Parlimentarian Vote

[carlw1@earthlink.net]

In regards to the responsibilities of a Parliamentarian during board meetings where the Parliamentarian is allowed to vote as our By-Laws allow "The Parliamentarian shall retain all voting rights and shall be counted in the quorum." I read in RONR

(RONR pp451 l6-15) A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly fore go these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion.

Q1. If the only time a Parliamentarian is only allowed to vote is during a ballot vote, how does the Parliamentarian know when their vote will affect the outcome if the voting is done by ballot vote?

Q2. If the Parliamentarian "shall retain all voting rights" how would this be interpreted, does the Parliamentarian "retain all voting rights" like a regular board member?

[Josh Martin]

Q1. If the only time a Parliamentarian is only allowed to vote is during a ballot vote, how does the Parliamentarian know when their vote will affect the outcome if the voting is done by ballot vote?

He doesn't. In a ballot vote, the Parliamentarian (if a member) votes along with everyone else.

Q2. If the Parliamentarian "shall retain all voting rights" how would this be interpreted, does the Parliamentarian "retain all voting rights" like a regular board member?

It's up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

I should note, however, that even under RONR, a member who serves as Parliamentarian doesn't lose his voting rights, he simply agrees not to exercise them (except when the vote is by ballot). If a member-Parliamentarian insisted on voting in a non-ballot vote, he could not be prevented from doing so. If he makes a habit of this, however, it's probably time for a new Parliamentarian. How the customized rule in your Bylaws affects this will be up to your organization to determine.

[carlw1@earthlink.net]

He doesn't. In a ballot vote, the Parliamentarian (if a member) votes along with everyone else.

It's up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

I should note, however, that even under RONR, a member who serves as Parliamentarian doesn't lose his voting rights, he simply agrees not to exercise them (except when the vote is by ballot). If a member-Parliamentarian insisted on voting in a non-ballot vote, he could not be prevented from doing so. If he makes a habit of this, however, it's probably time for a new Parliamentarian. How the customized rule in your Bylaws affects this will be up to your organization to determine.

Your last statement "doesn't lose his voting rights, he simply agrees not to exercise them" seems to me to be in contradiction with RONR where it says "therefore does NOT make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question". Have I missed something here?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Your last statement "doesn't lose his voting rights, he simply agrees not to exercise them" seems to me to be in contradiction with RONR where it says "therefore does NOT make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question". Have I missed something here?

What a bylaw gives, no special rule of order can take away.

If the parliamentarian is a member, then, as a member, he can vote, by definition.

A rule of order may impose rules on CHAIRS and PARLIAMENTARIANS which say, "You don't vote when ____."

But that rule of order will not invalidate a vote cast by a CHAIR or a PARLIAMENTARIAN.

(To do so would imply that a rule of order can override a bylaw. And you know that such is not the case.)

So, the CHAIR and PARLIAMENTARIAN retain the RIGHT to vote, but will be violating a parliamentary rule when he does so.

Their exercise of a MEMBERSHIP RIGHT interferes with their JOB at hand, which restricts the free exercise of that right.

Thus, they have the right to vote, but, for the time they are CHAIR or they are the PARLIAMENTARIAN, the parliamentary rule says, "Don't." -- It conflicts with the duty they are serving in.

Analogy; it is the subtractive form of a right. -- Just as no member may call on other member to speak, because it isn't the job of a member (because it is the job of the chair), then, on the opposite end of things, a chair picks up an extra right "to call on members to speak" only because a parliamentary rule gives him that right.

• By holding Job J, you pick up Duty D, and you drop Right R.

• By not holding down Job J, you drop Duty D, and you pick up Right R.

All the while, the rights of membership never change.

You just may have added a new restraint (or may have dropped an ongoing restraint), when you hold a certain position of trust, (or when you are let out of that position of trust).

[Josh Martin]

Your last statement "doesn't lose his voting rights, he simply agrees not to exercise them" seems to me to be in contradiction with RONR where it says "therefore does NOT make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question". Have I missed something here?

You're missing RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 22-28. But don't worry, you wouldn't be the first one to make that mistake.