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

["Cthulhu's Little Helper" <skritch@home.com>]

On 28 June 1999, Nigel <nigel@roberts.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

Oh, certainly.  But all of this presupposes that the Chair knows the
parliamentary procedure she is supposed to be following.  If the Chair
does not, can not, or will not follow proper procedure, given that the
body has agreed that a set of procedures (e.g., Robert's Rules) is
to be followed, then there must be a check against this.  I'm assuming
it's the parliamentarian.  Of course, I don't have a copy of RR here in
the office, so I can't check on this.

But if there's not a check against the Chair's violation of procedure,
and the meetings aren't open or the people attending the meetings are
unrepresented, then there's really no way to remove a renegade chair
from power, or to at least constrain her to the framework defined by
the procedures, is there?

(At this point, I can't remember these details from RR.  Anyone willing
to dig out a copy and actually check?  If not, I'm going to look it up
this evening, anyway.)

-- 
 Mark C. Langston