The Southern Baptist Convention is currently meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. I’m not in attendance, but I have watched most of the proceedings today. At this evening’s business session, Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offered a motion that the messengers to the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention adopt the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration.
As were many others, I was watching the session via the SBC’s live webcast (of which I am grateful for their provision). I was also following comments on the convention via Twitter. Following Dr. Mohler’s speech in support of the motion, a substitute motion was offered that was in opposition to the original motion. I am relatively well-versed in Robert’s Rules of Order, and at the time I felt as though the substitute motion was out of order for two reasons: 1) the time for new motions had expired and 2) the substitute motion would have resulted in essentially killing the original motion.
I posted several “tweets” stating my opinion that the substitute motion was out of order and, more specifically, that Convention Parliamentarian Barry McCarty’s ruling that the motion was in order was erroneous. The substitute motion eventually failed, so “No harm, no foul,” I said.
Dr. McCarty replied to my tweets after the evening’s session and kindly pointed me to the section in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised that supported his ruling. It had previously been my belief (and experience in watching other certified parliamentarians) that amendments could not reverse the intent of the original motion. The substitute motion clearly did reverse the intent of the original motion, thus my belief that it was out of order.
Dr. McCarty was indeed correct in his ruling, and I offer my apology to him for having publicly stated he was in error. This was most definitely a case of “knowledge puffs up,” and I am truly sorry. Next time, before running my mouth and disagreeing with a man who has a Ph.D. in rhetoric and argumentation (or anyone else for that matter), I’ll check my ego at the door or at the keyboard, as the case may be.
Impacting the Kingdom Through Worship,
I concur with the parliamentarian, and appreciate the wonderful apology. I know neither of you, nor the content of either the main motion or the amendment to substitute, but am familiar with the rule in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) that "an amendment can be hostile to, or even defeat, the spirit of the original motion and still be germane" (p. 130).
I also noticed in the apology another misconception, that the parliamentarian "rules" on such matters. In fact, the parliamentarian *advises* the chair, and the chair *rules* on the matter, and at times the chair may even rule differently than the parliamentarian advises. (Of course if this happens often, the parliamentarian is likely to resign his appointment as soon as practical.) See RONR p. 450.
One more comment. Parliamentarians *are* occasionally mistaken. Even credentialed ones. After all, to get a credential, one has to pass an exam, but not with 100%! Both the NAP (parliamentarians.org) and AIP (AIPparl.org) issue credentials. I check my NAP and AIP dirctories, and see Barry has AIP's highest level credential, Certified Professional Parliamentarian. That's the toughest one to get, in my opinion. Well worth respecting.
So even if one could fault a parliamentarian for his advice, the chair is ultimately responsible for how he rules. And the assembly is ultimately responsible for the ruling beyond that, because a ruling of the chair can be appealed and overturned by a majority vote of the assembly. So, if blame had been warranted, it would fall not only on the parliamentarian, but also on the chair, and indeed, on *every* delegate present, because not even one made a motion to appeal the decision of the chair.
I have already thanked Greg for a very gracious personal message he sent to me last night as well as his statement here. I'm delighted that Greg and millions of others who can't be in Louisville are taking such a close interest in this year's SBC.
I also appreciate Paul's post noting that parliamentarians give advice, but the president makes the rulings. For the past 23 years I've had the privilege of advising 12 great Presidents as they have presided over the SBC annual sessions. I am so very thankful for their friendship and for Southern Baptists.
Barry McCarty
SBC Chief Parliamentian