Appointment of Parliamentarian

[Guest LFu]

The issue has been raised in our organization of whether it is "appropriate" to appoint a parliamentarian who is a member of the staff (and therefore reports on a day-to-day basis to the CEO). There is a perception among some Board members that this creates a conflict of interest. I have been asked to explore this issue -- and what other organizations do in this regard. Would appreciate any pointers, thoughts, or examples that members may have. Many thanks.

[George Mervosh]

No rule in RONR prohibits it. The position is nothing more than an advisory one.

"Appointment of the Parliamentarian. If a parliamentarian is needed by an organization, the president should be free to appoint one in whom he has confidence. The board or society must approve any fee that will be required, however. If needed for only one meeting, a parliamentarian should be appointed as far as possible in advance of the meeting at which he is to serve, since his main work should be done outside the meeting." RONR, p. 449

[Gary Novosielski]

The issue has been raised in our organization of whether it is "appropriate" to appoint a parliamentarian who is a member of the staff (and therefore reports on a day-to-day basis to the CEO). There is a perception among some Board members that this creates a conflict of interest. I have been asked to explore this issue -- and what other organizations do in this regard. Would appreciate any pointers, thoughts, or examples that members may have. Many thanks.

Presumably, the interests of the parliamentarian and the CEO should be congruent, not in conflict.

Do you not see it that way? What are you concerned might happen?

RONR recommends that the parliamentarian be appointed by the presiding officer. If you expect the chairman to take the advice of a parliamentarian, it has to be someone who has the trust of the chairman. This is to make sure that there is no conflict, but rather a unity of interest.

And remember, parliamentarians never rule on parliamentary procedure anyway. They advise the chair, but ultimately it is the chair who has the authority to make (and the responsibility for) all rulings*.

__________

* subject to Appeal

[Guest Lfu]

Presumably, the interests of the parliamentarian and the CEO should be congruent, not in conflict.

Do you not see it that way? What are you concerned might happen?

RONR recommends that the parliamentarian be appointed by the presiding officer. If you expect the chairman to take the advice of a parliamentarian, it has to be someone who has the trust of the chairman. This is to make sure that there is no conflict, but rather a unity of interest.

And remember, parliamentarians never rule on parliamentary procedure anyway. They advise the chair, but ultimately it is the chair who has the authority to make (and the responsibility for) all rulings*.

__________

* subject to Appeal

[Gary Novosielski]

Umm, right.

[Guest Lfu]

The issue, as I understand it, is that there is a perception that the "staff" parliamentarian may give advice that somehow advantages the CEO versus Board members who may have some policy or other disagreement with the CEO. Given that the advice is procedural, provided to the Chair, and based on Robert's Rules of Order, I am at a loss to explain how a conflict arises.

[George Mervosh]

The issue, as I understand it, is that there is a perception that the "staff" parliamentarian may give advice that somehow advantages the CEO versus Board members who may have some policy or other disagreement with the CEO. Given that the advice is procedural, provided to the Chair, and based on Robert's Rules of Order, I am at a loss to explain how a conflict arises.

So are we

[Gary Novosielski]

The issue, as I understand it, is that there is a perception that the "staff" parliamentarian may give advice that somehow advantages the CEO versus Board members who may have some policy or other disagreement with the CEO. Given that the advice is procedural, provided to the Chair, and based on Robert's Rules of Order, I am at a loss to explain how a conflict arises.

Well, if there's a conflict between the chair and the members, then that conflict will persist regardless of how and by whom the parliamentarian is chosen. It is extremely important that the parliamentarian have the confidence of the presiding officer, or else you are just wasting your money (or time (or both)) on someone whose advice the chair will not trust. Having the parliamentarian on "the side of" the board is counterproductive.

[Josh Martin]

The issue, as I understand it, is that there is a perception that the "staff" parliamentarian may give advice that somehow advantages the CEO versus Board members who may have some policy or other disagreement with the CEO. Given that the advice is procedural, provided to the Chair, and based on Robert's Rules of Order, I am at a loss to explain how a conflict arises.

I don't understand why a small board needs a parliamentarian to begin with, but if you insist on having one, the chair should be free to appoint someone in whom he has confidence. As the parliamentarian serves purely as an adviser to the chair, there really isn't any danger of a parliamentarian abusing his authority, because he doesn't have any.

It really seems to me that the board's problems are political in nature, not parliamentary. There are apparently severe trust issues with the CEO and/or the chair, and picking a different parliamentarian isn't going to solve that. The board either needs to resolve these issues or replace these individuals with people they trust.

[paulmcclintock]

The issue, as I understand it, is that there is a perception that the "staff" parliamentarian may give advice that somehow advantages the CEO versus Board members who may have some policy or other disagreement with the CEO. Given that the advice is procedural, provided to the Chair, and based on Robert's Rules of Order, I am at a loss to explain how a conflict arises.

In this situation, I'd advise:

1. that the board members especially learn the rules for:

• Point of Order
  
• Appeal
  
• Parliamentary Inquiry
  

2. that the board members independently learn parliamentary procedure so that they are not at the mercy of a CEO taking advantage of more parliamentary knowledge to their detriment.

Toward that end, they should each have RONR for reference, and read RONR In Brief.

RONR study groups, books and courses are available from NAP (www.parliamentarians.org) and AIP (www.aipparl.org).

[Gary c Tesser]

But the reason that the (member) parliamentarian should not enter into debate or vote is so that he is clearly nonpartisan. This is so that the assembly can trust his advice. Parliamentary procedure can be twisted to achieve partisan goals. If the assembly distrusts him, then he can't do his job: his appearance of impartiality is fatally compromised.

(I'm talking about what's beyond what Mr Mervosh quoted, and also the surrounding text.)

So I think I regretfully disagree with what Guest_Lfu_ and Mr Mervosh said (Posts 6 and 7). Of course the parliamentarian must have the confidence of the chair. But he needs to have the confidence of the assembly also, and maybe more importantly.

[Edited to make a sentence out of gibberish. Usually doesn't work.]