Organizations often ask whether they need a parliamentarian at their board meetings. A better question is when it makes sense to bring one in.
In a prior post, we discussed whether boards need a parliamentarian and noted that many do not for routine matters. This article focuses on a more practical question: when it makes sense to bring one in.
A parliamentarian is an adviser on meeting procedure. They help run a fair and orderly meeting. Many boards do just fine without one. But in some situations, having that kind of support can make a significant difference.
There is no single answer. Boards vary a lot. Some have five members. Others may have 150. That alone changes how meetings work. Smaller boards tend to be more informal. Larger boards, or those with high levels of participation, are more like annual membership meetings and will need more structure.
For routine matters, a chair with a basic understanding of meeting procedure is often enough. At times, boards rely on a volunteer member or staff person to help with procedural questions. In day-to-day situations, that may work fine.
But not always.
One issue is perception. Even when a member or staff person is doing their best, some board members may view them as biased. In meetings, how things look can matter just as much as what is actually happening. Questions about independence can distract from the work of the board.
Another issue is experience. Not every matter is routine. Leadership changes, major financial decisions, or controversial policies can get complicated fast. Issues that involve significant cost or impact may call for experienced, independent guidance. In those situations, avoiding mistakes is often worth the cost. In our work as parliamentary lawyers, we have seen that experiences with similar situations in other organizations can make a real difference in advising clients.
There is also the question of conflict in roles. Legal counsel and senior staff are sometimes asked for parliamentary guidance. While that may be efficient, it is not the best fit for all situations. Most attorneys and staff do not have formal training in parliamentary procedure, as it is not typically part of their professional education. General counsel also has duties to the organization that may not line up with giving real-time procedural advice to the chair. Staff can face similar challenges, especially when their advice affects outcomes that board members care about. We often provide training to such individuals for routine situations, but it does not eliminate these concerns.
The politics of meetings also matter. A staff person in this role can be put in a difficult spot when giving advice that some members will not like. Even when the advice is correct, it can lead to frustration, strained relationships, and awkward dynamics.
This does not mean every board needs a professional parliamentarian. Many do not for most meetings. But there are times when bringing one in makes sense.
In our experience, the level of involvement varies. For many organizations we represent, we do not attend board meetings. In others, we are asked to attend when a particular issue is expected to be complex or sensitive. And in a smaller number, where matters are consistently significant, we attend most board meetings and even some executive committee meetings. On rare occasions, an issue has been so controversial that no one was willing to preside, and we have been asked to serve as a professional presiding officer for that particular meeting.
That range reflects the same point. The need for guidance depends on the issue and its complexity.
Boards may want to consider outside professional guidance when:
- the board is large or has many different viewpoints
- the issue is complex, likely to be contentious, or there is a “rules bully”
- the matter involves significant cost or risk
- there are concerns about fairness or bias
- the chair would benefit from real-time support during the meeting.
An experienced, independent parliamentarian can help keep the meeting on track, make sure the process is fair, and reduce the risk of problems later.
In the end, this is not about formality. It is about what works. The right level of support depends on the board, the issue, the complexity involved, and even the personalities in the room.
Jim Slaughter is an attorney, Certified Professional Parliamentarian, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, and a past President of the American College of Parliamentary Lawyers.
He is the author of four books on parliamentary procedure and running effective meetings, including Robert’s Rules of Order Fast Track and Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules, Fifth Edition, both updated for the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.