Elect or Appoint

[Guest Karen]

We are developing bylaws for a new organization. We want the Parliamentarian to be a member of the Executive Board. We know that generally the Parliamentarin is appointed by the President, but not necessarily a member of the Executive Board. Should and can the Parliamentarian be an elected office of the Executive Board?

[Rob Elsman]

We are developing bylaws for a new organization. We want the Parliamentarian to be a member of the Executive Board. We know that generally the Parliamentarin is appointed by the President, but not necessarily a member of the Executive Board. Should and can the Parliamentarian be an elected office of the Executive Board?

I very much doubt that an executive board needs the services of a parliamentarian. Why not just drop this and elect a president who is basically qualified for the office, instead?

[Guest Karen]

I very much doubt that an executive board needs the services of a parliamentarian. Why not just drop this and elect a president who is basically qualified for the office, instead?

[Guest Karen]

There is an office for President and several other standard offices. It is the groups desire to have a Parliamentarian serve on the Executive Board. Is this desire wrong? If not, then where does RONR speak to whether a Parliamentarian is elected or appointed?

[Rob Elsman]

There is an office for President and several other standard offices. It is the groups desire to have a Parliamentarian serve on the Executive Board. Is this desire wrong? If not, then where does RONR speak to whether a Parliamentarian is elected or appointed?

I think the group should focus on electing a president who is demonstrably qualified to preside at meetings. This includes a real familiarity with proper parliamentary procedure. If you all will do this, I think you'll find there's no need for a parliamentarian at board meetings. There just isn't the kind of complexity that requires one.

Nevertheless, if you all just have to have one, the president should be free to appoint someone in whom he has confidence. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 449.

[Josh Martin]

There is an office for President and several other standard offices. It is the groups desire to have a Parliamentarian serve on the Executive Board. Is this desire wrong? If not, then where does RONR speak to whether a Parliamentarian is elected or appointed?

The Parliamentarian should be appointed by the President. Whether the Parliamentarian should serve on the Executive Board is another question entirely, which your society will have to determine for itself. And I think you need to ask yourself whether you want the Parliamentarian to serve as a member of the Executive Board or as the parliamentarian of the Executive Board. It is not advisable for him to serve as both, since it is the duty of the Parliamentarian to maintain an appearance of impartiality on all matters to come before the assembly.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We are developing bylaws for a new organization. We want the Parliamentarian to be a member of the Executive Board. We know that generally the Parliamentarin is appointed by the President, but not necessarily a member of the Executive Board.

Should and can the Parliamentarian be an elected office of the Executive Board?

No.

A person cannot truly FUNCTION as both SIMULTANEOUSLY.

• If he is to be the perfect parliamentarian, then he cannot speak, cannot make motions, cannot vote. He cannot be partisan on any issue, ever.

• If he is to be the perfect board member, he must vote, and make motions, second motions, and be partisan.

Don't cripple your parliamentarian.

Don't cripple your board representative.

[Guest Karen]

No.

A person cannot truly FUNCTION as both SIMULTANEOUSLY.

• If he is to be the perfect parliamentarian, then he cannot speak, cannot make motions, cannot vote. He cannot be partisan on any issue, ever.

• If he is to be the perfect board member, he must vote, and make motions, second motions, and be partisan.

Don't cripple your parliamentarian.

Don't cripple your board representative.

[Guest Karen]

This is good to know. If the organization chooses to have a Parliamentarian and they want to elect that person instead of having the President to appoint, then should the office be listed in the newly developed bylaws as an elected office?

[Gary Novosielski]

This is good to know. If the organization chooses to have a Parliamentarian and they want to elect that person instead of having the President to appoint, then should the office be listed in the newly developed bylaws as an elected office?

If they don't want the president to appoint the parliamentarian, then they shouldn't have one.

[Josh Martin]

If the organization chooses to have a Parliamentarian and they want to elect that person instead of having the President to appoint, then should the office be listed in the newly developed bylaws as an elected office?

If you wish to have the Parliamentarian be elected rather than appointed by the President, then you should specify this in the Bylaws. Unless you also intend on changing the duties of the Parliamentarian, however, I don't see the point. Under RONR, the primary responsibility of the Parliamentarian is to quietly advise the presiding officer on parliamentary procedure, so it makes perfect sense for the President to appoint his own adviser. It would not be productive to have a conflict between the President and Parliamentarian.

I think you should read RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 449-451, as I'm not sure the organization understands the role of the Parliamentarian. Does the organization have the common misconception that the Parliamentarian actually rules on questions of procedure?

[Guest Karen]

No. They understand that the Parliamentarian's role is to advise the President on Parimentary procedure. This will be a rather light weight organization, but still needs some structure. Those with a little bit of knowledge on parliamentary procedure have become a great help in developing the new bylaws. The group mainly wants to have someone on hand that can give some direction on parliamentary procedure when needed to conduct general meetings. Parliamentary training will need to be provided for most of the elected officers.

[Josh Martin]

No. They understand that the Parliamentarian's role is to advise the President on Parimentary procedure. This will be a rather light weight organization, but still needs some structure. Those with a little bit of knowledge on parliamentary procedure have become a great help in developing the new bylaws. The group mainly wants to have someone on hand that can give some direction on parliamentary procedure when needed to conduct general meetings. Parliamentary training will need to be provided for most of the elected officers.

That all sounds well and good, but I don't understand why having the President appoint the Parliamentarian would conflict with those goals. But if you want to provide otherwise in your Bylaws, the society is free to do so.

[Gary Novosielski]

No. They understand that the Parliamentarian's role is to advise the President on Parimentary procedure. This will be a rather light weight organization, but still needs some structure. Those with a little bit of knowledge on parliamentary procedure have become a great help in developing the new bylaws. The group mainly wants to have someone on hand that can give some direction on parliamentary procedure when needed to conduct general meetings. Parliamentary training will need to be provided for most of the elected officers.

That's all fine, but if you understand all that, it should also be obvious why the president should be free to appoint someone he is comfortable with and whom he trusts.