archy, a modest poet, who was too tiny to work the shift lock on a typewriter. So all of Archy's communications were done in lower case, and without punctuation.

I should hope the original posters are not farming out their typing jobs to an earnest but short-limbed insect.

[Josh Martin]

Larry since a Parliamentarian cannot step down durig a meeting, he might ask to have the President appoint another Parliamentarian for a particular meeting if he wants to exercise his usual priviledges.

In many organizations, a Parliamentarian serves for a defined term of office, rather than serving on a per-meeting basis. So that would not be an option.

It appears cruel to appoint someone, in an organization, to a position because of his knowledge and not let him participate for a lengthy period of time in its business.

There's nothing cruel about it. The member could decline if he finds the burden of impartiality unacceptable. Some members are willing to take on this burden in order to serve the organization.

Of course, the organization could amend its rule (or perhaps just take a closer look) and appoint a non-member as parliamentarian. Or not have one at all. Most organizations have no need for a permanent parliamentarian position.