Guest Bumble Posted October 27, 2010 at 08:27 PM Report Share Posted October 27, 2010 at 08:27 PM The President is not present at the start of a meeting and the Vice President brings the meeting to order. Later during the meeting the President arrives. Can the Vice President then turn over the meeting to the President? If so, is it required that he do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 27, 2010 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted October 27, 2010 at 08:38 PM Yes and yes. If I were the President I wouldn't want a pending motion interrupted by my arrival, but after its disposed of, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted October 27, 2010 at 10:18 PM Report Share Posted October 27, 2010 at 10:18 PM The President is not present at the start of a meeting and the Vice President brings the meeting to order. Later during the meeting the President arrives. Can the Vice President then turn over the meeting to the President?If so, is it required that he do so?That indeed matches The Book.It isn't up to the VP to fight for control of the gavel. The VP has no choice in the matter.However, the P is free (relatively speaking) to decline his "duty" for a while. - I am thinking that the P may wish the pending business to be 100% off the floor first, so that the P may preside WITHOUT INTERRUPTION of the pending business.Interruptions are so rude. - A president ought not interrupt the flow of a meeting, just to satisfy his ego.("Hey! Look at me! I'm the president!") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 27, 2010 at 11:34 PM Report Share Posted October 27, 2010 at 11:34 PM Although the sections 2) and 3) on page 437 do provide for the (immediate?) termination of the appointment of an appointed or elected Chair pro tem ranking no higher than the lowest VP. I gather from the two previous replies that, if an officer (of at least the lowest VP rank) is in the chair, it makes better parliamentary procedure to await the completion of any pending motion(s) before the President retakes the chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 28, 2010 at 12:49 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2010 at 12:49 PM Although the sections 2) and 3) on page 437 do provide for the (immediate?) termination of the appointment of an appointed or elected Chair pro tem ranking no higher than the lowest VP. I gather from the two previous replies that, if an officer (of at least the lowest VP rank) is in the chair, it makes better parliamentary procedure to await the completion of any pending motion(s) before the President retakes the chair.It makes better common sense in certain situations, and it's perfectly proper - akin to relinquishing the chair - until the pending matter is disposed of, since he understands the pending motion(s) and parliamentary situation at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 28, 2010 at 01:41 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2010 at 01:41 PM It makes better common sense in certain situations, and it's perfectly proper - akin to relinquishing the chair - until the pending matter is disposed of, since he understands the pending motion(s) and parliamentary situation at the time.Yes, with the added bonus that the Prez can walk into the meeting fully able to participate in the pending motion (debate, move to amend, vote). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.