Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Parliamentarian settings


Guest Great Reseacher

Recommended Posts

I have a question. Is it alright for the Executive Board to place the parliamentarian behind a "curtain" where the members can't see him/her only the Executive Board? If it is allow then I accept. If it is not allow what should we do about that and is the meeting null and void?

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain why there is no rule against it because the meeting should be transparency practice in a way.

No. Impossible.

Just as there is no rule "Thou shalt not throw bricks at the chairman," there won't be a rationale for a rule which does not exist.

You won't find a rationale for non-existent rules.

There are an infinite number of rules "which do not exist."

There aren't enough pages in the universe to give a rationale "why" there are no such rules.

Think about it. - What are you asking? - Why is there no rule in Robert's Rules of Order explicitly warning against "curtains separating parliamentarians from the eyes of the assembly?" - It would be a silly prohibition. Same with "squirt guns" and "whoopee cushions" - there is no rule in Robert's Rules either way about those things. It's just too silly to comprehend as a serious parliamentary problem.

And the solution (the preventative measure) is too simple to utter - DON'T DO IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question. Is it alright for the Executive Board to place the parliamentarian behind a "curtain" where the members can't see him/her only the Executive Board? If it is allow then I accept. If it is not allow what should we do about that and is the meeting null and void?

Thank you!

And when the wizard presiding officer says, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" - he's right. The man behind the curtain parliamentarian is only there to advise the presiding officer who does NOT need to heed the advice.

I kinda like this idea and might try to get an organization I belong to to get such a curtain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when the wizard presiding officer says, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" - he's right. The man behind the curtain parliamentarian is only there to advise the presiding officer who does NOT need to heed the advice.

I kinda like this idea and might try to get an organization I belong to to get such a curtain.

What if the members or the people in the meeting want the parliamentarian's advice as well? How do we know if the presiding officer is telling the truth of what has been said? In my humble opinion it looks fishy when someone does that, the hiding I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the members or the people in the meeting want the parliamentarian's advice as well? How do we know if the presiding officer is telling the truth of what has been said? In my humble opinion it looks fishy when someone does that, the hiding I mean.

The whole thing seems rather silly but no matter. Typically the parliamentarian is seated right next to the presiding officer and provides advice as needed/requested in a manner that isn't visible or audible to anyone but the presiding officer. That's the way it's done. So why the big whup over nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the members or the people in the meeting want the parliamentarian's advice as well?

How do we know if the presiding officer is telling the truth of what has been said?

In my humble opinion it looks fishy when someone does that, the hiding I mean.

If the members present don't like the "look" or "feel" of the meeting, then the members are free to MAKE A MOTION and change the status quo into a new state.

Here, if the members don't like curtains, then make a motion so: "I move that the curtain be removed."

If the majority approves (via a proper vote), then - wham! - problem over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we know if the presiding officer is telling the truth of what has been said?

I don't see how it would come up. Do you mean that the presiding officer consults the parliamentarian, and then reports to you what the parliamentarian said? That's rather pointless.

What should be happening is that the presiding officer should consult the parliamentarian privately when in doubt on how to proceed, or simply desirous of some advice on how to proceed. The chair should then proceed, either in accordance with that advice, or not. Regardless of what the parliamentarian says, it is the chair who actually makes the ruling.

The best way to determine "the truth" of what is, or is not, proper parliamentary procedure is to get yourself a copy of RONR or RONRIB, and start learning. That is the best, most effective, and some would argue the ONLY way to avoid being steamrollered by parliamentary bullies, who are more common than any of us would like.

Like any other venue, if you don't know your rights, you essentially don't have any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"During a meeting the work of the parliamentarian should be limited to giving advice to the chair and, when requested, to any other member." (RONR 10th Ed., p. 450 ll. 7-9)

"The parliamentarian should be assigned a seat next to the chair, so as to be convenient for consultation in a low voice...." (RONR 10th Ed., p. 450 ll. 28-30)

[emphasis added]

If all this can be accomplished with said parliamentarian hiding behind a curtain, then fine. Otherwise........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain why there is no rule against it because the meeting should be transparency practice in a way.

It looks to me like the membership is being steamrollered. Or otherwise disenfranchised. And they pin their hopes on the parliamentarian. And he's being hidden behind a "curtain" somehow.

If the membership at a meeting think they are being over-dominated by their presiding officer, and if they think that their recourse is to appeal to their parliamentarian, then I have some fondness for their feeling about their parliamentarian, but tactically, that's insane. Sure, the parliamentarian can be consulted about what's going on, but c'mon, there's a limit:. If the presiding officer is conducting the meeting so as to disenfranchise the members, then he must be fixed, or chucked. We can't have the parliamentarian duke it out with him in some screaming match.

[edited to insert characteristic afterthought]

[and fix improved typo]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...