late Chairperson, not taking over Chair role when arriving

[Guest Vivian]

At a General Meeting the Chairperson(President) asked another Executive member to act as Chairperson until she arrived. This person was not the Vice Pres ( currently we do not have one) nor was it the Past President, which we do have.

The Chair arrived 10 minutes into the meeting and the fill-in person told the chair he would continue until the next item agenda and the he would pass control back to her, if she wanted it.

After dealing with the next agenda item the fill in person asked the Chair if she wanted the roll of Chairperson back or would she like him to conduct the entire meeting - she stated it would be nice if he just continued for the remainder of the meeting, which he did.

The Chair stayed for the entire meeting, voicing her opinion , the same as any other member.

Is this allowed under Roberts Rules?

[David A Foulkes]

Under RONR, in your circumstance, president absent and no Vice President, the Secretary should have called the meeting to order and as the first order of business conducted an election for a chair pro tem. When the president arrived, he should have taken over. (RONR 10th Ed., p. 437 ll. 13-18)

The president can only appoint a replacement chair if no vice-president is available, and only if he vacates the chair during the meeting, and then only with the approval of the assembly. (RONR 10th Ed., p. 437 ll. 1-6)

"The regular presiding officer, knowing that he will be absent from a future meeting, cannot in advance authorize another member to preside in his place." (p. 437 ll. 10-12)

[Weldon Merritt]

While I agree with Mr. Foulkes, I also point out (in case there is any doubt) that the failure to adhere to the rule does not invalidate any action taken at the meeting.

[David A Foulkes]

While I agree with Mr. Foulkes, I also point out (in case there is any doubt) that the failure to adhere to the rule does not invalidate any action taken at the meeting.

While this may be true, and I don't mean to argue this point at great length, page 437 closes with (and in fairness, regarding a variation on the theme) "not to speak of the regular presiding officer's duty to preside."

I think I'd be displeased with my president for her behavior at this meeting, invalid or not.

[Weldon Merritt]

While this may be true, and I don't mean to argue this point at great length, page 437 closes with (and in fairness, regarding a variation on the theme) "not to speak of the regular presiding officer's duty to preside."

I think I'd be displeased with my president for her behavior at this meeting, invalid or not.

Oh, I fully agree with that. All I meant was that the president's failure to follow the rules would not invalidate any motions adopted at the meeting. The only reason I pointed it out is that some people seem to think that any varition from proper procedure makes everything that happened invalid.

[Rev Ed]

Of course, knowing that she would not be at the meeting, she can always provide her opinion as to who should be appointed as a Chair pro tem (which any member is allowed to do.) So there is nothing wrong with the recommendation.

It is also permitted, should the Chair wish to participate in discussion of an issue, to leave the Chair in order to do so and cannot return to the chair until the issue is dealt with. Page 382 to 383 of RONR. While the Chairman should try to maintain an appearance of being neutral for the most part, there may be meetings (like the one in question) where the Chairman (especially if a member of the organization) will want his/her opinions heard and it is practical to allow for a Chairman pro tem for the meeting. Even RONR allows the Chairman to ease up on strict enforcement of the rules if required. Page 440 lines 1-19 of RONR.

[Gary Novosielski]

After dealing with the next agenda item the fill in person asked the Chair if she wanted the roll of Chairperson back or would she like him to conduct the entire meeting.

Well, I may be alone, but I think the person who deserves criticism is the chairman pro tem. He should simply have yielded the chair to the arriving Chair, and not have asked for what sounds very much like permission to continue.

The newly arrived Chair might have thought that insisting on doing things right could appear mean-spirited, after the chair pro tem had so nicely indicated a desire to continue presiding.

(And what about that sad puppy-dog look he probably gave her?)

[David A Foulkes]

Well, I may be alone, ...

You're not, and I'd throw a handful at the President as well for good measure. I think page 437 line 18 (and you don't even have to finish the sentence) says enough for me.

But rules don't enforce themselves, and people get what they don't object to, so maybe next time.

[Josh Martin]

It is also permitted, should the Chair wish to participate in discussion of an issue, to leave the Chair in order to do so and cannot return to the chair until the issue is dealt with. Page 382 to 383 of RONR. While the Chairman should try to maintain an appearance of being neutral for the most part, there may be meetings (like the one in question) where the Chairman (especially if a member of the organization) will want his/her opinions heard and it is practical to allow for a Chairman pro tem for the meeting. Even RONR allows the Chairman to ease up on strict enforcement of the rules if required. Page 440 lines 1-19 of RONR.

I do not agree that it is appropriate for the chairman to relinquish the chair for the duration of a meeting for the purpose of having his opinions heard. The option of relinquishing the chair should be used for particular motions, and only quite sparingly, or it will undermine the assembly's confidence in the chair's ability to preside impartially.

[Rev Ed]

I do not agree that it is appropriate for the chairman to relinquish the chair for the duration of a meeting for the purpose of having his opinions heard. The option of relinquishing the chair should be used for particular motions, and only quite sparingly, or it will undermine the assembly's confidence in the chair's ability to preside impartially.

I concur - however, RONR allows the option for the Chairman to relinquish the Chair for a reason.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Is this allowed under Roberts Rules?

"Without objection", yes, it is allowed.

No one raised a timely point of order.

No one objected.

Even though it didn't follow Robert's Rules of Order, your spontaneous arrangement had the consent of everyone present.

What you did though a "gentlemen's agreement," in a verbal impromptu negotiation, could have been achieved through a formal motion, specifying the very same end result.

So, in that sense, it was allowable.

The informality might have been highly loosey-goosey.

But what you ended up with was fine.

[David A Foulkes]

Is this allowed under Roberts Rules?

"Without objection", yes, it is allowed.

I think there is considerable difference between saying "well, since no one raised any objection, no violation occurred" and suggesting that the answer to Vivian's question (which was "Is this allowed under Robert's Rules?") is yes.

Page 437, lines 10-12: "The regular presiding officer, knowing that he will be absent from a future meeting, cannot in advance authorize another member to preside in his place." This is exactly what happened here.

Under Robert's Rules, this is NOT allowed. Whether the organization chooses to ignore that is their business.

[hmtcastle]

Page 437, lines 10-12: "The regular presiding officer, knowing that he will be absent from a future meeting, cannot in advance authorize another member to preside in his place." This is exactly what happened here.

Well, one could argue that, since the chair can't authorize someone to take his place, the chair didn't authorize someone to take his place (after all, you cant do what you can't do). What actually happened is that someone took his place and no one objected. If there was any "authorization" is was by the assembly.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, one could argue that, since the chair can't authorize someone to take his place, the chair didn't authorize someone to take his place (after all, you cant do what you can't do). What actually happened is that someone took his place and no one objected. If there was any "authorization" is was by the assembly.

Indeed. I'm not disputing what happened, or claiming the meeting was null and void, or questioning who did or did not authorize what, or anything else on those lines. I'm simply answering the poster's one and only question. What did happen is not allowed under Robert's Rules. To state otherwise is a disservice to the poster. Whether the organization wants to follow The Book is their business. It's allowed if no one objects, yes. But not because RONR says it is.

[Weldon Merritt]

It's allowed if no one objects, yes. But not because RONR says it is.

Except that RONR also says that rules of order (some of them, anyway) can be suspended. The proper way to do that, of course, is through a motion to Suspend the Rules, the specific purpose of which is to allow the assembly "to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules." RONR, p. 252, ll. 7-9. I would say that anything that can be done by supending the rules through a proper motion is allowed under RONR; it just needs to be done through the proper procedure.

[David A Foulkes]

Except that RONR also says that rules of order (some of them, anyway) can be suspended. The proper way to do that, of course, is through a motion to Suspend the Rules, the specific purpose of which is to allow the assembly "to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules." RONR, p. 252, ll. 7-9. I would say that anything that can be done by supending the rules through a proper motion is allowed under RONR; it just needs to be done through the proper procedure.

Except that you can't Suspend the Rules outside of a meeting. In the absence of the President or other presiding officer (VP, etc), the Secretary calls the meeting to order and "the assembly should immediately elect a chairman pro tem to preside during that session." (p. 437 ll. 13-17, emphasis added) RONR does not even suggest the Secretary takes the chair, but only intimates (perhaps vaguely) to presiding over the election process until the chair pro tem is elected.

Now, if the assembly wants to elect the President's choice, as perhaps communicated to some members in advance, all well and good. But I'm not sure there is an appropriate opportunity to move to Suspend the Rules to achieve this without an election until someone is presiding.

[Weldon Merritt]

Except that you can't Suspend the Rules outside of a meeting.

I agree, which is part of why I said it needs to be done through a proper motion to Suspend the Rules. Clearly that was not done in this instance. The bottom line is that, while what was done was not done properly, the same thing could have been accomplished well within the rules (except that, as you say, someone would have had to convene the meeting before the chair pro tem could be elected).

[Gary Novosielski]

I concur - however, RONR allows the option for the Chairman to relinquish the Chair for a reason.

...it allows it, and frowns upon its use.

[Rev Ed]

...it allows it, and frowns upon its use.

Yes, but it still allows it to begin with. Even if RONR meant for it to only occur occasionally if ever.