The duty of the Chair to help

There were parliamentary shenanigans at the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church. One of them highlights, by failure, the duty of the presiding officer to help members with their motions. Robert’s Rules of Order makes the Chair the servant of the assembly, not the police officer of it. If the latter function is given to a leader, it is the parliamentarian. Even there, Robert’s Rules lets the parliamentarian assist members with motions directly or through advice to the Chair. If a member is uncertain how to word a motion, “he can indicate briefly what he wishes to propose and can ask the chair to assist him in wording an appropriate motion” (RONR, 10^th, P.33, L.2-4). This willingness to help is later described as a “duty” (P.38, L.9-10).

I ran across a blog entry by a participant in the recent General Convention—the Very Rev’d Christopher Cantrell—in which the failure of the President of the House of Deputies to carry out this duty could be labeled Machiavellian.

Resolution A161 on the Episcopal Church’s response to The Windsor Report was being debated. This was the best effort of the Special Committee appointed to propose such a resolution to the convention. Mr. Cantrell offered a substitute motion (more on these soon) using the exact language of The Windsor Report to frame several key responses.

A Deputy went to a microphone and said the substitute was unconstitutional—that it asked the convention to do something it did not have power to do. After some consultation, the President, the Very Rev’d George Werner, indicated he would ponder the admissibility of the substitute over lunch. Mr. Cantrell and others appealed to the President and Parliamentarian to help them make the language acceptable. After lunch the President ruled the substitute unconstitutional and therefore out of order.

As Mr. Cantrell asserts, some minor changes in wording would have removed the problem without gutting the substitute. Cantrell states this “would have left it on the floor to be voted up or down. I suspect the chair took the opportunity to simply kill it rather than let that happen.” He is almost certainly correct.

The leadership did not want a straightforward vote on the clear requests of The Windsor Report. They knew such a vote would fail, leaving the Episcopal Church clearly saying “No” to the international Anglican Communion. As it turned out, even the softer language of A161 was defeated overwhelmingly. Only after extreme pressure from the Presiding Bishop did another resolution pass on the last day of the convention.

In pressured situations like this, you have to be armed with basic knowledge of parliamentary procedure to confront such power plays. You have to be ready to act quickly and boldly. A fair amount of “intestinal fortitude” is called for as well to stand up in the face of a known majority.

What could Christopher Cantrell and his allies have done?

1. They could have raised a “question of personal privilege,” appealing to Robert’s Rules’ ideal of the Chair assisting members with motions. The President would have verbalized his way though this objection.

2. When the Chair claimed powerlessness in this, they could have appealed the ruling of the Chair to the House. This certainly would have lost in a vote.

3. Finally, they could have asked that a protest be entered into the Journal and that their names be recorded. This witness is probably the best they could have done.

Robert’s Rules expects that presiding officers will assist an individual with no knowledge of the complexities of parliamentary procedure. It would be reassuring to see added grace in church meetings. But don’t count on it. Be prepared.