Electing Chair pro tem

[David A Foulkes]

Can the President relinquish the chair to the Vice President, and then the VP relinquish the chair, thus requiring the Secretary to hold election for a Chair pro tem, if the P and VP just don't want to run the meeting that night? And if so, a RONR citation would be appreciated.

[Chris Harrison]

Can the President relinquish the chair to the Vice President, and then the VP relinquish the chair, thus requiring the Secretary to hold election for a Chair pro tem, if the P and VP just don't want to run the meeting that night? And if so, a RONR citation would be appreciated.

Electing a Chair pro tem is only appropriate when the President and VP aren't there. So if they are there the rules would be need to be suspended in order to elect the Chair pro tem. Then the assembly should seriously consider disciplinary action for dereliction of their duties.

[Matt Schafer]

Electing a Chair pro tem is only appropriate when the President and VP aren't there. So if they are there the rules would be need to be suspended in order to elect the Chair pro tem.

And then you run into a potential situation where the assembly does not vote to suspend the rules, and the P and VP both refuse to preside. Shouldn't this be handled in a similar fashion as approving the minutes? That is, you cannot have a situation where you don't approve minutes. Therefore, while motions to amend the minutes are in order, a motion to approve the minutes should not be stated by the chair because a rambunctious assembly may defeat a motion for approval. Then you're left with no minutes.

So in the same way, if the P and VP refuse to preside, and the assembly requires approval of a motion to suspend the rules, which is then defeated, you're left in a meeting with no presiding officer. This situation shouldn't require a formal suspension of the rules to elect a chairman pro tem. Just do the election.

Does election of a chairman pro tem when the P or VP are present violate the rules? Yup. Does that pedantically require adoption of a motion to suspend the rules? Yup. Do you really want to require this in the practical case in a meeting? I don't think so.

Then the assembly should seriously consider disciplinary action for dereliction of their duties.

I agree 100%. If I was a member of that assembly, you can bet that I would exercise my rights as a member to discipline or remove the P and VP from those positions.

[Josh Martin]

Can the President relinquish the chair to the Vice President, and then the VP relinquish the chair, thus requiring the Secretary to hold election for a Chair pro tem, if the P and VP just don't want to run the meeting that night? And if so, a RONR citation would be appreciated.

Yes, they can, although as noted, disciplinary action may be appropriate, especially if their reasoning is "I don't feel like it." The appropriate course of action in such a case, however, is for the Vice President to appoint a Chairman Pro Tem, subject to the assembly's approval. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 437.

Electing a Chair pro tem is only appropriate when the President and VP aren't there. So if they are there the rules would be need to be suspended in order to elect the Chair pro tem. Then the assembly should seriously consider disciplinary action for dereliction of their duties.

It is not necessary to suspend the rules except when the assembly wishes to remove the President and VP from the chair against their will. There is a procedure in place for when the President and VP step aside (appointing a chairman pro tem), and that procedure should be followed. I am in agreement, however, that disciplinary action should be considered.

[Matt Schafer]

The appropriate course of action in such a case, however, is for the Vice President to appoint a Chairman Pro Tem, subject to the assembly's approval. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 437.

And RONR (10th ed.), p. 382, l. 34 through p. 383, l. 4 describes in detail what happens if someone in the assembly objects to the vice president's appointment of the chairman pro tem: Nominate someone else, then the VP's proposed name also becomes a nominee, any further nominations are collected, then the assembly votes.

However, if the VP did not appoint a chairman pro tem, then it is left to the secretary to collect nominations and conduct the election.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Can the President relinquish the chair to the Vice President, and then the VP relinquish the chair, thus requiring the Secretary to hold election for a Chair pro tem, if the P and VP just don't want to run the meeting that night?

And if so, a RONR citation would be appreciated.

Yes.

Citation: See top of page 437, #2 and #3.

(Hey, that was easy!)

If the regular chair and the corresponding vice president are both partisan to the issue(s) which come up, and are to debate and make motions so, then it is possible that a P and VP would both yield control to a chairman pro tem.

[David A Foulkes]

Thanks all.

Problems:

Page 437 #2 states "no vice president is available". The VP was there.

Page 437 #3 states if "neither president or any vice-president is present." They were there.

Page 382 is for when the president wishes to engage in debate. Not the case.

Now, page 436 states "If the president for any reason vacates the chair..." Is "I just don't want to be bothered" good enough for "any reason?" Following that, the Vp steps up. There is no allowance for the VP to vacate (barring absence of course) except "...or must disqualify himself..." which again isn't the case.

The P and VP just ignored the rules and let the Treasurer run the meeting, with no election of a chair pro tem.

This is all in the past now, and I guess the larger question here is this : is there a continuing breach involved for any decisions made or motions adopted at this meeting?

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks all.

Problems:

Page 437 #2 states "no vice president is available". The VP was there.

Page 437 #3 states if "neither president or any vice-president is present." They were there.

Page 382 is for when the president wishes to engage in debate. Not the case.

Now, page 436 states "If the president for any reason vacates the chair..." Is "I just don't want to be bothered" good enough for "any reason?" Following that, the Vp steps up. There is no allowance for the VP to vacate (barring absence of course) except "...or must disqualify himself..." which again isn't the case.

The P and VP just ignored the rules and let the Treasurer run the meeting, with no election of a chair pro tem.

This is all in the past now, and I guess the larger question here is this : is there a continuing breach involved for any decisions made or motions adopted at this meeting?

If there is, it isn't due to any of the facts which you have recited.