Oh, Contrarian!

The COVID-19 pandemic upended our lives in many ways. On a professional level, it forced parliamentarians to learn how to conduct effective electronic meetings. Since the emergency was declared over, we’ve all had to re-learn what used to be normal. Just as that’s true of our schools, our businesses, and our churches, it’s also true of parliamentary practice.

How would you feel if your organization’s contracted parliamentarian for its online annual meeting only had experience with in-person meetings? Or what about the reverse: you are having an in-person meeting, and the parliamentarian only has experience with online meetings? Would you be confident that the parliamentarian will be able to assist competently and confidently?

I suggest that you would not. Parliamentarians should be able to assist confidently with a variety of meeting configurations.

At the North Coast Unit¹, “Meetings of the Membership may be conducted by videoconference when the President determines that sufficient reason exists to forgo an in-person meeting or when so directed by a majority of the Executive Board.” Bylaws, XI:2:A. As president, I determined that such reason exists for the January, February, and March meetings of 2023 and 2024, and we held those meetings electronically.

For the other business meetings of 2023 (May, June, September, and October), I did not make that determination, and we met in person. However, we offered an electronic participation option in what has been called a “hybrid” format. (“Hybrid meeting” is not a parliamentary term, but it has been a shorthand way to describe a meeting format which attempts to provide equal access to both in-person and electronic attendees.)

RONR (12th ed.) 9:31 requires that “alternative” meetings must “provide, at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area.” It is this requirement of “equivalency of opportunity” that presents the challenge. I think we’ve been able to do that, but the technological requirements materially change the nature of the meeting so that it is neither electronic nor in-person.²

Therefore, in order to provide experience with the in-person configuration–which, until just a few tears ago, was the only configuration–we will meet in-person at 6:00 on May 20 and June 17 at the Cuyahoga County Public Library’s Maple Heights Branch.

Although these are defined as in-person meetings, for teaching purposes we will make them available electronically with what I am calling a “passive” Zoom link: those using the link will be able to see and hear the live meeting but will not be seen or heard by those within the room. Basically, it’s “streaming video” using Zoom.

• Since our business meeting (planned for 6:00-6:30) is intended to model good parliamentary procedure, we have invited our members unable to attend in person to follow us on Zoom link starting at 6:00. They will be able to stay on for the education session.
• We are inviting guests unable to join us in person to follow us on Zoom starting at 6:35 to observe the education session.
• The videorecordings of the meeting and the workshop will be available to members after the meeting.

The link is here–or use meeting ID 841 4679 1448 and passcode HMRobert.

A funny thing happened on my way to the last North Coast Unit meeting. The reason isn’t important here, but instead of being in place almost an hour before the meeting I signed on slightly late. And I’m the president, so that was a problem: members were waiting for me to start the meeting on Zoom!

Since NCU thinks of its meetings as a teaching tool, my tardiness provides a teachable moment. I’ll provide here a quick look at the parliamentary situation when the presider doesn’t show up.

The first line of defense in NCU, as in most organizations, is the vice-president. Like most presiders, I prepare a podium script which helps with the many predictable parts of the meeting; and I share it with the vice-president before the meeting. Normally, our VP would have used the script to start the meeting in my absence; however, this evening she was absent due to a medical procedure.

RONR¹ (12th ed.) 3:6 identifies the presiding officer and secretary as the “minimum essential officers for the conduct of business.” Normally that presiding officer is the president, but under certain circumstances someone else serves as the presiding officer. RONR (12th ed.) 47:33 (11) states that the duties of the secretary include “In the absence of the president and vice-president, to call the meeting to order and preside until the immediate election of a chairman pro tem.” In this case, she didn’t need to do so: I was ready to preside before most assemblies would have been able to elect a chair pro tem; but that’s how the assembly would have solved the problem if I had been much later.

A couple of comments about this:

• The podium script is a functional document, not a publication; but it makes sense to share it with the secretary as well as the VP. That way the secretary can share it with the chairman pro tem.
• Some organizations would want to designate the secretary as the chair pro tem.² However, the work of the secretary is critical to the meeting, and it would be difficult for one person to perform both roles. If the members elect the secretary as the chair pro tem, then his/her first act should be to preside over the election of a secretary pro tem.

Hopefully the situation won’t happen again in my term as NCU president; but if it does, or if it happens in other organizations you may belong to, I hope this article clarifies what happens. What is clear is that the absence of the president doesn’t mean that the meeting is canceled: the organization is bigger than the president.