Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

[Nigel <nigel@roberts.co.uk>]

I'm REALLY puzzled about all this discussion.

Surely it is the Chairman's job to keep order? 

If the Chairman  needs advice from time to time, it is (in the three
non-profits I have been on the board of) usually the Company Secretary's
job to advise on (e.g.) the Memorandum and Articles of Association and
any
Standing Order which govern the meetings.

So it has to be the role of Chairman act impartially
in the running of the meeting (this does not prevent him/her
from contributing). And there is nothing to stop the Chair
from rotating, either.



Nigel Roberts; nigel@roberts.co.uk (Parliamentary Candidate in 1997!)



Cthulhu's Little Helper wrote:
> 
> On 28 June 1999, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> 
> >>>     You don't need a supremely neutral party; just somebody who has a good
> >>> knowledge of Robert's Rules and is basically honest.  (Hell, I'll do it if
> >>> you can't come up with anyone better.)
> >> ...and let me just add my voice to stressing "who has a good knowledge of
> >> Robert's Rules."  And ther person is going to need to be assertive and
> >> unafraid to talk down/shout down the members, in order to enforce the
> >> rules and thereby achieve some semblance of fairness.
> >
> >keeping order is the role of the chair.  the partliamentarian is there to
> >advise the chair on what order is.
> 
> If it's the chair who's getting out of line arguing over parliamentary
> procedure, it's most certainly the parliamentarian who keeps order.
> If procedure is followed, order ensues.   The order the chair enforces is
> within the scope of Robert's Rules.  If the chair isn't acting within that
> scope, then the parliamentarian prevails.
> 
> I think.  It's been a while.