Dueling Parliamentarians John R. Berg, PRP

Dueling Parliamentarians

By John R. Berg, PRP

The parliamentarian, seated next to the presiding officer during a meeting, is in a most visible position! What happens when various factions in the assembly have their own parliamentarian or parliamentarians?

That parliamentarian seated next to the presiding officer normally would have been selected by the presiding officer, with any fee to the parliamentarian being borne by the organization. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, (12th ed.) (RONR), 47:48,53. An alternative would be to have a board or other body select and contract with the parliamentarian on behalf the organization. The key element is that the parliamentarian’s client is the organization, not the presiding officer. Conceivably a parliamentarian could be selected and personally paid by the presiding officer. That could compromise the parliamentarian’s appearance of impartiality, particularly if the presiding officer is at odds with leadership or membership factions in the organization. The parliamentarian’s client would then be perceived as the presiding officer, and not the organization.

If a faction in the organization has its own parliamentarian aside from the official parliamentarian advising the presiding officer, the parliamentarian’s client clearly would be the faction that engaged the parliamentarian.

Normally, the officially appointed parliamentarian is accepted without reservation or any action by the assembly, although it could object to the appointment of a non-member, particularly if it is perceived that the parliamentarian was appointed with bias. The presiding officer is also free to request the advice of experienced members, particularly if there is no

parliamentarian. (RONR, 23:17). The attempt of a faction to bring its own outside or non-member parliamentarian into a meeting could be met with opposition by the majority. The assembly has authority to regulate non-members admitted into their meeting. Normally, a non-member would not be permitted to speak during debate without the permission of the assembly. If opposed by the majority, the faction’s parliamentarian may be limited to providing counsel before the meeting and electronically during the meeting.

A local political party had a majority of its voting membership sign a petition to recall their county chairman.

The secretary called a meeting to vote on the recall, and engaged a PRP to serve as the temporary presiding officer at the meeting. The chairman showed up to preside at the meeting, which he claimed was his right under the bylaws. He also brought his own pseudoparliamentarian (someone who claims knowledge of parliamentary procedure but is not a member of the NAP or

AIP). An interesting exchange ensued between the PRP and the pseudo-parliamentarian and they ended up sitting on opposite sides of the chairman during the meeting. Those who appealed the chair’s ruling as to his right to preside did not have a majority present to overturn the ruling of the chair. The recall effort failed. Apparently, either the majority of the membership who signed the petitions did not feel the need to show up at the meeting, or the chairman was successful in enlisting enough new voting members before the meeting. A large national organization was engaged in a long-term building project that was progressing and evolving slowly in phases for years. Some of the members believed that the project was diverting too much money and energy away from the primary purposes of the organization and proposed putting a pause on the entire project. The issue was to come before the national board of directors, a large body of nearly a hundred, whose meetings had the appearance of a small convention. The aggrieved faction of members consulted with a PRP who previously had been the national parliamentarian for the organization, but was then serving on the board of directors. The PRP explained strategy, options, moves, and counter moves, all within the context of parliamentary procedure, so that the faction had a better idea as to how they could proceed and what their chances were of success. The end result was that the protest was dropped and did not come

up at the meeting. A bitter fight had been averted.

Consider a situation in which a parliamentarian is engaged for a yearly term as the parliamentarian for an organization. RONR states that the parliamentarian “advises the president and other officers, committees, and members on matters of parliamentary procedure” (47:46). When a meeting is in progress, the parliamentarian typically would be engaged only with the presiding officer. How should the parliamentarian respond, however, if approached by a member between meetings of a session or during a recess and asked how the membership could replace the chair during the meeting? A parliamentarian personally loyal to the presiding officer might not refer them to RONR 62:10-15, which explains how to suspend the rules and temporarily replace the chair. RONR includes the parliamentarian’s role to advise members, which the parliamentarian may do if not specifically prohibited from doing so by his or her contract with the organization. The next question is whether the presiding officer should be advised by the parliamentarian to anticipate a move to replace the chair? Where does the duty to retain confidentialities apply, and just who is the client? See the Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians jointly adopted by the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) and the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP), specifically at 4.4.

The Code of Ethics addresses the parliamentarian’s duty to the client but does not define the client. Since many parliamentarians serve in organizations to which they belong and are not paid for their services, payment for services cannot be used as the defining characteristic for establishing a client relationship. Bear in mind that the Code of Ethics applies to all NAP and AIP members, not just the credentialed ones.

The enforcement of the Code of Ethics does not have a long history establishing precedents of interpretation, and the proceedings of enforcement are confidential anyway, so there is little guidance available to parliamentarians. A parallel can be drawn between the parliamentarian’s duty of impartiality and duty to the client with that of an appraiser.

Most appraisers are governed by the strict Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), updated regularly by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation. If an appraiser is being perceived as an appraiser, the appraiser is bound by the USPAP. For example, if an appraiser is known to be an appraiser by a neighbor who says, “The county assessor just valued my house at $250,000 for tax purposes. Should I appeal it?” The wise appraiser would respond that a correct answer is not possible without performing a complete appraisal. If the appraiser instead said, “Yes, your house can’t be worth more than $225,000,” the appraiser

has just performed an appraisal and is in violation of the USPAP because all of the steps necessary to produce a credible appraisal were not taken.” The problem is exacerbated if the neighbor then hires the appraiser to appraise the house to support an appeal of the assessed valuation. There is an implied expectation that the full appraisal should be at $225,000 or less. The appraiser is then further in violation of USPAP for accepting an appraisal assignment conditioned upon a pre-determined outcome.

Similarly, if a member of NAP or AIP is asked a parliamentary question, as frequently occurs, is a quick answer appropriate without double-checking RONR thoroughly and reviewing applicable governing documents, as would be done when preparing a formal parliamentary opinion? The NAP and AIP Code of Ethics is not as strict and detailed as USPAP for appraisers, but the ethical issues are similar. After answering a simple parliamentary question, the parliamentarian might then be engaged to supply a formal parliamentary opinion, and the client’s expectation would be that the formal opinion would support the initial response.

If a parliamentarian is functioning simply as a member of an organization and other members, knowing of the parliamentarian’s unique expertise, ask parliamentary questions regarding the business of their organization, has a client relationship been established? What is the parliamentarian’s duty of impartiality and confidentiality? On the other hand, if an AIP or NAP member were engaging in debate as a member of another organization and expounding on principles of parliamentary procedure relating to the organization’s business, would it be evident that impartiality would not be expected? What if he or she were knowingly endorsing interpretations of parliamentary procedure that were objectively unreasonable (paraphrasing a draft 2020 revision of the NAP and AIP Code of Ethics)? These are questions for thought and discussion, and no authoritative answers are attempted in this article.

Since most organizations in the United States operate under RONR, there should be little disagreement among parliamentarians regarding the basics of parliamentary procedure. It is in the application of the complex rules to unique situations that there arises room for differing interpretations. There are also different ways under RONR to get to a similar end result.

Historically, when two people engaged in a duel, one was occasionally left dead. Beware. NP

John R. Berg, PRP, is currently president of the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians and has served as parliamentarian for a number of national organizations. In 2019 he was elected to the board of directors of the South Kitsap School District in Washington State. He is also a retired real estate appraiser.