Member Parliamentarian and Possible Conflict of Interest - April 2010

Q:In our organization, one of our members serves as parliamentarian. Another member has questioned whether the use of a member parliamentarian could cause a conflict of interest. The questioning member has stated his concern that the parliamentarian’s opinions may be biased and may reflect the parliamentarian’s personal desires, rather than proper procedure. The member also suggested that it is improper for the parliamentarian to serve while the assembly considers bylaw amendments suggested by the parliamentarian. Our parliamentary authority is RONR. Is it a conflict of interest to have a parliamentarian who is a member of the organization?

A: RONR p. 451 specifically addresses the propriety of a member parliamentarian and approves the practice, provided that the member parliamentarian refrain from making motions, debating, and voting in all cases except for ballot votes. As a pure matter of parliamentary procedure, the issue is addressed in RONR, and a member parliamentarian is not in a conflict of interest as he/she cannot vote and must remain neutral. This is the same principle of good faith conduct that allows a president to take a vote in a contested election in which he or she is a candidate, or a president who has expressed an opinion on an issue outside the meeting to preside neutrally at a meeting. Certainly, a president or parliamentarian may choose to recuse him or herself in a particular circumstance because of strong feelings or involvement in a particular matter. In organizations with a member parliamentarian, a temporary replacement parliamentarian would be selected as the regular member parliamentarian was. As RONR states, even if the parliamentarian recuses him-/herself, he/she cannot make motions, debate, or vote except in a ballot vote. This ability to vote by ballot demonstrates that the parliamentarian is allowed to have opinions, but those opinions should not be expressed in order to preserve the appearance of neutrality and giving equal consideration to all valid points that is essential to a fair deliberative process.

In addition to the general duty and presumption of good faith, there are two additional checks on potentially biased advice by the member parliamentarian: the chair may choose not to follow the parliamentarian’s advice and the members can make a point of order and appeal contesting the parliamentarian’s opinion if the chair agrees with the parliamentarian. In fact, the presiding officer is likely to make many more rulings on matters than the presiding officer’s assistant (the parliamentarian), who only gives advice. It is never considered a conflict when the presiding officer rules. In fact we know it as a duty of the chair to rule or at least turn a ruling over to the assembly to decide.

In the specific case mentioned, the parliamentarian suggested a certain bylaw amendments. This should not usually be a cause for concern or bias, as typically a parliamentarian working on a proposed bylaw amendment gives purely procedural advice and is not likely to be personally vested in the outcome. If the proposed bylaw amendment is one about which the parliamentarian cares deeply, he or she may choose voluntarily to recuse him-/herself, and should do so if he or she feels that the procedural handling of the matter may be comprised by his or her feelings. In such a case as stated in RONR p.451, the parliamentarian should still refrain from debate.