National Parliamentarian (Vol. 80, No. 1) by National Association of Parliamentarians

Volume 80, No. 1 | Fall 2018

National Parliamentarian

Parliamentary Procedure Key to Effective Governance

Motions: A Fresh Perspective page 5 The Overrated Second page 10 Call for NAP Bylaws Amendments page 30

Parliamentary Resources at Your Fingertips There is only one place to turn for your parliamentary resources: NAP. Browse our online store for • Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and In Brief – we offer spiral-bound versions not available anywhere else! • Parliamentary reference cards • Basic information handouts • Script samples • Leadership primers for officers • Credentialing study guides • Teaching resources • And so much more

Check us out today at

www.parliamentarians.org

National Parliamentarian

Volume 80, No. 1 | Fall 2018

Contents 2017-2019 NAP Officers President James N. Jones, PRP Vice-President Darlene T. Allen, PRP Secretary Kevin R. Connelly, PRP Treasurer Wanda M. Sims, PRP Directors-at-Large Joyce Brown-Watkins, PRP Ann Rempel, PRP Alison Wallis, PRP District Director Representatives Roger Hanshaw, PRP Larry Martin, PRP Parliamentarian James Stewart, PRP Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh

NAP’s Vision: To provide parliamentary leadership to the world

From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message Parliamentary Procedure, Governance and Civil Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEATURES Anti-Motions, Para-Motions, and Tandem-Motions for Robert’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Overrated Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Stories in Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Review: Parliamentary Law and Practice for Nonprofit Organizations, 3rd edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Robert’s 1923 Parliamentary Law to Fall into Public Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 DEPARTMENTS Test Yourself Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Parliamentary Procedure Vocabulary Builder . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Answer Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 NAP Connections Call for NAP Bylaws Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Report from the Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Wanted: Candidates for the 2019-2020 Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Report from NTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 History Repeats Itself at NAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 NAP Member Elected Speaker of the House . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Bridge to the Future: Building Our Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Indiana State Association of Parliamentarians Celebrates 75th Anniversary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 42nd Biennial Convention – Las Vegas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Silent Gavel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Welcome to the NAP Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 NAP Membership At a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 www.parliamentarians.org

National Parliamentarian

Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 S. Main Street • Independence, MO 64050-3808 816.833.3892 • 888.627.2929 hq@nap2.org • www.parliamentarians.org

NP Submission Guidelines

National Parliamentarian generally publishes only original works that have not been published elsewhere. Articles will be edited to conform to The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.) and may be edited for content and length. Article text should be submitted in Microsoft Word or rich text format and transmitted via email. Illustrations, photographic prints and high-resolution photos are welcome. Materials submitted will not be returned unless special arrangements are made in advance with the editor. Contributors must include a completed “Assign and Transfer Copyright” form with their submission, granting NAP the copyright or permission to publish.

Submission Deadlines

Volume 80, No. 2 . . . . . . November 1, 2018 (Winter 2019) Volume 80, No. 3 . . . . . . . . February 1, 2019 (Spring 2019) Volume 80, No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2019 (Summer 2019) Volume 81, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2019 (Fall 2019)

Editor

Ann Iona Warner npeditor@nap2.org

Assistant Editor

Betty Tunstall, PRP

Parliamentary Review Committee Shmuel Gerber, PRP Lisa Zwarn, PRP John R. Berg, PRP Paul McClintock, PRP Sheryl C. Womble, PRP

Parliamentary Research Committee Michael Malamut, PRP C. Alan Jennings, PRP Jim Stewart, PRP Helen McFadden, PRP

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN®

(Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592) Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians ©2018 All rights to reproduce or reprint any portion of this publication are reserved, except by written permission of the editor. Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those endorsed by NAP.

Subscription and change-of-address requests should be directed to NAP at the above address. Annual subscription: $30 • Single copy: $8

From the Editor

I ran the text for this issue through a grammar check. It didn’t like some of the standard parliamentary language. It also marked many of the quotations for Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th ed. as “wordy.” The most common comment was “passive voice.” Our parliamentary language is passive voice. But the practice of parliamentary procedure is anything but passive. Spending three days in workshops at the NAP National Training Conference was a reminder that parliamentarians have to think on their feet. How would you advise the chair to handle a disruptive member? Is that motion in order? Can that person interrupt a speaker? Which motion needs to be processed next? There are articles in this issue to help you process motions that sometimes need a little help, understand the nuances of seconding motions, and a fun learning exercise for a group. Now that the NTC is over, it’s time to prepare for next year’s convention in Las Vegas with calls for nominations and bylaw amendments. Enjoy. Ann Iona Warner 2

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

Presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Message

Parliamentary Procedure, Governance and Civil Discourse Effective governance is vital to the success of an association or corporation. A key factor in accomplishing effective governance is maintaining explicit meeting management procedures. By creating a framework for reasoned discussion and encouraging civil discourse, parliamentary procedure plays an important role in the success or failure of an organization. In fact, the more important the decisions being made, the greater impact explicit procedures and processes will have on the ability to make sound decisions. For most organizations, progress requires change. Change, inevitably, engenders passion and emotion; disagreements or conflicts may erupt. Paying attention to these dynamics and responding honorably in human interaction require process, procedure, and practice. Parliamentary procedures enable organizations to implement such changes effectively. Parliamentary procedure nullifies incivility. Incivility can fracture a meeting, can destroy collaboration, and splinter membersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sense of mission, and can hamper organizational effectiveness. These non-productive behaviors are seen far too often in meetings, thus causing participants to feel unsafe. An unsafe meeting environment forces participants to shut down and to feel devalued. In addition to shutting down, incivility allows for negative thoughts to blossom, which, if not addressed effectively, will escalate to the actuation of negative behavior; thereby, creating an unproductive meeting. For these reasons, parliamentary processes must be in place to avoid ineffectual meetings. As you can see, parliamentary procedure plays an integral role in meetings by effectively providing rules, ethics, and customs that are conducive to productivity. While acknowledging that difficult and controversial issues are a part of change, parliamentary procedure has been proven to be the best method to ensure that assemblies will attain the intended objective(s) in the least amount of time, regardless of internal climates. The collective parliamentary procedure is a framework for modeling civil discourse in board meetings and in various internal and external constituencies. It fosters a civil climate which empowers participants which translates into greater collaboration. www.parliamentarians.org

Past NAP President, Leonard Young, recently explained it when describing the role of the parliamentary process. He saw four basic aspects as part of NAP’s role of building a better climate for democratic decision-making. • Teaching the principles of free debate • Upholding the idea that listening and compromising are healthy and necessary • Fostering the value of opposing points of view • Providing tools for groups to decide the future together The need for effective governance and civil discourse is greater than ever. NAP is doing its part by doubling down on our basic mission of bringing parliamentary knowledge to the world. NAP, along with some of the top law schools in the United States, will be sponsoring a series of workshops about civil discourse and organizational effectiveness that will include panel presentations and participant discussions. Internally, the NAP education team has developed a series of online and in-person training designed to improve presiding skills, board membership, and meeting management. NAP plays a vital part in helping its members, partner organizations, and other groups that are impacted by its learning opportunities to move toward good governance and civil discourse through better procedure. This allows these constituencies to focus their time on their own missions and to achieve organizational success even amid disagreements. That success comes from a willingness to embrace the journey, not just the destination. James “Jim” Jones PRP, CPP-T 44th NAP President, 2017-2019

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

Anti-Motions Para-Motions

for Robert’s

Tandem-Motions by Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

We typically teach Robert’s motions from a list of ranking motions, and as if each motion was an isolated entity. In reality, many of these motions do not stand alone. Some have motions that nullify the original motion (which I call anti-motions). Other motions exist as complete concepts only when they are associated with additional actions (which I call para-motions). Additionally, and contrary to Robert’s Rules of Order, some pairs of motions may often be proposed together as one motion (which I call tandem-motions). These concepts are illustrated by the following short list of examples with page references from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th ed. [The terms anti-motion, para-motion, and tandem-motion are merely descriptive terms and are not standard parliamentary terms.]

Anti-MOTIONS: A second motion nullifies the original motion. One beauty of parliamentary rules as described by Robert’s is how swiftly one can reach a decision on a proposal. Another beauty of Robert’s is also how promptly one can reverse a proposal even after it has been handled completely. We should teach how to reach a decision and how to reverse it as if both were one concept and not two separate actions. The original motion tends to require only a majority vote for adoption, while the anti-motion typically requires a higher voting threshold and sometimes even prior notice.

Anti-motion 1: Call for the orders of the day (pp. 219-224) The motion to call for the orders of the day is a demand to adhere to an adopted agenda. But members can nullify this demand with an anti-motion such as moving to set aside the orders of the day; moving to extend the time for considering the pending question; or moving to suspend the rules that prohibit the handling of a motion at a time contrary to the adopted agenda. Anti-motion 2: Refer a main motion to a committee (pp. 168-179) A board may refer a main motion www.parliamentarians.org

Anti-Motions Para-Motions Tandem-Motions

continued

to a standing committee if the governing documents describe a standing committee of the board for that motion’s specific purpose, such as finance, bylaws, etc. If no such standing committee exists, the board may create a special committee. Reporting times for these referrals may be scheduled for a time that is several meetings in the future. While the main motion is in the hands of a committee, it is beyond the reach of the board. The board can reclaim control of the main motion by discharging a committee (pp. 310-315). A standing committee can be discharged of its responsibility on the main motion and continue its existence. A special committee would be disbanded if discharged from its responsibility. The anti-motion to discharge a committee requires a complex voting scheme; i.e., a 2/3 vote; or a majority vote of the entire membership if notice has not been given, or a majority vote if notice was given. However, if the committee fails to report as instructed, or if it presents a partial report, only a majority vote is required to discharge it.

Anti-motion 3: Lay a main motion on the table (pp. 209-218) During an unplanned, brief, and urgent interruption in handling a main motion, the board may set the main motion aside temporarily by laying 6

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

it on the table. A simple anti-motion for lay on the table is to take from the table” (pp. 300-304), though Robert’s states that the main motion can only be taken from the table during business of its same class, or as unfinished business, general orders, or new business.

Anti-motion 4: Reconsider a decision on a main motion After taking a deciding vote on a main motion (whether the motion was adopted or lost), the board can reverse that decision by using the anti-motion reconsider the vote (pp. 315-335). This anti-motion has too many requirements to be fully covered in this summary. In addition, to reconsider, the board may apply either of two almost identical anti-motions to an adopted main motion; i.e., it may apply rescind or amend something previously adopted (p. 305-310). Both of these anti-motions also have too many requirements to be fully covered in this summary.

Para-MOTIONS: It takes more than one steps to complete a proposed motion. Some motions appear to be autonomous, but in reality, several other para-motions or parliamentary steps must accompany the original

motion in order to complete the handling of the original motion.

Para-motion 1: Reconsider the vote (pp. 315-335) Once the motion to reconsider the vote is properly introduced and seconded, a vote must be taken to determine if the board wishes to reconsider its original decision. If reconsideration is approved, further debate, additional amending, referral to a committee, or postponement may result. Eventually, a second vote will be necessary as the final decision on the main motion. In other words, the motion to reconsider the vote requires additional parliamentary steps for completion. Para-motion 2: Point of order (pp. 247-255) Every board member is responsible for putting a stop to any violation of the documents of governance. Regardless of the chairâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ruling on a point of order, any board member may appeal from the decision of the chair (pp. 255-260). The chair may explain the ruling even if the motion is not debatable, or every member may speak once (but the chair may speak twice) if the motion is debatable. And finally, a vote will be taken to decide whether to sustain the decision of the chair. In other words, an appealed point of order requires additional parliamentary steps for completion.

Para-motion 3: Previous Question, a.k.a. Call the question (pp. 197-209) When a board member wishes to close debate, stop further amendments, or prevent the making of other subsidiary motions (except lay on the table), a member may move the previous question. However, in certain cases, proposing this motion does not lead directly to a vote as intended. Several para-motions may need to be voted upon first. If the following motions are pending, a) a main motion, b) an amendment, and c) a motion to refer, the board may wish for debate to cease on more than one of these pending motions (p. 200). The members may wish to call the previous question only on c) (i.e., the unqualified form); or on both c) and b); or on all three c), b), and a) (i.e., all the pending motions). More than one step may be involved in this vote. In other words, call the previous question could require additional para-motions or parliamentary steps for completion. Para-motion 4: Division of the question (pp. 270-276) Before dividing a question, two critical parliamentary decisions must be accurately reached. First Decision: Determine whether www.parliamentarians.org

Anti-Motions Para-Motions Tandem-Motions

continued

the main motion related to a single subject, with several parts, each of which can stand as a complete proposition? The answer must be yes. Division of the question does not apply if the motion is composed of several distinct subjects because a simple demand by one member will split the motion. Additionally, if the motion is a series of resolutions, paragraphs, etc., that are not totally separate, such as bylaws, the correct motion to split the question is consideration by paragraph. Second Decision: Determine how the division is proposed? If we had a motion with parts A, B, and C, the proposed division into two parts could be AB and C, or AC and B, or BC and A. If all three groupings are proposed, we need to vote on them in the order in which they were proposed. If, however, the proposed groupings included all three parts (A, B, and C) versus a two-part grouping (such as AB and C), it would be necessary to vote on the grouping that includes the largest number of parts; namely, the three-part grouping (ABC). Additional parliamentary steps may be required when applying the motion division of the question.

Para-motion 5: Filling blanks (pp. 162-167) Sometimes, there is an unlimited number of choices for a specific detail 8

National Parliamentarian â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 2018

on a main motion or a primary amendment. The conventional amending approach would be tedious. Instead, we should apply the motion to fill blanks and its associated para-motions. First, we must create a blank in the motion. Secondly, we must accept suggestions with which to fill the blank. These are not conventional amendments. Thirdly, we must prioritize the suggestions in preparation for the voting. Robertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s explains this prioritization based on whether the suggestions involve names, money, places, dates, or generic numbers. And finally, we must vote on the suggestions. The simple motion of filling blanks requires the assistance of four para-motions or additional parliamentary steps.

Tandem-MOTIONS: A first motion is proposed, along with a second motion that lacks the right to interrupt the first motion, amounting to presenting more than one motion at a time.

Tandem-motion 1: Suspend the rules plus an additional motion (p. 262) Sometimes an assembly cannot take care of business without violating

one or more of its rules that are lower than its bylaws (and that do not involve fundamental principles of parliamentary law). But this request for the authority to violate a rule and perform a second motion requires that two motions be proposed at one time. Robert’s allows an exception to the general rule that prohibits two motions to be immediately pending at the same time by allowing tandem-motions, i.e., the proposal to suspend the rules and the introduction of a currently illegal motion. For example, “I move to suspend the rules and take the question from the table.”

Tandem-motion 2: Debate followed by any secondary motion (p. 378) Generally, a member is recognized to debate or to propose a motion. These actions are typically viewed as separate actions. However, Robert’s does allow the two separate actions to be presented as tandem-motions. A member who has been recognized for debate may make some comments, and then close with a secondary motion to amend (if in order), refer or postpone the motion, limit debate,

or even call the previous question. For example, “And for that reason, I will vote against the motion, and now call the previous question.”

Tandem-motion 3: Discharge a committee and consider the motion at a later time (p. 313) Here is another example of Robert’s allowing an exception to the general rule of prohibiting the introduction of more than one motion at a time. The motion to discharge a committee and the motion to postpone to a certain time are two completely separate motions that can be presented as tandem-motions. To fully understand any motion, we must not neglect its role among motions that nullify it, complete it, or complement it. Studying a chart of any motion’s properties is a good start. But a motion is merely a small portion of the handling of a business item. The business item will be further developed or reversed before an agenda item is finalized. Therefore, the teaching of any motion must reflect how it impacts, and is impacted by, all the other motions.

Lorenzo R Cuesta, PRP, has served as a parliamentarian for boards, conventions, and annual meetings in and beyond California for more than 18 years. He typically offers a three-hour interactive parliamentary procedure workshop that focuses on members’ rights and efficient meeting management. http://www.roberts-rules.com; parliam@roberts-rules.com www.parliamentarians.org

The

Overrated Second

by John R. Berg, PRP

“Has the motion been seconded?” “Who seconded that motion?” “The assembly will stand at ease while the seconder signs the motion card.” How many times have we heard these? One would think that it would be the end of the world as we know it if a motion were ever processed without a second. The need for a second to a motion is grossly overrated. The purpose of a second is simply “to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly’s having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced (Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.) (RONR), p. 36, ll. 28-31). In practice, far more time is consumed by trying to ensure that all appropriate motions have seconds. I once noticed that a three-member board of county commissioners would discuss a particular agenda issue, which was then followed by one member making a motion. As soon as another member seconded it, it was considered adopted without a vote. While a discussion without a motion on the floor is permitted on a three-member board (RONR, p. 488, ll. 7-8), the use of a second to indicate majority approval of the motion was a misuse of a second. A second is not even required in small boards and committees (RONR, p. 488, l. 1). Furthermore, a second does not even indicate that the seconder approves of the motion, only that it should be considered (RONR, p. 36, ll. 9-15). 10

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

Recently a special meeting of a large board was held to consider four specific recommendations from another board. The first vice-president made the motions and the second vice-president seconded them. After the minutes of the meeting were drafted, the minutesapproval committee questioned why the secretary did not record the name of the seconder of the motions, as was their custom. This article is an outgrowth of the recording secretary’s exchange with the minutes-approval committee. See also the author’s previous article on how bad habits can become established customs (Berg, John R., 2018, “Bad Habit or Established Custom?”, National Parliamentarian, Vol. 79, No. 2 (Winter 2018), p. 14-16). Since the sole purpose of the special meeting was to consider these board recommendations, it was inconceivable that the motions would die for lack of a second. While motions made on behalf of a board or committee do not generally require seconds, in this particular case the board making the recommendations were not composed of members of the assembly considering the recommendations (see RONR, p. 507, ll. 20-29) There are several motions and parliamentary steps that do not require a second, including nominations, suggestions for filling blanks, giving notice, objecting to the consideration of a question, points of order, requests, calls for division of the assembly, and

so forth. See RONR, tinted pages 6-29 and 40-41. Once debate is in progress or a vote has begun, it is clear that the assembly wishes to consider the motion. The lack of a second is immaterial, and a point of order would be out of order. RONR, p. 37, ll. 9-12. The seconder has no particular rights or restrictions regarding the motion once it is stated by the chair. If a motion is seconded and there is a brief discussion regarding the modification or perfection of the motion’s wording prior to the chair stating the motion, the seconder could conceivably withdraw the second in response to the revised wording but the member recommending the revised wording would have effectively seconded the motion (RONR, p. 40, ll. 16-35). Unlike the maker of the motion, the seconder is free to speak against the motion in debate (RONR, p. 393, ll. 20-22; p. 36, ll. 9-15). It is not necessary to record the name of the seconder in the minutes unless ordered by the assembly (RONR, p. 470, ll. 26-28). In a convention, “when resolutions are submitted to the [resolutions] committee before the opening of the convention, the report on each resolution is treated as if it had been moved and seconded in the assembly before being referred to the committee” (RONR, p. 638, ll. 16-20). The purpose

of making a motion is to bring a question before the assembly (RONR, p. 27). Thus, if there is an alternative method of bringing a question before the assembly, such as through a resolutions committee, the actual making of the motion is unnecessary. Similarly, in a small board or committee, at which seconds are not required as previously noted, “when a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion having been introduced” RONR, p. 488, ll. 9-10). Here is another case in which the actual making of the motion is not required. Even in a regular assembly, when there are a procedure and a rule in place by which the full text of motions to be considered is on the printed agenda, when that agenda is adopted, all of the listed motions would be effectively made and seconded. Much time could be saved by not stopping to get a maker and seconder for every motion that the assembly has already agreed to consider. The chair would simply state the next item of business on the agenda and open the debate. Getting bogged down in detailed procedures that only slow down the business gives parliamentary procedure a bad reputation. We need to assist in streamlining the process while still maintaining the safeguards provided to protect the rights of all members. Reducing unnecessary emphasis on seconds is a step in that direction.

John R. Berg, PRP, is currently president of the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians and has served as parliamentarian for a number of national organizations. He resides near Port Orchard, Washington.

www.parliamentarians.org

STORIES IN MOTIONS

by Robert B. Blair, PRP

A number of years ago while serving as chairman of the education committee for a local unit, I planned and delivered 10 monthly educational programs related to the study of motions. One of the learning activities was Stories In Motions. This learning activity was designed to engage participants in a focused creative writing exercise that allowed them to research and study the characteristics of motions without the time constraints of a regular meeting program. To get participants thinking about the activity, I shared some highlights two months before the meeting at which participants would present their stories. Participants were told that they would be writing a story, poem, or song using their choice of motions and would be given time to share their creations during an upcoming educational program. A month later, participants were reminded of this assignment and given an opportunity to ask questions about the activity. The assignment for next monthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s meeting was for each member to individually write a story, poem, or song using motions. Their creations were to be used as teaching aids and should include as much specific information about motions as possible. After the meeting, the assignment was e-mailed to all participants to ensure that those not present would be prepared for the session. A reminder message was sent to participants about a week before the meeting. Participants were asked to bring hard copies of their creation to the meeting. After making the assignment, I shared the following story that I had written as an example: 12

National Parliamentarian â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 2018

The Kingdom of Thirteen Ranking Motions Chapter 1: The Main and Privileged Motion Families Long ago and far, far away from normal civilization was a beautiful and fair parliamentary land called the Kingdom of Thirteen Ranking Motions. The kingdom had been inhabited by five major families for thousands of years. Each family was unique, but what struck me as odd was that every one of their last names was…Motion. The family names were Privileged Motion, Subsidiary Motion, Incidental Motion, Bring Back Motion, and Main Motion. Initially, I liked the Main Motions the best! They seemed to be plain, everyday kind of folks. Folks that don’t interrupt when someone else is speaking, give you a second chance, and enjoy a lively debate once in a while. You know those types of people, the ones that don’t put on airs by trying to be something they’re not. When push comes to shove, the majority of the time they give you an opportunity to amend or reconsider your choices without judgment. The Main Motions are simple folk; easy to get along with most of the time, but like all families sometimes that one boorish Main Motion would speak up and embarrass the entire clan. During my travels within the kingdom, I often got confused about associating one Motion with another Motion. One thing I learned for sure was that they may have had the same last name, but each Motion had characteristics that set it apart from the rest. Don’t get me wrong, there were often similarities, but for the most part after spending many days in Thirteen Ranking Motions, I discovered to my amazement that I could remember the Motions better by the role that each family played in the kingdom—and discovered that only

some of the families are part of the ranking thirteen for which the kingdom is named. The next part of the story describes some of these characteristics that helped me tell them apart. The five matriarchs of the Privileged Motion family were all sisters. The handsome old gals had a snooty sort of air about them, but they seemed like fine, upstanding citizens of Thirteen Ranking Motions. My friend, Deliberative Assembly, made formal introductions. The sisters’ names were: Fix the Time To Which To Adjourn (a.k.a. Fixit), Adjourn, Recess, Raise a Question of Privilege (a.k.a. QP), and Call for the Orders of the Day (a.k.a. Call 4). They seemed a little prudish at first, always in a hurry to do something or look out for someone. It was curious to me that no matter how hard I tried; I could not strike up a debate with any of these gals. I discovered that Fixit, Adjourn, and Recess were very polite. On the other hand, QP and Call 4 kept interrupting me like it should have been obvious to me that they had the right to interrupt me—or anyone else who was speaking for that matter. I got so frustrated that I asked the sisters to just give me a second. Fixit, Adjourn, and Recess gave me a second to regain my composure and gather my thoughts, but to no one’s surprise QP and Call 4 kept right on interrupting me and refused to give me the second that I so desperately needed. Once I regained the floor, and the sisters appeared to be focused on my explanation about what brought me to Thirteen Ranking Motions, I could see it in the eyes of Fixit and Recess that they wanted to say something, but www.parliamentarians.org

were too polite to interrupt; therefore, against my better judgment, I asked them if they had something to say. Once recognized, they were as giddy as schoolgirls when they amended my story by adding tidbits that Deliberative Assembly had told them prior to my arrival. When they finished their amendments, I politely asked Adjourn, QP, and Call 4 if they had anything to add. In unison they replied, “no amendments.” The majority of the time we visited, Fixit, Adjourn, and Recess all stood while QP and Call 4 each sat in a chair facing the group. When the conversation had begun to wane, and I could tell that the old gals were getting weary from their guest’s presence, I embraced each one of

them, thanked them for their time, and told them that it was truly my pleasure to get to know such helpful members of the Privileged Motion family. On the way out, I couldn’t help but ask Deliberative Assembly if he knew whether any of the sisters had ever reconsidered their decision to remain in Thirteen Ranking Motions all of their lives. A hint of a chuckle was in his voice when he told me that, believe it or not, Fixit had been quite the wild one in her day, and she was the only one of the sisters that had ever publicly reconsidered the time she had spent in Thirteen Ranking Motions. The saga continues in Chapter 2 as I visit with all the Motion families in the Kingdom of Thirteen Ranking Motions.

The following month’s program was filled with wonderful stories, poems, and songs that included many different ways to learn about motions. There was lots of applause and even more laughter during the program as participants shared their creations with one another. The finale of the program was my leading the participants in a robust rendition of singing The Twelve Days of Convention that I had written to share with the participants.

The Twelve Days of Convention (Tune: The Twelve Days of Christmas) On the first day of convention the members gave to me, a gavel made from a pear tree; On the second day of convention the members gave to me, two points of order and a gavel made from a pear tree; On the third day of convention the members gave to me, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree; On the fourth day of convention the members gave to me, four questions of privilege, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree; On the fifth day of convention the members gave to me, five divisions of the assembly, four questions of privilege, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree; 14

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

On the sixth day of convention the members gave to me, six objections to the consideration of question, five divisions of the assembly, four questions of privilege, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree; On the seventh day of convention the members gave to me, seven parliamentary inquiries, six objections to the consideration of a question, five divisions of the assembly, four questions of privilege, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree; On the eighth day of convention the members gave to me, eight tabled motions, seven parliamentary inquiries, six objections to the consideration of a question, five divisions of the assembly, four questions of privilege, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree; On the ninth day of convention the members gave to me, nine debates extended, eight tabled motions, seven parliamentary inquiries, six objections to the consideration of a question, five divisions of the assembly, four questions of privilege, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree; On the tenth day of convention the members gave to me, ten committee referrals, nine debates extended, eight tabled motions, seven parliamentary inquiries, six objections to the consideration of a question, five divisions of the assembly, four questions of privilege, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree; On the eleventh day of convention the members gave to me, eleven motions to postpone indefinitely, ten committee referrals, nine debates extended, eight tabled motions, seven parliamentary inquiries, six objections to the consideration of a question, five divisions of the assembly, four questions of privilege, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree; On the twelfth day of convention the members gave to me, twelve privileged motions to adjourn, eleven motions to postpone indefinitely, ten committee referrals, nine debates extended, eight tabled motions, seven parliamentary inquiries, six objections to the consideration of a question, five divisions of the assembly, four questions of privilege, three amended motions, two points of order, and a gavel made from a pear tree.

These types of learning activities make studying about parliamentary procedure fun. The creations can also be used for further study by examining each part, checking for accuracy, discussing various forms, etc. I challenge you to try it for yourself. You will be amazed at your creativity!

Dr. Robert B. Blair, PRP, is a professor of marketing at Middle Tennessee State University. He is a business/marketing teacher educator and primary advisor to Collegiate DECA. Dr. Blair is past president of the Tennessee Association of Parliamentarians and Tennessee Delta Unit of Parliamentarians. He is currently vice president of the Tennessee Association of Parliamentarians. www.parliamentarians.org

R E V I E W

Parliamentary Law and Practice for Nonprofit Organizations, 3rd edition by Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP

The first thing that should be said is that Parliamentary Law and Practice for Nonprofit Organizations (PLPNO), 3rd Edition (Harry S. Rosenthal, Parliamentary Publishing, 2015) is not a parliamentary authority, nor does it purport to be one. It is intended to be, and generally succeeds as, “…a starting point for research and a general reference on most parliamentary questions that may come up in preparation for or at an organization’s formal business meeting.” PLPNO is an attempt to review how particular aspects of meeting procedure, e.g., notice, a particular motion, such as a main motion, a question of privilege, or a motion to postpone another motion to a certain time, are treated by different sources. These include: 1. Various parliamentary authorities, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.), The AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (4th ed.), Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, Riddick’s Rules of Procedure, Cannon’s Concise Guide to Rules of Order. 2. Applicable statutes in five states, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey. 3. Applicable case law not limited to those five states. There are hundreds of case citations. 16

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

4. In more than a few cases, the author’s opinion. The author, Harry S. Rosenthal, is both an experienced attorney and parliamentarian. He has been a member of the Pennsylvania bar since 1974 in a private practice that specializes in non-profit organizations. He also has been a Professional Registered Parliamentarian since 1999 and has served as a member of the parliamentary research team for the Questions and Answers section of NAP’s National Parliamentarian. His opinion is certainly expert1 and, when he gives it, he delineates it as his own opinion. Most credentialed parliamentarians are not lawyers. They should not be evaluating case law, at least in regard to serving a client. They should not be attempting to determine if the citation is applicable or if it has been interpreted correctly. The reviewer is not an attorney and could not do so either. PLPNO will be of limited use to a non-lawyer parliamentarian. PLPNO, however, will probably be of greater use to an attorney who is not familiar with meeting procedure, not overly familiar with non-profit law in the area where he is practicing, or both. The copious citations serve as a basis for a starting point of research. The value that PLPNO has to a parliamentarian is the references to the various parliamentary authorities. It does provide well-footnoted

references. Generally, the citations are correct, and the author correctly places them in context. The reviewer noted two exceptions, one troubling, where PLPNO, is at variance with these authorities without explanation or citation. The author states that the presiding officer selects a parliamentarian “[a]s a matter of courtesy.” He goes on to opine, clearly stated as his personal opinion, that the assembly should elect the parliamentarian. Most of the manuals he cites, including RONR, very clearly grant the chair sole authority to select (though not pay with organizational funds) a parliamentarian2. It is clearly a rule, not a “courtesy,” and would, in the reviewer’s opinion, require a rule at the level of a special rule or higher to grant the assembly that authority. The reviewer would also question the propriety of the assembly in foisting a parliamentarian on an unwilling chair. The much more serious example is the claim that bylaws cannot be suspended, except when they provide for their own suspension. RONR clearly permits rules in the bylaws that are in the nature of rules of order to be suspended and does so repeatedly. There could be questions as to whether such a suspension would be considered valid in a court of law; those questions do not change that this rule is in RONR. The rule is not something new; it has existed since the 1915

edition of Robert.3 RONR is the most widely used parliamentary authority in the United States; the reviewer has seen many cases involving a rule of order embedded in the bylaws. It is troubling to see this omission. PLPNO, is ultimately “a starting point” and a good place to start if you are interested in non-profit meeting procedure. It is exceptionally useful for an attorney, for a researcher, and possibly as a supplemental text for pre-law or even law school courses. Just due to the nature of the subject, it will have much less usefulness to a non-attorney parliamentarian, within the course of professional life. ENDNOTES 1 Mr. Rosenthal’s JD is from the Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law. He also has a Master of Science degree from Drexel University. He has contributed nine articles to National Parliamentarian and one to Parliamentary Journal and is an active presenter at meetings of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians. He is currently tied as the PRP with the longest continuous service in Pennsylvania. 2 Of all the manuals cited, only Demeter permits, as an option, that the assembly choose the parliamentarian. Cannon is silent on the appointment method, though the implication is that the chair appoints the parliamentarian. 3 Robert’s Rules of Order Revised (1915), p. 85

Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP, is the editor of the Parliamentary Journal, published by the American Institute of Parliamentarians, and the past president of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians, Inc. This article is part of an informal exchange of articles with the editor of the National Parliamentarian. www.parliamentarians.org

Robert’s 1923 Parliamentary Law to Fall into by Kim Goldsworthy, PRP, CP

Good news for parliamentarians. According to current U.S. copyright law, books published in 1923 lose their copyright protection and fall into the public domain as of January 1, 2019.1 What does this imply for the average parliamentarian? Two books by deceased U.S. Army General Henry Martyn Robert, namely, Parliamentary Law (published in 1923), and Parliamentary Practice (published in 1921, and already in the public domain) may be photocopied, or quoted extensively, without violating U.S. copyright law. The U.S. copyright law has a quirky cut-off year, namely 1923, where the calculations for works published in 1923 (and later) are different from works published in 1922 (and earlier). Thus, Robert’s 1921 work (Parliamentary Practice) has been in the public domain for years. But books, films, etc., published in 1923 and later have many built-in “if ” and “but” conditions that do not make the calculation of public domain so easy. In fact, it is possible that Parliamentary Law has already fallen in the public domain if the author’s estate did not renew the copyright in a timely manner to extend protection for a second, and final, set of 28 years. 18

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

If they did renew the copyright, then 2019 is the accurate year for the lapse into the public domain. If they did not renew the copyright, then the work is already in the public domain. In case you were wondering about the corresponding companion book, the latest public domain edition of Robert’s Rules of Order would be the 1915 fourth edition—Robert’s Rules of Order Revised (R.O.R.). This book has been readily available for download from several organizations for many years. You can even buy a hard copy in a bookstore, royalty free.

* * * For those readers who are not familiar with the older supplemental books by General Robert, let me say that, in my opinion, Parliamentary Law is a wonderful resource for two reasons: a. The question-and-answer section in the back half of the book is historically interesting because the answers come directly from Henry Martyn Robert.

b. The Q-and-A section asks questions that the then-current edition (the 1915 fourth edition) did not answer, and thus the Q-and-A section serves as a kind of appendix or extended commentary on the fourth edition. Personal note: I have pencil markings in my hardbound copy of Parliamentary Law where I highlight interesting— or curious—answers by General Robert. I remember that long ago, when I read the Q-and-A section for the first time, I thought to myself, “Wow! This is the equivalent of a master class in Robert’s Rules of Order!” Let’s look at a few citations from the Q-and-A section. One of my favorite Q-and-A items is the answer to question 190 where General Robert shows a sense of humor and says that “[...] it is not necessary to have a rule prohibiting a member from throwing a brick at the presiding officer.” Here is the full text of Question #190:

* * * 190. Ques. When several members are nominated for the same office as for secretary, and the election is to be by voice, if the first one nominated is not elected and the second name is to be voted on, may any members who voted for the first one (the defeated one) vote for the second one?

Ans. The same question arises in filling blanks. Each question is distinct, and every member has a right to vote on each nominee until one is elected, just as he may vote on each proposition for filling a blank until one is decided on. Laws are usually made to restrain the individual, or to give him some privilege of which existing laws deprive him. Therefore, in the absence of a by-law or rule of order prohibiting a nominating committee from nominating its own members, or prohibiting a member from voting on each nominee for office until one is elected, you know that those practices are not prohibited, unless they are so clearly wrong as not to require any rules, which is not the case in the above instances. Thus it is not necessary to have a rule prohibiting a member from throwing a brick at the presiding officer, but it is necessary to have a rule prohibiting a member from speaking discourteously to him, or from charging improper motives to a member in debate. The first is out of order without any rule, but there may be doubt as to the other two. By keeping in mind this general principle, most questions of the nature of the one mentioned can be answered.

* * * One important Q-and-A is where General Robert distinguishes between “to elect” and “to appoint.”—Very succinct. Here is the text of Question #317: www.parliamentarians.org

* * * 317. Ques. Does appoint ever mean the same as elect? Ans. Appoint includes elect. Thus, one who is elected may be said to be appointed to an office. But one who is appointed to an office by the president cannot be said to have been elected to the office.

* * * The most interesting question answered by General Robert might be the one where a three-fourths vote of the entire membership is impossible to achieve in person, yet the organization needs to amend its bylaws. What solution would you have given this organization, if you had been its parliamentarian? Here is the text of Question #107:

* * * 107. Ques. The bylaws of a society provide that they may be amended by a three-fourths vote of the entire membership, notice having been given at the previous regular meeting. These by-laws were adopted when the society was very small. Since that time it has grown to more than 600 members. It is a necessity that the by-laws be amended to meet the requirements of such a large organization. Repeated attempts have been made for two years to amend them, but it is impossible to get an attendance of three fourths of the entire membership. What can be done about it? 20

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

Ans. Since the society has adopted a provision for amendment in its by-laws that is impracticable to carry out, the only thing that can be done is to change that provision to a reasonable one, complying, in making the change, with the spirit of the existing by-laws as nearly as possible. The makers of the by-laws did not foresee that the time would come when it would be impracticable to secure the attendance of three fourths of the membership at a meeting. If notice of the amendment of this by-law is given as required by the by-laws, and it is adopted by a three fourths vote of the members present, and then a mail vote is taken on the adoption of the amendment as described in R.O.R., pp. 199, 200, and three fourths of the votes cast are in favor of the amendment, the amendment is adopted by a method as nearly in the spirit of the by-laws as is practicable. While voting by mail is not allowed by R.O.R. unless it is provided for in the by-laws, yet this rule must be broken in order to comply with the spirit of an unwise by-law. In R.O.R., p. 270, the committee on by-laws is warned against similar provisions in by-laws. [See Ques. 105.]

* * * I like the answer below because Robert uses the feminine pronoun “she.” Back in his school days (Robert was born in 1837), the proper American English grammatical rule

was to always use the masculine pronoun “he” in the generic or neuter case. Was our Mr. Robert a progressive thinker in 1923? Note how important an emphasis Robert puts on the psychological/political factors in the act of nominating oneself. Here is the text of Question #147:

* * * 147. Ques. Has a member of a society the right to nominate herself for an office? Ans. Yes, she has the right, but it is scarcely conceivable that one should commit such an indelicate act. It implies that she has not one friend who is willing to nominate

her, and lessens her chances of election.

* * * In closing, let me encourage the reader to buy a hardcopy copy of 1923’s Parliamentary Law from your parliamentary bookstore so you may read the question-and-answer section for yourself, mark it up with your own handwritten marginal notes, and gain a deeper insight into parliamentary law in the coming years. For those on a budget, wait until January 1, 2019, and download the text Parliamentary Law to your computer from those organizations that keep public domain documents online.

Footnotes 1 “Because of legislation passed in 1998, no new works will fall into the public domain until 2019, when works published in 1923 will expire. In 2020, works published in 1924 will expire, and so on.” Stanford University Libraries. n.d. “Welcome to the Public Domain.” Accessed March 18, 2018. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/

Kim Goldsworthy, PRP, CP, has spoken to many local service clubs throughout Los Angeles County which he calls home (Rosemead). Since 1986, he has lectured to over 200 organizations on the history of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as on Parliamentary Procedure. He is a prolific writer on parliamentary matters. www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

Questions Answers The intent of this column is to provide general answers or advice (not formal, official opinions) about the questions asked. The answers are based on the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, unless otherwise indicated, and do not take into account such governing authorities as statutes, bylaws, adopted special rules of order, other parliamentary authorities, or earlier editions, except as specifically mentioned. Questions should be mailed to NP Q&A Editor, 213 South Main Street, Independence, MO 64060, or emailed to npeditor@nap2.org. In responses to questions, the following abbreviations are used: RONR

Henry M. Robert et al., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed. 2011)

Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Law (1923)

Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Practice (1921)

Q&AII

NAP Questions & Answers II (1970)

Q&AIII NAP Questions & Answers III (1997) Q&AIV NAP Questions & Answers IV (2010) AIPSC

American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (2012)

Demeter George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure (Blue Book ed. 1969) Keesey

Ray E. Keesey, Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed. 2018)

Mason

Paul Mason, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure (2010 ed.)

Riddick Floyd M. Riddick & Miriam M. Butcher, Riddick’s Rules of Procedure (1985) POI

AIP Parliamentary Opinions (1982)

POII

AIP Parliamentary Opinions II (1992)

POIII

AIP Parliamentary Opinions III (2008) (electronic only)

Citations to earlier versions of Henry M. Robert’s rules of order are abbreviated as follows:

Editions 1-3, Robert’s Rules of Order

ROR

Editions 4-6, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

Test Yourself

Questions Answers

continued

Question 63: Our bylaws were revised a few years ago, changing the composition of the board and reducing its size to 11 members. One aspect that was retained from the old bylaws was that all past presidents serve on the board for so long as they remain dues-paying members. The board now consists of 8 past presidents and three directors elected by the members and the latter number will decrease each year, as the number of living, dues payment past presidents increases. Soon the entire board will be made up of past presidents with no members elected by the membership! After that, the two bylaw provisions (the 11-member board and the presence of all past presidents on the board) will be in conflict. Could the membership adopt an amendment to the bylaws specifying that only the immediate past president serves on the board and that other past presidents may not serve on the board for a period of years after their term on the board as immediate past president has expired? Would that eliminate all the other past presidents from the board, and prevent them from serving for a specific time as elected directors? Answer: Yes. Under the current bylaws, the past presidents are ex-officio members of the board, and not elected members. See RONR, p. 484. They hold the office because they were once a president, not because they were elected to the office of past president. Under the current bylaws, they cannot even resign from their ex officio role so long as they continue to pay dues. Therefore, even if past presidents do not wish to serve any longer and choose not to participate actively, they will continue to occupy seats on the board. By amending the bylaws to state that only the immediate past president serves on the board, the other past presidents would have no formal role on the board. There can be only one immediate past president at a time. Of course, there could be other creative solutions to reduce the role of past presidents without reducing their representation to only the immediate past president, such as capping elected directors at a particular number, such as 10, and allowing a limited number of past presidents to serve on the board as supernumerary (such as all past presidents who completed their terms within the past five years who wish to serve on the board). In regard to the question, without some other prohibition, past presidents can serve on the board as elected directors because they would have the same rights as any other members. The prohibition on serving on the board for a certain number of years after service as immediate past president would keep the remaining positions open so that new leadership could be groomed. In this case, the bylaws should be amended soon, because the current members are rapidly losing their voice on the board, and there will eventually be an www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

irreconcilable internal conflict in the bylaws. Obviously, this situation was not foreseen when the bylaws were amended. As with any situation when the immediate past president is given an ongoing role under the bylaws, the term should be defined so that only an immediate past president who completed his or her term may fill the position, and provision should be made for situations when there is no immediate past president meeting the terms of that definition. George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law & Procedure (blue book ed. 1969), p. 258.

Question 64: I am a member of an organization with national, state, and chapter levels. Our national bylaws establish specific requirements to qualify for membership. The criteria do not allow for discretion. If they are met, the applicant must be granted membership and automatically becomes a member at all applicable levels (state and chapter levels only if the state is organized, and there is a chapter in the new member’s area). If there is a local chapter, the new member is supposed to apply through the chapter. The decision-makers at the national level have adopted an approval process that requires the prospective members and the local chapters through which they apply to submit information that exceeds the scope of the requirements established in the bylaws. Complying with the additional information requests causes the prospective members and the local chapters to incur extraordinary costs in time and money. Moreover, the national organization has rejected membership applications based on this additional information when an applicant otherwise meets all the criteria for membership that are established in the bylaws. The national officers have rejected our chapter’s request to limit the common application to those questions necessary to establish that an applicant meets the criteria established in the bylaws. Their rationale is that, because the membership application must be approved at the national level, they can add whatever requirements they deem reasonable. How do we challenge the use by the national of these additional requirements to deny membership to otherwise qualified applicants? Answer: It can be frustrating at best, and destructive at worst, when a board or committee makes its own rules that directly conflict with bylaws. Dealing with the problems that ensue from this kind of leadership behavior can involve as little as a well-written letter, but, could go so far as to require resorting to the courts. Ideally, the parliamentary law process will bring the errant decision-makers to a realization that they are exceeding their authority, and that the decision to admit must be based solely on the criteria that were decided by the members when they adopted the current bylaws.

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

You ask how you can challenge the denial of membership of qualified applicants when the denial is based on superfluous criteria inserted by the team that makes member approval decisions. The answer becomes evident through the correlation of the rules covering (1) the status of bylaws as an instrument through which the general membership governs the organization while being relieved of detailed concern with the societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s business, RONR p. 566; (2) the principle that when a bylaw is clear and unambiguous, not even a majority vote of the membership (much less a small group of elected or appointed officials) can change the bylawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s standing as the law of the organization. RONR p. 588; and (3) disciplinary action for offenses elsewhere than in a meeting. RONR p. 649. The first step in challenging the denial is by direct correspondence addressed to the national president stating that the proposed member is qualified according to the bylaws, and that although it might be permissible to gather information about the applicants that is unrelated to membership, that membership may not be denied to the otherwise qualified applicant who fails to provide the additional information requested, or whose responses are not as desired. Should that correspondence be ignored (or even answered with a defense of the actions of the decision-makers), additional correspondence might be sent describing the action that could be brought to censure or remove the offending decision-makers from office or from the positions they hold from which they act to impede the proper approval of qualified applicants. Should that step not produce the desired result, the next step would be to bring the issue to the attention of the membership when it next assembles. That could be done by moving the adoption of a resolution to grant admission to the qualified applicants who had been denied admission, or, if that authority does not lie directly with the members under the bylaws, to recommend appropriate action to the membership decision-makers. Debate might include mention of the proper role of the decision-makers. As well-intended as these decision makers might be, they are, in fact, acting outside the scope of their legitimate authority by refusing to approve the qualified applicants for membership. If their actions go beyond good intentions, and they insist that they know better than the membership despite the plain language in the bylaws, a resolution of censure might be the more appropriate offering. If the steps mentioned above fail, then it would be prudent to ask the membership to remove the offending appointees by bringing charges against them using the disciplinary process established in Chapter XX of RONR covering offenses outside a meeting. www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

Alternatively, the members could choose to approve a bylaw amendment to change the qualifications for membership, because that, in fact, is what the membership will be saying by refusing to enforce its current bylaws as written. For example, a member could propose additional membership requirements that conform to the requirements the current decision-makers are imposing. Or, one might propose bylaw amendments to allow the national membership committee discretion as to who can be admitted as a member. Should the attempts of the membership to rein in the decision-makers’ willful failure to abide by the bylaws not be successful through the disciplinary process, then all that remains is to bring suit against the leadership to obtain a court order directing the leadership to grant certificates of membership to applicants qualified according to the bylaws. One would hope that the president would respond favorably at the first step and instruct the decision-makers to approve all applicants who meet the qualifications provided in the bylaws.

Question 65: Our association was formed in 1980. The 1980 bylaws require that any amendment be adopted by a two-thirds vote at a membership meeting. No significant changes were made to the bylaws until 2010 when the executive board adopted revised bylaws. No membership vote was ever held, but the board implemented the revised bylaws immediately, and the revision remained in effect until challenged at a meeting in 2017. Which bylaws should we be using: 1980 or 2010? Answer: Your 1980 bylaws, with any incremental amendments approved by the members through 2010, remain in effect, and those are the bylaws you should be using. RONR specifies on page 570, “a revision of bylaws is adopted by the vote required to amend the existing ones, rather than by a majority vote as in the case of bylaws that bring a society into being.” Because no membership vote was held on the 2010 bylaw revision, the organization must return to the 1980 bylaws once the error has been brought to its attention. The board’s purported revision of the bylaws without the approval of the members is a breach of the rules. Under RONR, it is a breach that is subject to a point of order at any time, because it is a breach of a continuing nature: “The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when… (a) [action has been taken] that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly, … or (e) any action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees….” RONR, p. 251. Because the board unilaterally adopted the purported revision in its own meeting, no member aside from the board members could challenge the revision at the board meeting when it was adopted. The earliest time that a member could have raised a point of order challenging the board’s action was during the first membership meeting after the board meeting where the purported revision was adopted. Although several years have passed, a significant number of members remain who joined under the pre-2010 bylaws and who have a right to participate in a legitimate bylaw revision decision. The nullification of the revision itself would not nullify actions of the board or the membership taken under the 2010 bylaws before the 2010 bylaws were challenged. That is because the members acquiesced in any such action taken during the continuation of the breach (from 2010 to 2017); although any member could have raised a point of order at a meeting. That is not to say that consequences of that acquiescence don’t exist. For example, new elections would be necessary if the board makeup was changed by the 2010 revision. Although the ramifications of the nullification of the revision could be extensive, they could be ameliorated by action of the members to adopt the revision by the same notice and vote required under the 1980 bylaws for a bylaw amendment. It should be noted that some state corporation laws do permit an association’s board of directors to make unilateral amendments to the bylaws unless prohibited in the bylaws or the articles of incorporation. Legal counsel should be sought if that might be the case. Questions & Answers Research Team

Michael Malamut, PRP, Q&A Research Editor

C. Alan Jennings, PRP, James H. Stewart, PRP, Assistant NAP Parliamentarian Q&A Research Editor Advisor: John Stackpole, RP

Helen McFadden, PRP, Parliamentary Consultant

www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Vocabulary Builder

Use the underlined letters and the definition to complete the word, and then write the answer in the blank provided. EXAMPLE: men

A motion used to change the wording of another motion.

amend ____________________

1. tut

As distinguished from bylaws, the governing document of the parent organization which all subordinate organizations must follow.

____________________

2. red

A document which shows that a person is authorized to be a delegate or representative.

____________________

3. rum

To conduct oneself in a proper manner.

____________________

4. iso

A statement attached to bylaws, but not part of them, that prescribes certain temporary rules for their implementation.

____________________

5. con

An amendment applied to a primary amendment.

____________________

6. lur vote

A vote of one or more than the number received by any other candidate or issue in a group of three or more.

____________________

7. tain the floor

The process of obtaining formal recognition from the presiding officer to speak or offer a motion.

____________________

National Parliamentarian â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 2018

Test Yourself

Vocabulary Builder continued

8. end

The sequence of items for a meeting based on the organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Order of Business.

____________________

9. ote

A formal expression of the will, opinion, or preference of the members of the assembly in regard to a matter submitted to it.

____________________

10. ding

The speaker giving up his/her ____________________ time by sitting in order that another may speak.

11. tee vote

A vote that is cast other than at the specified time or place.

____________________

12. ain

To publicly refrain from voting.

____________________

13. tai

To uphold a ruling by the chair.

____________________

14. and committees Permanent committees which should all be named in the bylaws. 15. ven

____________________

An assembly of delegates ____________________ usually chosen for one session. Answers on page 30 Shane D. Dunbar, MEd, PRP, PAP, has conducted over 540 parliamentary procedure workshops nationwide. He has over 16 copyrights dealing with parliamentary procedure instructional materials (including 15 vocabulary builder worksheets) that can be reviewed on www.northwest.net/parli-pro. www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

Answer Key

Vocabulary Builder from page 29

1. Constitution 2. Credentials 3. Decorum 4. Proviso 5. Secondary

11. Absentee 12. Abstain 13. Sustain 14. Standing 15. Convention

6. Plurality 7. Obtaining 8. Agenda 9. Vote 10. Yielding

NAP Connections

Call for NAP Bylaws Amendments Pursuant to Article XVI, Section 1A2 of the NAP Bylaws, anyone (other than the Bylaws Committee) wishing to propose amendments to the NAP Bylaws must submit the proposed amendments to the Bylaws Committee no later than February 1 of the convention year (February 1, 2019, for amendments to be considered at the 2019 convention). As provided in Article XVI, Section 1A1, proposed amendments may be submitted by the Bylaws Committee, the NAP Board of Directors, a standing or special committee, a district conference, two associations or their boards of directors, three units, or at least ten NAP members-at-large. When submitting amendments, please use proper RONR terminology and format, and include all applicable conforming amendments, the rationale, and identification of the submitter(s). This will be the only notice for bylaws amendments published in the NP. Ronald A. Avedisian, PRP NAP Bylaws Committee Chairman 30

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

Proposed amendments may be submitted any of three ways:

1 Preferably, by use of the

online form labeled “Submit an Amendment to the NAP Bylaws,” under the Documents page of the NAP website (http://www.parliamentarians. org/documents/submit-aproposed-amendment-to-thenap-governing-documents/);

2 By e-mail to the Bylaws

Committee Chairman at ronagarym@comcast.net; or

3 By postal mail to:

Ronald A. Avedisian, Chairman NAP Bylaws Committee 2672 E. Eclipse Ave. Fresno, CA 93720

NAP Connections

Report from the Board of Directors The Board of Directors of the National Association of Parliamentarians met on August 14, 2018. Via adobeconnect.com. • 500 members have been welcomed since January 1. An online exam for membership is now available. Partnership with the General Federation of Women’s Clubs and VFW have been a good source of new or potential new members. Partnerships continue to be cultivated with Jack and Jill of America and the PTA. • Two new units have been chartered: Marian J. Martin Blue and Gold E-Unit and the San Diego County Unit. The Brooklyn Unit is in the formation stage. • Guided Discovery Series study lessons for use by units and associations are being distributed through the Leadership Connection newsletter. The first set of three lessons was distributed in June. • Errata sheets for the RP Study Guide are being prepared following review. The errata sheets are being distributed with purchase of the guide. If you have previously purchased the book and would like the errata sheet, contact headquarters. • The Spotlight series of books have been updated and rebranded as Focus on Leadership. Books are now available for President, Secretary, Committees, Bylaws, and Meeting Management. • The Association Relations Subcommittee continues to offer webinars and listening sessions for association and unit leaders, in addition to offering a monthly Leadership Connection newsletter.

Members are always welcome to attend the quarterly online meetings. Log-in information can be found in the members-only section of the NAP website (www.parliamentarians.org)

www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

W anted :

Candidates for the 2019-2020 Board of Directors The 2019-2020 NAP Board of Directors will be elected during the convention in Las Vegas. All nominations are essentially self-nominations. The requirements for declaring your candidacy are stated in the campaign policy found in the NAP Operational Policies and Procedures Manual, which is available on the NAP website in the Documents section. Candidates must submit a consent-to-serve form to NAP HQ; this form is also available at www.parliamentarians.org/documents or by contacting HQ. Candidates who have declared their candidacy prior to convention can submit their information including a high-resolution photo and statement for publication in the 2019 Spring Issue of National Parliamentarian magazine. Since members have very little opportunity to learn about the candidates before the election, it is strongly encouraged for all those running to submit this information for publication. Statements are limited to 200 words and must be submitted to Ann Warner, npeditor@nap2.org, by February 1, 2019.

National Parliamentarian â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 2018

NAP Connections

NAP Officer Campaign Policy 7.1 .01 NAP’s Campaign Policy shall be:

A. Printed in the fourth quarter National Parliamentarian® of even-numbered years

B. Provided to any member upon request

C. Available on the NAP website in the members only section

7.1 .02 Under the NAP Campaign Policy, a candidate is defined as a member who has declared his or her candidacy for an office listed in Article V.1 of the NAP Bylaws by submitting a signed NAP Consent Form to Serve to headquarters prior to publication in the National Parliamentarian® or to the secretary within 30 minutes of closing of nominations. 7.1 .03 All election campaigns shall be conducted with professionalism as the fundamental guideline. This includes, but is not limited to, the following principles which apply to all members as well as, districts, associations, and units:

A. All campaigning shall be conducted in a spirit of fairness and honesty.

B. There shall be no personal attacks or impugning of any candidate’s character.

7.1 .04 Guidelines for distribution of candidate information:

A. NAP Headquarters shall not provide membership lists, event registrations, or delegate lists or labels for the purpose of campaigning.

B. No NAP funds or staff time, other than that set forth elsewhere in these guidelines, may be expended for the purpose of facilitating any campaign activities.

A photo and statement from each candidate shall be printed in the second quarter National Parliamentarian® in the election year. Any qualified candidate who submits his or her Consent to Serve form to NAP Headquarters by the submission deadline of the second quarter National Parliamentarian® (NP) may have a statement and picture published in that issue. The NP editor may establish format requirements for the submission. (See NAP Standing Rule 7.)

www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

2O18

NAPTraining Conference

September 7-9, 2018 • Buffalo, NY

Report from NTC Over 200 people attended the biennial National Training Conference in Buffalo, NY. In addition to reports from NAP officers about membership, strategic plans, and headquarters upgrades, attendees had their choice of 30 different workshops to attend. Workshops varied from beginner to experiences levels, so there was something for everyone. In addition to the workshops, Sunday morning featured presiding practice sessions. These sessions provided a safe space for people to practice the language and technique of presiding. The NTC was preceded by a Professional Qualifying Course for those seeking to become Professional Registered Parliamentarians. The NAP Educational Foundation hosted a Thursday tour to Niagara Falls. On Saturday evening there was a Canadian Wine Tasting Tour. Thanks to NTC Coordinator Rosemary Seghatoleslami, PRP, and her team: Vice-Coordinator Beverly Tatham, PRP; Workshop Coordinator Evan A. Lemoine, PRP, and; Associating Workshop Coordinator Kendra O’Toole. Photos of the NTC and other NAP events can be found at parliamentarians.smugmug.com. Photos are free to download. Thank you to Robert and Jeanette Williams who handle the photography at NAP events.

Members show their Ohio pride. L to R: unidentified, Barbara Whitaker, PRP; Robert Rosell, PRP; Mary Remson, PRP; Jackie Bunch

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

NAP Connections

Board members Larry Martin, PRP; Darlene Allen, PRP; Wanda Sims, PRP; Jim Jones, PRP; Joyce Brown-Watkins, PRP; Jim Stewart, PRP; Alison Wallis, PRP; and Kevin Connelly, PRP, model the new NAP-branded apparel available through the NAP store

Evan Lemoine, PRP, gives instructions on using the online Guidebook. The Guidebook, available on smartphone or computers provided schedule information about each of the workshops, links to handouts for workshops, and online evaluation forms to provide immediate feedback. Guidebook also featured a daily trivia contest and allowed participants to post photos and chat with each other.

NAP presented the Food Bank of Western New York with gifts cards and checks for over $600 and several bags of food, all donated by attendees to the NTC. L to R: unidentified, unidentified, Food bank; Rosemary Seghatoleslami, PRP; Jim Jones, PRP

www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

History Repeats Itself at NAP Irene O’Connor Navarre, PRP-R and James Jones, PRP, CPP-T, NAP President, April 13, 2018

National Parliamentarian, 1st Quarter, 1975, pp. 18-19

History has a serendipitous way of repeating itself. On April 13, 2018, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Jim Jones, PRP, CPT-T, president of the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP), presented the Trailblazer Award to Irene O’Connor Navarre, PRP-R, for her 49 years of dedicated service to and membership in NAP. In December 1974, Mrs. Norman, NAP president, traveled to Albuquerque for the express purpose of presenting Mrs. Navarre with registration certificate No. 1000. That makes two presidential presentations by NAP to Irene in Albuquerque, NM! Mrs. Navarre, who celebrated her 101st birthday in August 2018, joined NAP in 1969. She studied under Mrs. E. A. Holmes, the founding president 36

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

of the National Association of Parliamentarians. It was in 1974, when Irene successfully passed the registration exam, that she coincidentally became certificate holder No. 1000. Mrs. Navarre, a 1938 graduate of the University of Minnesota Dental Hygiene Program, has inspired and encouraged many to study and use parliamentary procedure within their organizations. Some of her accomplishments include serving as president and speaker of the house for the American Dental Hygienists’ Association, parliamentarian for her sorority, Chi Omega, and the Philanthropic Educational Organization (P.E.O.) During her

NAP Connections

term as president of the New Mexico State Association of Parliamentarians (NMSAP), New Mexico hosted the NAP convention in 1977 in Albuquerque. NAP had planned to make a formal presentation to whoever received certificate No. 1000. It was a red-carpet event in Albuquerque with news media, photos and a dinner hosted by the Albuquerque Parliamentarian Unit for Mrs. Norman. Also in attendance were District 7 Trustee Mrs. Herweg, and many distinguished guests. The recent presentation on April 13 was equally as momentous, as parliamentary friends and President

Jones gathered at a reception hosted by NMSAP to honor Mrs. Navarre, an inspiration to us all. She delighted everyone with stories and memorabilia of past events and people. Congratulations and many thanks to Mrs. Navarre for her pioneering contributions to the advancement of the National Association of Parliamentarians and her service as a role model and mentor to many. (Editor’s note: Decades ago it was common to refer to women with her husband’s name or initials. While their accomplishments are remembered, sadly the first names of many of these distinguished women have been lost to us.)

Authors Barbara Posler, RDH, RP, and Valoree Althoff, RDH, MHA, PRP, NMSAP President are both dental hygienists and parliamentarian protégés of Irene O’Connor Navarre.

N A P M ember E lected S peaker of the H ouse

Roger Hanshaw, PRP, has been elected as Speaker of the House of Delegates for the state of West Virginia. Hanshaw was first elected to the House in 2014. He is a lawyer specializing in environmental and regulatory compliance matters. Congratulations Roger! Photo from MetroNews www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

by Dr. Leonard M. Young, PRP

NAP has a long history. Way back in the 1920s, Mrs. Emma Lard Longan, a suffragette and early teacher of parliamentary law in Kansas City, had a dream that a national association be formed by bringing together parliamentarians from around the nation. She passed that dream on to her son Dr. Silas W. Longan, who brought it to fruition in June 1930 by gathering a small group of parliamentarians in Kansas City and formally establishing the National Association of Parliamentarians. Dr. Longan shared his hopes and dreams for the association at its first convention in October 1939. They are echoed in NAP’s mission and vision today. He urged each parliamentarian there to take future challenges seriously. “For it is in the future that we are called to build our association,” he said. “Let us build our legacy so that future generations will be blessed because of the work we have done.” NAP grew from a small association headquartered in someone’s basement to a 3,500-plus strong association serving members around the world from its current home in historic Independence Missouri, which it purchased in 1994. A lot has changed since then but our physical structure hasn’t. 38

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

After owning the office building for 24 years, it is now time for NAP to refurbish the building and make it more useful now and for future staff expansion. Today we stand half-way toward our future; if we stop now, it would be tantamount to building a bridge to nowhere. We need a shot in the arm to move us forward. NAP needs to look beyond the solely member-driven organization that we are today. This will require a headquarters that can support operational efficiency and collaborative engagement and increased staff. That’s why the NAP Board of Directors has launched the “Bridge to the Future: Building Our Legacy Campaign”

NAP Connections

The Building Our Legacy campaign has two objectives: • Bring the headquarters offices into the 21st century with accessible facilities and greater ability to collaborate and accommodate increased staff • Establish a perpetual building fund to support headquarters facilities into the future We all need to help our association reach for its future. This can be done by purchasing beautiful, engraved porcelain tiles that will form the NAP Honor Wall in the remodeled headquarters. You can purchase as many tiles as you like. Honor your mentors, a past officer, your unit or association, your family—the possibilities are endless. The tiles

range between $125 and $365, depending on size. Those individuals and state and provincial associations that step up that support to $4,000 will receive special recognition as “Sustainers.” Donations of $8,000 will give them naming rights of the different areas in HQ and recognition as “Builders.”

Please help us continue to build the bridge that our founder, Dr. Longan, and the founding members began in the 1930s so that we can realize the future he envisioned for us in 1939.

Read the full text of Dr. Logan’s motivational address and learn more about this important campaign at www.parliamentarians.org/future If you’re ready to purchase your tile, go directly to www.polarengraving.com/ thenationalassociationofparliamentarians

Dr. Leonard Young, PRP, is a long-time professional parliamentarian and champion of the use of parliamentary procedure for more effective meetings. He served NAP as president from 1999-2001 and later as executive director (2010-2012). www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

Indiana State Association of Parliamentarians Celebrates 75th Anniversary

Seated L-R: Evelyn Lees, James Jones, PRP, President, NAP; Eva Board, RP, President, Indiana State Association of Parliamentarians; Sadie Boles. RP, President, Illinois Association of Parliamentarians. Standing L-R: Verna Washington; Deborah Underwood, District 4 Newsletter Editor; Hazel Clark, ISAP Secretary; Marylou Bernard, ISAP Asst. Secretary; Edward L. Frazier, RP, ISAP Treasurer; Debra Cooper, ISAP Vice-President; Curtis Guynn, ISAP Parliamentarian; Elizabeth Frazier

Indiana was the first state to have an association of parliamentarians organized. It was organized May 8, 1943, by Mrs. Walter H. Vinzant, PRP, the first president of the Indiana State Association of Parliamentarians and the 10th president of NAP. The Indiana State Association was the first parliamentary association to become affiliated with the National Association of Parliamentarians on October 27, 1943. On May 5, 2018, the Indiana State Association of Parliamentarians celebrated its 75th Anniversary in Indianapolis, Indiana at its annual convention. The Honorable Vop Osili, president of the Indianapolis CityCounty Council, spoke on “The Role of a Parliamentarians in a legislative body like the City-County Council.” NAP President James Jones reviewed the legacy of the Indiana State 40

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2018

Association of Parliamentarians and presented a certificate honoring ISAP during the 75th Anniversary. Edward L. Frazier, RP, presented a workshop “Most Frequently Used Motions in Meetings.” The convention ended with a tribute to Mrs. Vinzant, our founder as a teacher, lecturer, columnist on parliamentary law and parliamentarian. Her tapes and newspaper articles were exhibited. Pointers on Parliamentary Procedure, originally produced by ISAP member and the 26th NAP president, Louise Bereskin, was on exhibit. An updated version of the book is still available in the NAP store. (Editor’s note: Decades ago it was common to refer to women with her husband’s name or initials. While their accomplishments are remembered, sadly the first names of many of these distinguished women have been lost to us.)

NAP Connections

Get ready to rock and roll 42nd Biennial Convention September 5-8, 2019 Westgate Las Vegas Hotel

Start planning today!

www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

N E W R E G I S T E R E D PA R L I A M E N TA R I A N S *

NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Theljewa Garrett (PA)

Henry Carlos Lawton (FL)

Kathryn Hammer (CO)

Kyle Robert McMillan (AB)

Cindy Hinckley (TX)

Jodie Sanders (TX)

Isatu Kanu (NY)

S i lent G avel *

NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Carol Noack (TX)

Kathryn L. Lives (OH)

June R. Brown (MD)

Doug Trouten (MN)

N ew M embers *

NP welcomes the following individuals as new members:

Carol L. Anderson (NEAP)

Renier Diaz de la Portilla (FL)

Roberta Berry (DC)

Latrice Shadd Francis (LA)

Bennyfer Bridgewater (TX)

Jolie R. Frankfurth (FL)

Pamela Briggs (OR)

Gloria A. Fuller (MD)

Antwann Brown (NY)

Glen D. Hall (TX)

David Bukala (MI)

Judine B. Heard (GA)

Sean Carswell (NY)

Margaret B. Hebert (LA)

Jonathon Eric Cihlar (CO)

Rebecca Hopkins (IL)

Jolene Constance (LA)

Kathleen A. Huggins (NE)

Laura Gail Curtis (NC)

Sonya Johnson (GA)

Waverly DeBraux (DE)

Dana L Jones (IN)

National Parliamentarian â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 2018

NAP Connections

N ew M embers

( cont i nued )

Calandra Rochelle Jones-Howard (MS) Marquitta Necole Joyce (VA)

Karen-Marie Wasik (MD) Madison Watson (OK) Amy Whitfield (NC)

Victoria Juste (NY)

Leann Williams (FL)

Nancy Keipe Fody (MI)

Sharon L. Williams-Jackson (DC)

Sharon Denise Kelly-Person (MI)

Robert John Zawadzki (MI)

Kimberly A. Kerekes (NEAP)

Chunyan Zhang (China)

Rena V. Labat (LA) Beverly W. Lassiter (NC) Patricia J. Lewis (ELEC) Kathleen Lewis (MI) Yun Li (China) Joanne Louis (GA) Monica R. Oden (LA) Nikolas J Osorio (CA)

Thank You to Our Instructors A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Fei He Kay Crews, PRP Reba R. Hollingswsorth Lucy Anderson, PRP Shirley Gomes, RP

Joseph S. Person (MI)

Jim Jones, PRP

Kathleen Robey (NEAP)

Carol Davis, PRP

Shanda Ross (GA)

Cyd Cox

Catherine A. Ryan (LA)

Alison Wallis, PRP

Karla Gilchrist Saunders (DC)

Mary Q. Grant, PRP

Justin Schmid (BC)

Barbara J. Davis, PRP

Suzanne R. Simons (LA)

Jewel Johnson Jones, PRP

Marleen Y. Thompson (LA)

Joan Prue, RP

K.E. Walcott (NY)

Robert Robinson, RP

* For the period June 15, 2018 thru August 30, 2018 www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

National Association of Parliame ntarians Membe rship At a Gl ance

National Parliamentarian â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 2018

NAP Business Accessories In addition to the many excellent parliamentary resources and tools, NAP offers accessories that allow you to display your pride as a parliamentarian and a member of NAP. NAP 7-Ring Binder The perfect size for your copy of RONR or RONR in Brief; zippered, 8.5 in x 10.5 in Binder only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $40 ($45 nonmember) With RONR 11th edition & tabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $69 ($75 nonmember) With RONR In Brief 2nd edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $47 ($54 nonmember)

Tech-Friendly Padfolio Zippered 8.5 in x 10.5 in padfolio has a small notepad plus pockets for your tablet, smartphone, 2 USB drives, and business cards . . . . . . . . . . . . $18 ($24 nonmember)

Insulated Travel Mug

Business Bag/Organizer

We also Metallic blue stainless-steel, 16 oz. travel mug with ave $25 gift h plastic liner lets you take your beverage of choice s. te rtifica ce on the road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15 ($20 nonmember) s. il Call for deta Style meets function with this sturdy brief bag. It features a front zippered pocket and mesh pockets on either side for water bottle, cell phone, etc. It is large enough to hold a 17 inch laptop and has a detachable, adjustable shoulder strap. You can carry your laptop, tablet, and RONR binder in this navy brief bag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10 ($15 nonmember)

Order yours today at www.parliamentarians.org/store

816.833.3892 www.parliamentarians.org

National

Parliamentarian

Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 S. Main Street Independence, MO 64050-3808 816.833.3892 • 888.627.2929 hq@nap2.org • www.parliamentarians.org