Presiding at Meeting in Absence of Officers

[Guest Bob Schvey]

At a meeting of an organization, the president, VP and Secretary were unable to attend. The only officers present were the Treasurer and Parliamentary. The By-laws only account for the president and VP to preside.

Who should run the meeting?

Thank you for your help.

[Rob Elsman]

Somebody (it makes no difference who, really), should be informally chosen to call the meeting to order and preside over the election of a president pro tem, who then states the question on the election of asecretary pro tem. These perform the duties of these offices for the remainder of the meeting. RONR (10th ed.), pp. 437, 443.

[rmschvey]

Somebody (it makes no difference who, really), should be informally chosen to call the meeting to order and preside over the election of a president pro tem and a secretary pro tem to perform the duties of these offices for the remainder of the meeting. RONR (10th ed.), pp. 437, 443.

Thank you. As usual, RONR makes sense.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you. As usual, RONR makes sense.

Yeah. Just use the regular procedure for nominations from the floor and a voice vote. These appointments are just temporary, so nothing fancy.

[jstackpo]

And if the pres or V-P show up (late-?) for the meeting, he/she takes the chair back from the temporary person.

[Mitchell]

And if the pres or V-P show up (late-?) for the meeting, he/she takes the chair back from the temporary person.

Just out of curiosity, is that also the case should the Secretary arrive late?

[jstackpo]

No. With "normal" bylaws, only those two are "automatic" presiders.

[hmtcastle]

No. With "normal" bylaws, only those two are "automatic" presiders.

But I think the Secretary takes over the job as secretary if she arrives late, no?

[David A Foulkes]

The By-laws only account for the president and VP to preside.

It seems the bylaws only allow the P or VP to preside, which would suggest this precludes a Chair pro tem from being elected. But, I gather from the responses here that this bylaw is a rule of order, which can be suspended? But of course, it can't be suspended until the meeting is called to order (by someone presiding even temporarily prior to the election of a pro tem chair) to allow a motion to suspend the rule, and until the rule is suspended, only the P or VP can preside. It sounds like a Catch-22 to me.

I'd appreciate some clarification from our esteemed contributors.

[hmtcastle]

I'd appreciate some clarification from our esteemed contributors.

There might be a difference between "account for" and "allow". As always, the devil is in the details.

But, assuming a hypothetical bylaw that says that only the president or vice-president can preside at meetings, I'd tend to agree with your Catch-22 argument. On the other hand, if no one objects at the time of this infraction, the assembly is good to go. I'm not one to advocate the wink-and-a-nod approach but, in this instance, it seems justified.

But on the other hand (?), we must assume that this organization had a good reason to enshrine that rule in the bylaws, however inconvenient it might be. And I've never like the application of "suspend the rules" to anything in the bylaws.

So I think they'd be stuck.

Final answer!

[Kim Goldsworthy]

It seems the bylaws only allow the P or VP to preside, which would suggest this precludes a Chair pro tem from being elected. But, I gather from the responses here that this bylaw is a rule of order, which can be suspended? But of course, it can't be suspended until the meeting is called to order (by someone presiding even temporarily prior to the election of a pro tem chair) to allow a motion to suspend the rule, and until the rule is suspended, only the P or VP can preside. It sounds like a Catch-22 to me.

There are rules of order which, when violated, carry no penalty.

For example, to entertain tertiary amendments (i.e., an amendment to an amendment to an amendment, to a main motion).

Having only a certain officer do X during a meeting is one such rule.

If the rule is violated, e.g., someone other than the president or the vice president convenes the meeting, due to an absence, then there is no penalty. No continuing breach is triggered for any business transacted.

(Yet there is a continuing breach ongoing, namely, "someone other than a P or VP is presiding", but that continuing breach ends at adjournment, so its continuance is a few minutes or a few hours, max.)

It is like a rule, "The treasurer shall pay the bills."

If the treasurer is "caught or killed" (like the debriefing scene in the television show "Mission: Impossible"), does the organization obey its bylaw literally, and pay no bills, ever again?

No, of course not.

A dereliction in duty is not to be respected by the organization.

If duty X is given to person Y, and person Y cannot or will not do duty X, then the organization will do duty X, as it removes or punished person Y for neglecting duty X.

No continuing breach is created which will "un-do" (for example) "the paying of bills" upon a Point of Order.

[Rob Elsman]

It seems the bylaws only allow the P or VP to preside, which would suggest this precludes a Chair pro tem from being elected. But, I gather from the responses here that this bylaw is a rule of order, which can be suspended? But of course, it can't be suspended until the meeting is called to order (by someone presiding even temporarily prior to the election of a pro tem chair) to allow a motion to suspend the rule, and until the rule is suspended, only the P or VP can preside. It sounds like a Catch-22 to me.

I'd appreciate some clarification from our esteemed contributors.

The election of a president pro tem to preside in the absence or impediment of the president and the vice president(s) does not require a suspension of the rules. RONR (10th ed.), p. 437, ll. 13-25.

[hmtcastle]

The election of a president pro tem to preside in the absence or impediment of the president and the vice president(s) does not require a suspension of the rules. RONR (10th ed.), p. 437, ll. 13-25.

Not even if the bylaws prohibit it?

[Rob Elsman]

Not even if the bylaws prohibit it?

As always, my replies on this forum pertain to the rules of order in RONR, 10th ed., as if these rules control. I have no intention of discussing real or hypothetical bylaws of societies about which we know nothing.

[hmtcastle]

As always, my replies on this forum pertain to the rules of order in RONR, 10th ed., as if these rules control. I have no intention of discussing real or hypothetical bylaws of societies about which we know nothing.

I'm just concerned that you may be sliding down that slippery slope into parliamentary solipsism and soon, when someone asks a question about a board, you'll say something like:

GOOD NEWS! You have no board!

And, if you do have a board, your board is POWERLESS!

[David A Foulkes]

I have no intention of discussing real or hypothetical bylaws of societies about which we know nothing.

And I would be concerned that your replies would not account for the "real" bylaws of a society of which we know at least a little bit, that being that this society's bylaws do contain some language (though extremely vague at this point admittedly) that addresses the legitimacy of the presiding officer, and as bylaws always "trump" RONR, they cannot be ignored in favor of the more well-known advice of RONR.

[Rob Elsman]

And I would be concerned that your replies would not account for the "real" bylaws of a society of which we know at least a little bit, that being that this society's bylaws do contain some language (though extremely vague at this point admittedly) that addresses the legitimacy of the presiding officer, and as bylaws always "trump" RONR, they cannot be ignored in favor of the more well-known advice of RONR.

CAUTION:

THE ANSWERS GIVEN HERE TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE BASED UPON THE RULES CONTAINED IN ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER NEWLY REVISED. THESE RULES ARE, IN EFFECT, DEFAULT RULES; THAT IS TO SAY, THEY GOVERN ONLY IF THERE ARE NO CONTRARY PROVISIONS IN ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR OTHER LAW APPLICABLE TO THE SOCIETY, OR IN THE SOCIETY'S BYLAWS, OR IN ANY SPECIAL RULES OF ORDER THAT THE SOCIETY MAY HAVE ADOPTED. THIS FACT MUST ALWAYS BE KEPT IN MIND WHEN READING ANY OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN.

This cautionary note, which appears at the beginning of the Frequently Asked Questions webpage, applies also to the replies given on this forum. It has to be this way, since we know very little or nothing about other governing documents that might also have applicability to the societies about which questions are asked.

[Trina]

It seems the bylaws only allow the P or VP to preside, which would suggest this precludes a Chair pro tem from being elected. But, I gather from the responses here that this bylaw is a rule of order, which can be suspended? But of course, it can't be suspended until the meeting is called to order (by someone presiding even temporarily prior to the election of a pro tem chair) to allow a motion to suspend the rule, and until the rule is suspended, only the P or VP can preside. It sounds like a Catch-22 to me.

I'd appreciate some clarification from our esteemed contributors.

Perhaps the mental maneuver past the Catch-22 has to do with the thought that no one is actually presiding (in the formal sense) until a president pro tem is elected. If one reads the language on p. 437 ll. 13-17, as well as p. 537 ll. 16-22, it seems to me that care has been taken NOT to refer to the 'any member' who 'should call the meeting to order' (p. 437) or to 'the person designated for the purpose' who 'has called the meeting to order' (p. 537) as a presiding officer. As long as the vote for the president pro tem is by sufficient margin to also suspend the rules (in the hypothetical organization you describe), I think everything would be in order.

Reading about the first few steps for a mass meeting is also instructive (election of chair on p. 530). The person who calls the meeting to order in that section is clearly NOT a presiding officer or chairman, just a person who (usually by pre-arrangement) has agreed to call the meeting to order and nominate someone else to be elected as chair.