NP
Volume 80, No. 2 | Winter 2019
National Parliamentarian
Progress Through Partnership
Calling and Pointing page 5 RONR vs. The Real World page 17
Training for the Future page 31
Get ready to rock and roll 42nd Biennial Convention September 5-8, 2019 Westgate Las Vegas Hotel
Start planning today!
NP
National Parliamentarian
Volume 80, No. 2 | Winter 2019
Contents 2017-2019 NAP Officers
From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message
President James N. Jones, PRP
Realizing Our Potential Through Partnerships . . . . . . . . . 3
Vice-President Darlene T. Allen, PRP
Features
Secretary Kevin R. Connelly, PRP
Member or Outside Parliamentarian? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Treasurer Wanda M. Sims, PRP
RONR vs. The Real World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Directors-at-Large Joyce Brown-Watkins, PRP Ann Rempel, PRP Alison Wallis, PRP
DEPARTMENTS
District Director Representatives Roger Hanshaw, PRP Larry Martin, PRP
Answer Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Parliamentarian James Stewart, PRP
Letter to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh
Report from the Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Calling & Pointing: Common Traps and Pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Robert Does Not Recycle Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Test Yourself Parliamentary Procedure Vocabulary Builder . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
NAP Connections Education Resources Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Training for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Sandy Olson Honored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Membership Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
NAP’s Vision: To provide parliamentary leadership to the world
New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . 35 Silent Gavel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Remembering NAP Honorary President Henry M. Robert III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 www.parliamentarians.org
1
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. 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 ©2019 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
By the time you get this, spring will be on the way. Organization presidents who were elected last year will be running their first annual meetings. Groups will be looking for parliamentarians to help: should they use a knowledgeable member or hire an outsider? Presiding officers will have to figure out to deal with that motion that the group can never seem to get rid of. Who gets to speak? What kinds of questions are appropriate? When can you consider a motion again? The articles in this issue provide great information for experienced and new parliamentarians. They have information which will allow you to better serve your organizations and your presiding officers. Enjoy. Ann Iona Warner 2 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
President’s Message
Realizing Our Potential Through Partnerships The National Association of Parliamentarians is making tremendous strides in meeting its core goals for this term. This success is creating new prospects for the growth of our organization. Some of this success is consistent with the old adage that two brains are better than one. No one succeeds in a silo. As in life, the biggest sources of opportunity come by working with others. Through strong collaborations and partnerships, we increase our own potential. We perform our mission better when we help others perform their missions better. Fortunately, today with advances in communication modes and online learning tools, more of these cooperative opportunities are available to NAP than ever before. The idea of cross-organization partnerships holds much promise for NAP. Through partnerships we contribute our part to the betterment of other groups and also reap benefits for NAP. Through these collaborations, we expand the reach of NAP’s learning program and circulate parliamentary knowledge far beyond our own individual capacity. We add depth and breadth to our community impact and our important mission. Parliamentarians are in the business of influence. We don’t make rulings. We give advice helping chairmen to make better decisions. We help others do what they do better. So, if we’re going to be in partnership with anybody, we want it to be with groups who have amazing missions and impact our society in a positive way. Such partnerships increase both NAP’s visibility and the breadth of NAP’s influence as we grow with our partners. Whether it is by conducting in-person or virtual courses tailored to their particular needs, developing nationwide governance programs with some of the best law schools across the country, or creating mechanisms for better board development, we join forces with these national organizations not just to obtain new members or customers for NAP but in order to assist them in growing their capacity for good governance and better meetings. With stronger collaborations and partnerships, NAP derives better outcomes for partner organizations, local communities, unit teachers, and other constituencies that benefit from our knowledge. www.parliamentarians.org
3
A successful partnership program is based on some core principles: • That building a relationship helps the members of both organizations over the long haul; that they are not focused on a single transaction or immediate gain. • That the roles and expectations of the individual entities are well communicated, understood, and accepted. • That it always seeks win-win-win situations. The first “win” is always for the members. The second “win” is for the partners. The final “win” is for the greater good that the groups can achieve together. Strategic partnership is based on a shared set of values. NAP cannot be successful in touching the larger community that needs our services without collaboration and partnership with other organizations. That’s why we value the close relationships we are building with organizations like the National Parent Teachers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Jack and Jill of America, and Greater Federation of Women’s Clubs. These relationships add value to NAP’s efforts in so many ways. Naturally, we will pursue our goals on the strength of our own resources, skills, and enterprise. Yet we will be more successful when we do this in partnership with others. As I stated, no one succeeds in a silo. To survive and ultimately thrive NAP must effectively leverage collaborations and partnerships with those around us for the good of our members and to bring quality parliamentary education to the world. James “Jim” Jones PRP, CPP-T 44th NAP President, 2017-2019
4 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
Calling & Pointing Common Traps and Pitfalls
by William J. Puette, PhD, PRP, CP
“The larger the assembly, the more readily it will detect the slightest weakness in a presiding officer. Efforts to capitalize on any such failing may follow with sometimes disastrous results.” — Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th ed. (RONR), p. 454
It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to maintain order and enforce the rules, while at the same time assuring members a safe and respectful environment that encourages civil debate. Granting recognition to members who are entitled to the floor is a principal duty of the presiding officer under parliamentary law (RONR, p. 449). Woody Allen is quoted as saying, “time is nature’s way to keep everything from happening at once.” Likewise, the process of obtaining recognition from the presiding officer before speaking is intended to keep speeches from happening all at once. Recognition from the chair grants the member the exclusive right to be heard at that time. Exceptions to this requirement are permitted only in specific situations, such as seconding a motion, making a nomination from the floor, and rising to a question which is pressing and/or if urgency requires it. The right to speak without first being recognized is not the same as the right to move an interrupting motion that is in order when another has the floor as described in each motion’s standard descriptive characteristic 3. The current edition of RONR describes 86 motions. Only a select few may be made without the words “I move…” These exceptions imply extraordinary circumstances and include notably those that are made by “calling” for something or raising a “point” of something. Calling The word “call” is primarily used to describe official directions executed by a chair or secretary: calling the meeting to order, calling the roll, sending out the call of the meeting, etc. When used to describe the action of a member, the term “call” suggests a right or privilege of a single member to move or demand www.parliamentarians.org
5
Calling & Pointing
continued
something without a second, even when another member has the floor. Indeed, RONR allows members of the assembly the following four “calls,” which may be made when another has the floor and do not require a second (See tinted page 40): • Calling a member to order (RONR, pp. 45-46) • Call for the Orders of the Day (RONR, pp. 219-224) • Call for Division of the Assembly (RONR, pp, 280-282) • Call for separate vote(s) on one or more of a series of unrelated resolutions that have been offered by a single motion (RONR, pp. 110, 274-75), or on one or more of a series of amendments on which the chair has stated the question in gross (RONR, pp. 523, 535-36, 540) The common misapplication of the right to “call,” as it is understood above, is the accepted aberration, “calling the question,” which RONR allows, while at the same time making clear it is actually the subsidiary motion for the Previous Question which does require a second and is only in order after the maker has been recognized by the chair: “Calls of ‘Question!’ by members from their seats are not motions for the Previous Question and are disorderly if another member is speaking or seeking recognition.” RONR, p. 207. Pointing The term “point” is another word that, in the context of parliamentary procedure, can be misunderstood and improperly used. There are two contexts in which a member may properly raise a “point.” These are calling the chair’s attention to a breach of order, and making a request for information. RONR has clarified Point of Information by renaming it Request for Information (pp. 294-295). Though it may still be accepted if raised as a Point of Information, it is actually an incidental motion in the category of Requests and Inquiries. It is not, as the word “point” unfortunately suggests, an opportunity to introduce, inject or share information, no matter how invaluable the speaker believes it to be. The revelation of such information is reserved to debate, not for requests and inquiries. RONR, pp. 292-299. Since the process of asking a factual or procedural question and receiving a response is not generally counted as speaking in debate (RONR p. 389, ll. 6-7), the time limits on debate do not apply (see also RONR p. 396, ll. 20-22).1 Safeguards against abusing requests and inquiries sneaking into debate need to be enforced. First, the members asking the question may ask them only through the chair. Secondly, to avoid being considered as debate, questions and inquiries should not be rhetorical questions, thinly veiled opinions or commentary, or loaded insinuations or attacks on the character of other members. In other words, requests and inquiries must be held to the same standards of decorum applicable to debate. 6 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
Likewise, there is a difference between an inquiry and an inquisition. An inquiry is directed to the presiding officer, even if the question arises from a reporting officer, committee chair or other speaker. The chair may answer the question him or herself, or the chair may ask someone else to answer. Since it is possible that the chair or a respondent recognized by the chair will not know the answer to a Request for Information, it should be understood that neither the chair nor any other officer or member is required to provide an answer that fully satisfies the requestor. Indeed, after the member has asked a question or made an inquiry, that member no longer has recognition and is not automatically entitled to a follow-up question or questions in the manner of an inquisitor or prosecutor, except in the context of a disciplinary hearing. Similarly, a Question of Privilege (whether personal or of the assembly) is a request directed to and decided by the chair: “If a pressing situation is affecting a right or privilege of the assembly or of an individual member (for example, noise, inadequate ventilation, introduction of a confidential subject in the presence of guests, etc.), a member can Raise a Question of Privilege (19), which permits him to interrupt pending business to state an urgent request or motion. If the matter is not simple enough to be taken care of informally, the chair then makes a ruling as to whether it is admitted as a question of privilege and whether it requires consideration before the pending business is resumed.” RONR, p. 67, In RONR, there is no such thing as a “point of personal privilege.” Rather: When a member desires to make a request not covered by one of the four types explained above – as, for example, a request to address remarks or make a presentation while no motion is pending – he rises, addresses the chair, and, as soon as he catches the presiding officer’s attention, states his request. Although he does not have to wait for recognition and can make his request even though another member has been assigned the floor, he should never interrupt a member speaking unless sure that urgency justifies it. Generally, such matters are settled by unanimous consent or informally, but if there is an objection, a motion can be made to grant the request. If explanation is required, it can be requested or given, but this must not extend into debate. These requests should be treated so as to interrupt the proceedings as little as is consistent with the demands of justice. RONR, p. 299. There is a consequence of allowing a member who rises to a question of personal privilege to proceed without further explanation. It permits interruption of the proceedings, and the chair must determine whether the request is based on a pressing situation or if it is an unqualified demand to exercise a privilege that does not exist. Once such an unjustified privilege is permitted by the chair, other members quickly learn that they can stand and speak without recognition, www.parliamentarians.org
7
Calling & Pointing
continued
permission, or time limit whenever the mood strikes them. Note that RONR prohibits the requested interruption from extending to debate and requires that the interruptions be permitted “as little as is consistent with the demands of justice.” The phrase “demands of justice,” though undefined, appears to be a stringent test and a high bar, not met by unlimited expressions of personal feelings, the casting of aspersions, or discontent (what my Australian colleagues call “whinging”). Point of Order Though the presiding officer is primarily responsible for maintaining order and enforcing the rules, any member may interrupt the proceedings to raise a point of order when the member believes a rule of order or provisions of the organization’s Constitution and/or Bylaws is/are being violated. (RONR, p. 247) When that happens, the Chair must rule whether or not the Point of Order is well-taken. But a Point of Order itself is out of order if it is not being used to alert the Chair to a violation of the rules. RONR provides this important warning: “It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the privilege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business. Whenever the chair becomes convinced that one or more members are repeatedly using parliamentary forms for dilatory purposes, he should either not recognize these members or he should rule that such motions are out of order – but he should never adopt such a course merely to speed up business, and he should never permit his personal feelings to affect his judgment in such cases. If the chair only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker of the motion the benefit of the doubt. The chair should always be courteous and fair, but at the same time he should be firm in protecting the assembly from imposition.” (RONR, pp. 342-345) The power and responsibility of the presiding officer to maintain order and enforce the rules while at the same time assuring members a safe and respectful environment that encourages civil debate requires that interruptions be moved properly and not for dilatory purposes. Calling and pointing, as described above, must be seen as exceptions to the fundamental procedures of deliberation necessary for rational and civil discourse and decision-making. They are seeking to interrupt a speaker who has the floor or allow a member to speak without recognition. They are attempting to comment, advocate, or debate. The presiding officer must exercise due diligence to ensure that any exceptions or privileges are being used properly and only when there is an actual urgent and pressing need, consistent with the demands of justice. 1
Unless a speaker who has the floor yields to answer a member’s question, in which case the time consumed by the question is charged to the speaker (RONR p. 388, ll. 18-20).
8 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
Group Exercise Which of the follow interruptions should be ruled out of order? If so, how could the speaker have made the motion properly? ______ 1. Point of Order: I should be allowed to speak now since I know something about this issue that no one else knows. ______ 2. Point of Information: I happen to know the fact alleged by the previous speaker is completely false. ______ 3. Point of Personal Privilege: The minutes just approved incorrectly recorded my vote in the roll. ______ 4. I call for a separate vote on resolution 21 that has been recommended and moved by the resolutions committee. ______ 5. Point of Order: members in the back of the hall are playing video games. ______ 6. I Call for the orders of the day: according to the agenda we should adjourn now ______ 7. Point of Personal Privilege: I demand the right to give an oral report for my committee at this time ______ 8. Point of Order: The speaker is lying! ______ 9. Request for Information: What is the intent of this motion? ______ 10. Request for Information: Does the speaker have any evidence to support the percentage of corruption alleged?
William J. Puette, PhD, PRP, CP, is Director of the Center for Labor Education & Research at the University of Hawaii – West Oahu Campus and tenured, senior faculty teaching labor history, law and Parliamentary Procedure; and he is co-author of the Na Lula Halawai (HSAP’s 250 page parliamentary guide to conducting meeting in Hawaiian). He is past president of the Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians, and is currently a member of the International Services Committee and former member of the Professional Development Committee. www.parliamentarians.org
9
Member or Outside Parliamentarian?
by John R. Berg, PRP
Most members of the National Association of Parliamentarians, including a substantial number of those credentialed as Registered Parliamentarians or Professional Registered Parliamentarians, use their talents and skills in parliamentary procedure within organizations to which they belong or with which they associate, rather than serving other organizations for a fee. Many prefer to function as an active member with their knowledge and skills rather than take on the role of parliamentarian for a meeting. This article will explore the advantages, disadvantages, and implications or using either a member parliamentarian or an outside parliamentarian in an organization or at a meeting. While nearly all organizations can benefit from the services of a qualified parliamentarian, the size, complexity, or functions of the organizations may not justify the expense of hiring an outside parliamentarian under normal circumstances. While a presiding officer should be selected based upon knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the ability to preside (Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), p. 449, ll. 7-8), this is not often the case. In many organizations, the primary function of the presiding officer is leadership and administrative, 10 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
with the actual presiding at meetings being a small part of the job description. The American Institute of Parliamentarians’ Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC) (2012, p. 180) recognizes two types of parliamentarians: the member parliamentarian and the outside parliamentarian. The presiding officer should know more parliamentary procedure than the members (RONR, p. 454, ll. 15-17). There is an interesting saying about being chased by a bear: It is not necessary to outrun the bear, but simply to outrun your companions. Even though a presiding officer may be well qualified in parliamentary procedure, having a parliamentarian assisting in a complex meeting can be essential. It is said that the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Even the best of parliamentarians can slip up when presiding and can use the assistance of a parliamentarian. Some organizations elect a parliamentarian. This is acceptable under AIPSC (p. 181). The 11th edition of RONR says that the parliamentarian should be appointed (p. 465, ll. 30-32). The clear statement, “The parliamentarian should not be an elected officer,” last appeared in the 6th (1951) edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Revised (inside back cover).
Parliamentary Law stated that the parliamentarian should not be elected nor be a member of the board. (Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Law (1923/1991), p. 326). The desire to elect a parliamentarian follows from the misconception that the parliamentarian has some authority to make rulings, whereas, in reality, the parliamentarian serves in an advisory capacity only, without any authority. Some organizations designate a specific officer as the parliamentarian, which is also ill-advised. One organization even elects an attorneyat-law to an office designated as the Chancellor and further designates that officer as the parliamentarian. This is a poor practice for two reasons: First, the role of advising an organization as its legal advisor differs from and may conflict with the role of parliamentarian. A legal advisor is an advocate for the client while a parliamentarian is ethically required to render impartial advice “notwithstanding the client’s personal desires in the matter� (Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians, 4.3). Second, parliamentary procedure is not taught in law schools, and it is a misconception to believe that an individual with a law degree has any more knowledge of parliamentary procedure than an individual with a dental degree. There are, of course, some parliamentarians who are also attorneys, and this can be a good combination of skills, subject to the client relationship distinctions previously mentioned. A parliamentarian should be appointed by, and have the confidence of, the presiding officer (RONR, p. 465,
ll. 30-32). Any fee is generally borne by the organization and not the presiding officer personally. It is also possible for an individual member or group of members to consult with or hire a parliamentarian who is not the parliamentarian appointed by the presiding officer. Even though the client in this latter case is not the presiding officer but a faction perhaps opposed to the efforts of the officers or another faction, that parliamentarian should still adhere to the ethical requirement to be impartial. (This raises an interesting ethical situation if a member of an organization is consulted informally by other members of that organization who recognize the consulted member as being a credentialed parliamentarian. Is the credentialed parliamentarian required to adhere to the ethical standards of a client relationship when there is no contractual relationship or fee involved.) A member parliamentarian must, for the entire meeting, give up the right to speak, make motions, raise points of order and even vote (except in the case of a ballot vote), and should also avoid work in committees or otherwise that might raise doubts as to the ability to function impartially when serving as parliamentarian. While the parliamentarian should be available to advise the bylaws or rules committees, having the parliamentarian chair or even be a voting member of either committee is not a good practice. (In one organization this author resigned as the member parliamentarian in order to chair the rules committee.) www.parliamentarians.org
11
The primary advantage of a member parliamentarian is that the services are generally rendered at no cost to the organization. A second advantage is that the member parliamentarian already has a good knowledge of the organization, its governing documents, established customs, and culture. The most significant disadvantage of the member parliamentarian is that there will inevitably be baggage from the member parliamentarian’s prior service in the organization that could impair the impartiality or perception of impartiality of the parliamentarian. This author was recently not reappointed member parliamentarian by an incoming presiding officer who perceived too close of an association with the previous presiding officer. Since the presiding officer is free to consult with anyone for advice in addition to or in the absence of a parliamentarian (RONR, p. 454, ll. 4-5), any trusted member can function in a capacity of rendering advice on parliamentary procedure without actually being appointed as the parliamentarian for a meeting. Appointing a member to serve as a parliamentarian could also be used to silence that member during the meeting. If the chair were to say, “Our regular parliamentarian was unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Berg, would you please serve as parliamentarian
for our meeting,” an appropriate response might be, “I thank the chair, but must decline because I am unwilling to give up my rights to speak, make motions, and otherwise participate in the deliberations of this meeting. I will, however, be available for informal consultation at any time.” The primary disadvantage of an outside parliamentarian is also the primary reason for an organization not utilizing the services of an outside parliamentarian. That is the cost to the organization. This cost must be weighed against the distinct advantage of having a parliamentarian who has little or no previous history with the organization and can take a fresh outside look at its governing documents, established customs, and culture. There will then be less doubt as to the parliamentarian’s ability to render impartial and unbiased advice to the chair. The more complex the parliamentary situation or, the more dysfunctional the meetings of the organization, the more the use of an outside parliamentarian is needed. In difficult situations, an outside parliamentarian may need to be hired as a temporary presiding officer when the existing structure has become dysfunctional. A member of the organization cannot effectively serve in that capacity without the full confidence of the entire membership. Which works best for your organization?
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.
12 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
Robert Does Not Recycle Motions
by Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP
A common violation of parliamentary procedure is the re-introduction of main motions or secondary motions after they have been defeated. The concept of renewability of a motion is that an assembly may consider the same question again during the same session but only under certain conditions or general rules as outlined in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th ed (RONR). CONDITIONS: RONR refers to certain renewable situations as “conditions.” 1. Condition 1: Bring Back motions are used under their limiting requirements. a. To reconsider a vote; b. To rescind an action; c. To amend something previously adopted. 2. Condition 2: The motion never actually existed. a. A motion was withdrawn; b. A motion did not come before the meeting (i.e., lack of a second). 3. Condition 3: The motion was completely disposed of because a. The motion was not postponed; b. The motion was not sent to the next session as Unfinished Business; c. The motion was not laid on the table; d. A motion to Reconsider the Vote is not still pending; e. The motion was not referred to a committee.
www.parliamentarians.org
13
GENERAL RULES: RONR describes general rules under which some motions may be renewed. Particular Cases of the General Rules Related to Renewability of a Motion: There are general rules that prohibit renewing a main motion or a secondary motion after the assembly has already voted down such motions during the same meeting or same session. These general rules require that the renewed motion must somehow be different the second time that the motion is introduced. Examples of Particular Cases of the General Rules If defeated … Renewal is possible … Main Motion
With change in wording or circumstances
Amendment
With change in wording or circumstances
A series of resolutions
Subset of those resolutions may be renewed
Postpone Indefinitely
Not renewable even if the Main Motion has been materially amended
Reconsider the Vote
Only if question is materially different through amendments
Rescind
Only if the question has been amended significantly
Divide the Question
Must be divided in a substantially different way
Question of Privilege
Only a Point of Order and an Appeal will reverse the defeat of the Question of Privilege
Point of Order
Only an Appeal will reverse the chair’s ruling on a Point of Order.
But if an Appeal sustains the Point of Order, another Point of Order may not be re-introduced.
14 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
Renewability of Some Motions, EVEN at the Same Meeting: In some situations, the repeated motion may be considered to be different enough the second time so that the motion may be re-introduced, but only if there has been material progress in the meeting’s business or debate at the same meeting. Some motions can be renewed even within the same meeting Motion that failed ‌ Renewable after ‌ Commit
Progress in business or debate
Postpone to Certain Time
Progress in business or debate
Limit or Extend Limits of Debate
Progress in business or debate
Previous Question
Progress in business or debate
Lay on the Table
Progress in business or debate, or Some new urgency has arisen
Take from the Table
Disposal of business that was taken up
Call for the Orders of the Day
Disposal of business that was taken up
Adjourn
Material progress in business or debate (except vote to Recess or Lay on the Table which does not qualify as material progress)
Recess
Material progress in business or debate (except vote to Adjourn or Lay on the Table which do not qualify as material progress)
Close nominations
Progress in nominations
Close polls
Progress in voting
www.parliamentarians.org
15
Renewability of Some Motions, but NOT at the Same Meeting: A couple of motions may not be renewed at the same meeting, but, may be re-introduced at another meeting or at another day of the same session. Renewable only at another meeting of the same session Suspend the Rules
By the next meeting, the attendance or situation may have changed sufficiently. The passage of time may make it a new question.
Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn
At an adjourned meeting, it is in order to move to set a second adjourned meeting for the same time as the originally defeated time.
Some Motions CANNOT be renewed at all: At least one motion cannot be renewed at the same meeting, or at a different meeting, of the same session. Cannot be renewed Object to the Consideration of a Question
By not sustaining the motion to Object to the Consideration of a Question, the assembly has already begun its involvement, and it is too late to make an objection.
But if an original main motion is disposed of at one session without being adopted and is renewed at a later session, it is then a new motion, and its consideration can be objected to.
Parliamentary procedure serves two goals: to protect members’ rights and to assist in handling a meeting efficiently. These two objectives are achieved when the assembly is protected from wasting time every time a member attempts to force the assembly to decide substantially the same question twice in one session. Parliamentary procedure utilizes certain conditions and special rules in this effort. Certain conditions prevent the need for renewing a motion if the motion has not been completely disposed of and thus, still within the reach of the assembly. Certain special rules in parliamentary procedure impede the re-introduction of a motion unless it is almost a different question.
Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians. He has been teaching parliamentary procedure for 18 years by means of a three-hour interactive workshop. He is convinced that telling is not teaching, and listening is not learning. 16 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
RONR vs. The Real World by David C. Mezzera, PRP
As parliamentarians, whether we are dealing with a small social group such as a local PTA or Lions Club, or a larger, more formal group such as a labor union or a political body, we sometimes encounter terminology used by the group that does not perfectly fit into phraseology consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th ed (RONR). A couple of examples follow below. How would you possibly deal with these differences where the common use of a term does not match what we consider is its correct parliamentary use? A. When a group (or especially a politician) wants to indicate that a variety of options should be open to consideration before making a final decision, the often-used phrasing is: “Everything is on the table.” This is a confusing phrase to an RONR scholar, agreed? B. A challenge faced by parliamentarians in helping groups interpret their bylaws sometimes occurs when the bylaws indicate that a
particular position on a board or committee is given to someone ex officio. Many (and maybe most?) groups take that to mean that the person is an “unofficial” member of the board or committee, assuming that is the meaning of ex officio. Ever encounter that one? C. How about a member of a group or organization who has listened enough to the ongoing debate and wants to move on to the vote. What will they shout out? “Question!” or “I call the question!” Right? What to do? D. And it’s not unusual in the “real world” of business meetings to hear phrases such as “two-thirds majority” or “old business.” Any problem there? E. Good luck trying to convince a non-parliamentarian that a “quarterly time interval” doesn’t mean something that takes place only during January-FebruaryMarch or April-May-June, typical calendar quarters in the business world. www.parliamentarians.org
17
F. And of course, we’ve all heard someone in an organization (trying to sound very official) tell the group midway through debating an issue that the original motion was never seconded! Or someone insists that the name of the seconder must be recorded in the minutes. Or if someone asks to withdraw a motion that the seconder must agree to withdraw the second. So what do you do in instances such as these when you are serving as an appointed – or hired – parliamentarian or especially when you are a member of the group and of course know more parliamentary procedure than the presiding officer? Do you stop the proceedings with a point of order? Do you let things slide so as not to be too picky? Do you use the situation as a teaching moment? Do you privately help the presiding officer to respond better in the future? Some possible suggestions: A. Can you properly point out that there technically is no motion to “table” but that the proper terminology is “Lay on the Table?” Can you then help the group understand that the parliamentary meaning of “Lay on the Table” is to put something aside temporarily because an urgent matter is before the group? Depending on the intent of the maker, the proper alternative to the motion “table” could be to Postpone Definitely or Postpone Indefinitely. See RONR §17. 18 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
B. Even without getting into Latin translations, can you help the group understand that some board and committee positions are assigned to a person without regard to the specific person him- or herself, but because of the office that person holds? And that such a position is by no means “unofficial”? See RONR p. 483-484. C. For this one, you really do need to stop the proceedings since some members’ right to speak might be taken away without due process if the debate is automatically stopped when someone simply yells out “Question.” See RONR p. 207, ll. 13-20 to be reminded of the formality of calling for the previous question. And see RONR p. 401, ll. 19-28 to prompt yourself why it requires a two-thirds vote. And speaking of two-thirds… D. Does the phrase “two-thirds majority” bother you? Some parliamentarians just let it pass. Others will explain that a majority vote has a definite meaning (more than half of the votes cast) and that a two-thirds vote is a mathematical threshold and different from a majority vote. Also, what would you say if someone then refers to this as a “super majority” as many politicians do? And of course, you cringe when you hear the minutes refer to “old business.” Do you then rightly explain that “Unfinished Business” is a better term to use and why? See RONR footnote on p. 358.
E. This is a tough one even for members of the National Association of Parliamentarians. See RONR p. 89-90 for the simple explanation of how to determine if two meetings are within a quarterly time element. As long as the second meeting occurs before the end of the third month not counting the current month, then it is within the quarterly time frame. Believe it or not, a full 121 days could elapse between two meetings and have those two meetings within a quarterly time frame (if July/August are part of the equation)! F. Some groups (by custom or even explicitly in their bylaws or standing rules) will always include the name of the seconder of a motion in their minutes. You may even have seen arguments between two
members about which one actually seconded a motion! How important is this? Does it change the fact that the motion was made and seconded and voted upon? If you wish to be formal on this issue, see RONR p. 470, ll. 26-28. And of course, you know that once a motion is under debate, even if a “second” was never verbalized, it is unnecessary since a second person has already indicated a desire to consider the motion, as pointed out in RONR p. 37, ll. 6-16. For more on this real-world distraction, see the excellent article by our colleague John R. Berg, PRP, “The Overrated Second,” in the most recent issue of National Parliamentarian (Vol. 80, No. 1, Fall 2018, p. 10-11). And thus we must ply our trade as parliamentarians in the “real world.” Good luck!
P.S. If you think it’s tough being a parliamentarian where you are, think about our colleagues north of the border in Canada. They have a challenge when they even refer to themselves as “Parliamentarians” and members of the National Association of Parliamentarians. You see, on the federal and provincial levels in Canada, the legislative bodies are Parliaments and MPs (Members of Parliament) are known as “Parliamentarians”! Our NAP friends constantly have to clarify that they are not elected officials – although sometimes it works well when people do mistake them for MPs!
David Mezzera, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians, past District VIII Director and currently chairs NAP’s Micro Certificate Project Subcommittee.
www.parliamentarians.org
19
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. tiv session
A meeting at which the proceedings are secret.
_ _____________
2. nal
The MINUTES of an organization.
_ _____________
3. lib assembly A group of persons which meets to determine – by full and free debate – action taken by the group.
_ _____________
4. men rit
The book adopted by an organization _ _____________ Two words to provide the rules for the conduct of business and the rights of members not stated in the Constitution, Bylaws, Special Rules of Order or Standing Rules.
5. gul meeting
The stated recurrent business sessions of a permanent society.
_ _____________
6. por
An account, usually in writing, of the study or work conducted by an officer or committee.
_ _____________
7. all of the meeting
The official notice of a special meeting given to all members of an assembly.
_ _____________
8. rea report
The financial report of an organization.
_ _____________
9. iva oce vote
A Latin term meaning “by word of mouth.” Taking a vote by voice.
_ _____________
10. mou vote
A vote when no one dissents.
_ _____________
Two words
Answers on page 29 Shane D. Dunbar, MEd, PRP-R, 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. 20 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
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)
PL
Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Law (1923)
PP
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: RO
Editions 1-3, Robert’s Rules of Order
ROR
Editions 4-6, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised www.parliamentarians.org
21
Test Yourself
&
Questions Answers
Q
continued
Question 66: I belong to a national professional organization and for many years have served on the ethics opinion committee. This committee is advisory and responds to inquiries from members about ethical situations they raise. Discipline is handled by another committee. Although I have only been on the ethics opinion committee for about a decade, members of the committee typically serve repeated terms and overlap with more senior committee members to sustain institutional memory of prior decisions. Because the committee writes for publication, important deadlines must be met. The committee members are so scattered across the country that the committee only meets in person at the biennial convention. Historically, most of the committee work was done by postal-mail exchange of draft opinions. All drafts were circulated to the entire committee by cc. Because of publication time pressures, the committee decided an opinion was “finished” (that is, approved by the committee) when a majority of the committee approved of the most recent draft – a determination the committee chairman made based on the count of responses received. By the 1960s, it became common to have telephone conference meetings to iron out significant differences, but because of differences in time zones, it was still more expeditious to approve most opinions after asynchronous approval by a majority of the committee. By the mid-1990s, the committee switched from postal mail to email, which expedited matters, but otherwise maintained the same process. There is no special authorization in the bylaws or the committee charge underlying the committee’s longstanding practice. The parliamentary authority is “the current edition” of RONR. A new member has pointed out that the longstanding practice of approving opinions based on the emailed consent of a majority of committee members is not permissible under RONR. Could we have been doing it wrong for all these years? Is there a way to continue our current practice, which has worked so well? Answer: Your new member is correct. Your committee’s procedure of accepting a draft opinion as finished after a majority of the committee members have approved the opinion draft via email is not permitted under the current version of RONR. Although committees are not required to hold
22 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
&
Test Yourself
Questions Answers continued
a meeting to approve a committee report (that is, the committee opinion in this case), they can only approve a committee report outside of a meeting if the report “has been agreed to by every one of its members.” RONR, p. 503. This means affirmative assent by each committee member, not the assent of those who respond affirmative by a set response date, so long as it is a majority of the committee members. Your question is well founded because until the 11th edition of RONR was published in 2011, the committee process you describe for the ethics opinion committee was permitted by a special provision of RONR applicable to committees by correspondence: “If a committee is appointed from different sections of the country with the expectation that its work will be done by correspondence, its report can contain only what is agreed to by a majority of its members.” RONR (10th ed. 2000), p. 493. Virtually identical language has been used since the first version of Rules of Order Revised from 1915. See RONR (9th ed. 1990), pp. 485-86; RONR (8th ed. 1981), p. 418; RONR (7th ed. 1970), p. 418; ROR (6th ed. 1951), p. 217; ROR (5th ed. 1943), p. 217; ROR (4th ed. 1915), p. 217. Parliamentary Law, pp. 286-87 (cross-references omitted), explains the rationale: Usually the members of each standing committee are selected from different districts of the territory covered by the organization, and thus the members are so scattered that the committee can never meet. Ordinarily each member attends to the work of the committee in his district, and any business that requires the action of the entire committee must be done by correspondence. Each member should send an account of the work done by him to the chairman in time for the latter to prepare a report of the work done by the committee during the year, which report must be submitted to the convention…But the [committee chair] is not authorized to include any recommendation in the report that has not been adopted by a majority vote at a meeting of the committee, unless the recommendation has been sent to every member and has been approved by a majority of the entire committee. The provision on committees by correspondence was intentionally omitted in the eleventh edition. Instead, cross-reference to electronic meetings was substituted to emphasize that, in the era of easy internet access, widely www.parliamentarians.org
23
Test Yourself
&
Questions Answers continued
dispersed committee members should make the effort to hold meetings, by making the point that such meetings can be by long-distance telephone or electronically. RONR, p. 503. Still, a bylaw provision, a special rule of order, or, in the case of a committee, an instruction from the assembly can supersede the parliamentary authority. RONR, pp. 16, 500. The bylaws, or instructions by the assembly, can also allow a committee to adopt its own rules. RONR, pp. 500-01. Either method could be used to adopt a rule or instruction to override RONR and allow the ethics opinion committee to act by the electronic or written assent of a majority of its members without a meeting. As you pointed out, your ethics opinion committee is purely advisory. If the committee had been delegated the power to act for the organization (see RONR, p. 578), state law might require that the committee comply with board meeting requirements to take action. That would typically require a synchronous in-person, telephonic, or electronic meeting, or alternatively, the unanimous written consent of the committee members.
Q
Question 67: Our bylaws provide that there shall be between 10 and 15 directors, that the members elect directors and may fix the number of directors in the prescribed range, and that the board of directors shall fill vacancies on the board. Elections are by voice vote. All directors are elected biennially for two-year terms. The members have declined to fix the number of directors. At the last election, the members elected 12 directors. One has now resigned. The board wants to fill the seat as a vacancy for the remainder of the term. Some members say that, although the members did not specifically fix the number of directors, by electing 12 directors they effectively fixed the number at 12, and now there is a vacancy. Others say that no specific number of directors was fixed by the members approving a motion to that effect and therefore there is no vacancy until the number of directors falls below 10, the minimum number set in the bylaws. Who is right? Answer: Given the facts as stated, the better argument is that there is a vacancy fillable by the board. The bylaws in this regard, although not uncommon, are ambiguous and the members could make the determination. RONR, p. 588. On the one hand, electing a certain number of directors is not the same thing as an explicit vote fixing the number of directors. If the
24 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
&
Test Yourself
Questions Answers continued
members voted to fix the number of directors, that would be a standing rule (RONR, p. 18), which would remain in effect until changed. The members, electing directors by voice vote, could elect different numbers of directors between 10 and 15 in different election cycles. Therefore, it is clear that, if the members did fix a specific number, and then elected enough members to fill that number of board seats, a resignation would result in a vacancy to be filled by the board. In this case, however, because the members have not fixed a specific board size, the board size is variable between 10 and 15 according to the bylaws. Because the election is by voice vote, RONR, pp. 442-43, the members may elect as many candidates as they wish, up to 15. Once a fifteenth director is elected, no further nominations would be in order. RONR, p. 442. If the members elected fewer than 10 directors (or fewer than the fixed number, if a number had been fixed), the result would not produce vacancies; instead, the election would be incomplete, requiring additional nominations and elections (possibly at an adjourned meeting or special meeting called for that purpose) in order to elect at least 10 members (or the fixed number if a number had been fixed) to the board. The Question & Answer Committee are of the opinion that the most likely intent of the bylaw provision, and of the members at the biennial election, was that the election of a certain number of directors at that election (provided that the number was between 10 and 15) was to fix the number of directors at that number until the next biennial election. In this case, as the members elected 12 directors at the biennial election, they thereby implicitly fixed the number of directors at 12 for the coming biennial period. Any resignations of directors would create vacancies that could be filled by the remaining members of the board of directors under the bylaws.
Q
Question 68: In a recent meeting, our association adopted an agenda at the start of the meeting. It included a small number of items for consideration (motions) under the heading “New Business.” Once the meeting had completed the regular order of business and disposed of the items placed under “New Business,” a member attempted to offer a motion on an entirely new (but proper) subject. The chair ruled the motion out of order because, she said, “It had not been included in the adopted agenda.” Was the chair correct in her ruling? And what steps might the member have taken to have his motion heard and discussed? www.parliamentarians.org
25
Test Yourself
&
Questions Answers continued
Answer: The chair was not correct in her ruling, but not for any particularly straightforward reasons. The difficulty is that the question, as posed, indicates a misunderstanding of what an “agenda” actually is and how RONR says to deal with one. Fundamentally, an agenda is no more (and no less) than a simple list of business matters (presumably in the form of motions) to be taken up during a meeting. Such a list is commonly drawn up by the presiding officer, ahead of time, primarily as an aide-memoire to refer to during the meeting. It need not be made available to or adopted by the membership. If it is adopted, however, that action does (partially) limit the meeting’s business to the items on the agenda, but in a very specific manner. As with any amendable motion, the agenda can be amended during its initial consideration by a majority vote or after adoption by the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted by a 2/3 vote or vote of a majority of the entire membership, RONR, p. 237. Any such additions to the agenda then become subject to the same limitations as to place on the agenda as the original items. The critical point is the time at which the adopted agenda items are to be brought up for consideration. RONR, p. 371, is clear that the adoption of an agenda causes the listed business items to become special or general orders, depending on whether times are assigned to the items. That is the effect of listing an item of business on the agenda – nothing else. Once the special or general orders have been dealt with, the agenda is exhausted, and the meeting is free to go on to “New Business,” which properly includes any motion the members wish to offer. Within the meanings of the words, as defined in RONR, it is simply not logically possible to have a specific item on an adopted agenda taken up under “New Business.” As far as those items are concerned, the adoption of the “agenda” described in the initial question, listing those items as “new business,” was improper, regardless of whether those items had been raised at prior meetings or were to be first introduced at the meeting in question. Those items properly would have been taken up as general orders under the “Unfinished Business and General Orders” heading and not under “New Business,” which inherently means new items of business raised from the floor. RONR, p. 360. If the adopted agenda is not corrected, those items should be treated when they come up on the agenda as general orders, rather than as new business items, regardless of where they are listed on the agenda. 26 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
&
Test Yourself
Questions Answers continued
If RONR is the adopted parliamentary authority and its standard order of business is the organization’s order of business (RONR, p. 353), “new business” must be included at the end of an adopted agenda if the agenda is to be adopted by a majority vote. RONR, p. 372. Only by a two-thirds vote could such an organization adopt an agenda with no heading for “New Business,” listing all items of business brought to the attention of the chair and secretary in time for inclusion on the pre-circulated agenda as general or special orders, as the case may be, and disallowing truly new business items raised from the floor. RONR, pp. 264, 372. All anticipated business items would have to be classified under other headings of business other than “New Business.” Adopting an agenda structured that way by a two-third vote could prevent any new business items being brought from the floor at the end of the meeting, except by way of a motion to suspend the rules. The member’s recourse when, as described in the question, he or she is denied the right to offer a new motion from the floor under “New Business” is to raise a point of order and cite to appropriate authorities, then to appeal if the chair rules against the member. Another option would be to make a parliamentary inquiry about the incorrect use of an agenda adopted by majority vote containing a New Business heading when no new business is customarily allowed from the floor under New Business in this organization. If the chair is intractable and the member is willing to go along without “rocking the boat,” the member could also move to amend the agenda to include his or her desired item of business on the agenda at the time that the agenda is adopted. By doing so, however, the member might lose tactical advantages that could apply if the motion came up for consideration without prior notice immediately before being made. Questions & Answers Research Team
Michael Malamut, PRP, Q&A Research Editor
C. Alan Jennings, PRP, Assistant Q&A Research Editor
James H. Stewart, PRP, NAP Parliamentarian
Helen McFadden, PRP, Parliamentary Consultant
Advisor: John Stackpole, RP www.parliamentarians.org
27
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
28 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
NAP Connections
Education Resources Committee Russell Guthrie, PRP, of Oklahoma, has been selected to serve as the chairman of the Education Resources Committee. Since the beginning of this term, Russell has served as chairman of the ERC sub-committee which developed the new Guided Discovery program. This program created quarterly study lessons for use by members at large and units who desire a structured approach to their learning experience. He has over 40 years in the higher education field and was part of the inaugural class of NAP’s new Body of Knowledge trainers. Jim Jones, PRP, President of the National Association of Parliamentarians, says he looks forward to Guthrie’s leadership as NAP rolls out its new Learning Library, updated educational website, and final publishing products over the upcoming months leading up to Las Vegas.
Test Yourself
Answer Key Vocabulary Builder from page 20 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Executive Journal Deliberative Parliamentary, Authority Regular
6. Report 7. Call 8. Treasurer’s 9. Viva, Voce 10. Unanimous
www.parliamentarians.org
29
NAP Connections
To the Editor and Team: Letter to the
E di t o r
I want to thank you and your team for the excellent articles in the National Parliamentarian. However, I do want to comment on your Editor’s Note regarding your statement “the first names of many of these distinguished women have been lost to us.” That is simply not true with all of the resources on the internet today. It took me about an hour or less while watching a movie to find Mrs. Norman’s full name. It is Agnes Clara Dilling (born December 30, 1909, in Eureka, CA, and died December 10, 2003, in San Francisco, CA). Her first husband was Lloyd Lamb. Her second husband was Dr. Guido Frederick Norman. She was involved with many organizations in the San Francisco area. Mrs. Herweg, mentioned in the article, is Barbara Carolyn/ Carolann Stoppler Mickelson Herweg. Her first husband was Arthur W. Mickelson and her second husband was Eugene G. Herweg. She was born November 28, 1915, in Devils Lake, ND, and died April 3, 2003, in Boulder City, NV. Mrs. Vinzant’s full name is Anna Clyde Stallings Vinzant. Her husband was Walter H. Vinzant. She was born March 21, 1886, in Posey County, IN, and died February 26, 1983, in Indianapolis, IN. Apparently, she went as “Clyde” most of the time and not “Anna.” All of these women had very interesting lives and history. But I really loved this woman’s (Vinzant) death certificate which I was able to see online. It indicated that her occupation was Parliamentarian and that the kind of business or industry that she worked in was Parliamentary Law! As you are starting to see, the first names of these women have not been lost to NAP! Kim Stracener Zapalac Editor’s response: Thank you so much for this information. It is a valuable lesson for our chapters to use the available technology to fill in information about your former members.
30 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
NAP Connections
Training for the Future “Your Education – Your Way.” That is the vision President Jim Jones, PRP, set for NAP’s education program in September 2017. To that end, NAP expanded its Train-the-Trainer (TTT) program. It is designed to cultivate a cadre of professional registered parliamentarians who can professionally facilitate learning sessions on a broad range of parliamentary topics, and in varied formats. The program aims to develop a strong group of trainers within NAP who can: • Deliver dynamic training sessions both on line and in person within the organization • Utilize the skills learned in this process in other areas of their career or civic organizations At the end of a TTT training workshop, participants are expected to identify the characteristics of an exceptional trainer. • Explain how adults learn
• Understand and identify individual trainer characteristics/behaviors that can impact participant engagement and demonstrate the ability to be flexible • Explain and use various methods for making training active and interactive • Explain and use strategies for handling disruptive behaviors that occur during training • Point out highlights and pitfalls of various teaching and facilitating methods • Present information in a clear, concise and engaging manner. The course includes self-reflection, adult learning theory, Body of Knowledge instruction, NAP Professional Course review and new content ideas. TTT program graduates were utilized at the National Training Conference held in Buffalo, NY, in September. Next class is scheduled March 29-31, 2019, in Kansas City, MO.
Graduates and teachers of the November Train-the-Trainer workshop: left to right, front row: instructors Ann Guiberson, PRP; Sandra K. Olson, PRP; Ramona Hill, PRP. Second row: Nilda E. Rivera, PRP; C.J. Cavin, PRP; Valoree Althoff, PRP; Lucy H. Anderson, PRP; Esther A. Heller, PRP; Barry Blair, PRP; Carrie Dickson, PRP: Beth James, PRP; Beverly Przybylski, PRP. www.parliamentarians.org
31
NAP Connections
Report from the Board of Directors The Board of Directors of the National Association of Parliamentarians meet on November 13, 2018, through Adobe Connect. The board approved the following committee appointments: • Diana Brush – Communications • Kyle McMillan, RP – Communications • Michael Peck, PRP – Educational Resources • Rebecca Rutz – Educational Resources • Steven Walls, PRP – Education Resources • Helene Goldsmith, PRP – Edit and Review • Deadra Stokes – Membership • Judith Reynolds, PRP – Membership • Tony Gray, PRP – Technology • Beverly Tatham, PRP – Technology • John Tatum, PRP – Technology • Henry Lawton, RP – Technology • Allora Cyrus – Youth Services • Russell Guthrie, PRP – ERC chairman • Mary Remson, PRP – PDC chairman President Jim Jones reported that he and Education Cluster leader Ramona Hill, PRP, presented the Jack and Jill of American members with a crash course for the membership exam. In addition, he has been meeting with organizations such as the Presbyterian Church of USA, Technology Student Association, and National Association of Latino Elected Officials about potential partnerships. All of the board members reported that in addition to their work with NAP, they remain active in serving as parliamentarians, and offering educational courses to organizations. 32 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
NAP Connections
The International Services Committee reports that it continues to work on Spanish translations of parliamentary materials. They have asked that some Chinese translated materials be available on the NAP website. They have translated various documents to Chinese, Spanish, Hawaiian, and Japanese. They are hoping to develop a volunteer language bank. The Meeting and Webinar Support Committee reported that NAP’s usage of online meetings has increased dramatically over the past year. This service is used for board meetings and committee meetings. The Education Cluster has reported that work has been completed on the updated Spotlight style Board Primer is completed. Watch for it in the NAP store. Spotlight series books have rebranded as Focus on Leadership. Books have been updated for President, Secretary, Committees, Bylaws, and Meeting Management. The Professional Development Committee has been reviewing applications for the Body Members are always of Knowledge Training Course, implementing welcome to attend the Training-the-Trainer courses, and scheduling quarterly online meetings. Professional Qualifying Courses in 2018/2019. Log-in information The Quarterly Lessons Sub-Committee of can be found in the the Education Cluster continues to develop members-only section lessons plans which are provided to chapters. NAP headquarters reports Alexandra Blair of the NAP website has taken over the position as Membership (www.parliamentarians.org) and Communications.
Sandy Olson Honored Sandra K. Olson, PRP, has been recognized as a University of Nebraska at Kearney Distinguished Alumni for 2018. Olson and her family were present for the September ceremony at UNK. Olson graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Education from Kearney State College (now UNK) in 1971 with a comprehensive business major. She has taught in three high schools and worked as an adjunct instructor for Central Community College Doane University and Kearney State College. Her teaching background spans 45 years. She has been a Professional Registered Parliamentarian since 1996. As a parliamentarian, she has conducted workshops throughout the nation, coached winning national parliamentary teams, and served clients. She currently is training parliamentary instructors nationally. www.parliamentarians.org
33
NAP Connections
34 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
NAP Connections
NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Angelie Chaljub (NY) Bobby Codjoe (NY) Brenda Kennedy (TX) Bridget Green (NJ) Christopher Howe (TX) Daniel Brown (NY) Denisha McPherson (NY) Derrick Taylor (NY) Derrick Isaac (NY) Diana Duncan (NY) Donna Simpson (VA) Doris Williams (IL) Andrea Hilburn (TX) Karen Cole (CA) Felicia Malone (NY)
Gail Lover (TX) Henry Lawton (FL) Isatu Kanu (NY) James McIntosh (NY) Jeannine Hunte (NY) Jennifer Reed (IL) Jerome McIver (MD) Junita Carn (NY) K. Walcott (NY) Kathryn Hammer (CO) Kim Zapalac (TX) Lorraine Johnson (MD) Marilyn Woodson (AL) Mary Cauley (NC) Michelyn Washington (TX) Mark Apodaca (NM)
Patrick Hardy (CA) Carol Farmer (KS) Dayna Bischof (MO) Linda Bowlby (IL) Angela Foster (DC) Pamela Dickerson (CO) Pamela Harmon (TX) Robert Robinson (NY) Roland Williams (NY) Ryan Mueller (CA) Sandra Hyatt (NY) Shirley Taylor (NY) Tanya Crockett (NY) Theljewa Garrett (PA) Vivian Walton-Smalls (NY) Larry Randle (AB)
New Professional Registered Parliamentarians* NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarian: Barbara Bonsignore (MI)
Thomas Havelka (NE)
Todd Brand (AB)
Elizabeth Haynes (ON)
Walter Carson (MD)
Cindy Hinckley (TX)
Patricia Cauley (DC)
Robin Hovis (OH)
Rita Cloman (TX)
Margaret-Ann Howie (MD)
Mark Ebert (AZ)
Yvette Keesee (CO)
Cheryle Edmonds (TX)
James Lawson (OK)
Wade Emmert (TX)
Joshua Velena McRae (TX)
Gerry Gunn (VA)
Cynthia Mills (PA)
Tamara Harris (MD)
Carl Nohr (AB)
Mike Prest (ON) Kendra Riley (MD) Jodie Sanders (TX) William Seamon (NY) Delores Shaw (TX) Mona Tates (TX) Deana Tollerton (TX) C.F. Van Gorder (DC) Willie Watson (VA) Fashika Willis (TX) Lee Woodward (TX)
Silent Gavel* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Sybil J. Alexander (NY) Patricia R. Ashlaw (VA) Jean J. Babcock (IA) Elaine J. Biscobing (WI) Beth Bond (FL) June R. Brown (MD) Lorraine Buckley (MO)
LaVonne P. Ellis (VA) Emmesia Frost (MI) Adolfo Griffith (NY) Kathryn L. Lives (OH) Mary J. Mullins (KY) Hope Hotchkiss Niedling (WI)
Carol Noack (TX) Frederick R. Riehm (MN) Nancelyn Ross (MB) Carol J. Sas (NJ) Joanne E. Smallwood (CA) Doug Trouten (MN) Michael D. Weathers (IN)
* For the period September 1, 2018 thru December 27, 2018 www.parliamentarians.org
35
NAP Connections
New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Belinda Anderson (OH) Faith Anderson (MB) Daniel Anikwue (NY) Nhu Arn (WI) Denis Beaudry (AB) Ellen Becker (IL) Michael Berstein (PA) Dayna Bischof (MO) Rebecca Blain (AB) Dionne Bridgeforth (VA) Marcus Briscoe (NY) Raymond Brown (NEAP) Venita Brown (OH) Ashley Burgess (OH) Kerry Bush (CO) Cherryl Butler-Moore (NY) Steven Calame (TX) Tim Carrion (OH) Michelle Carter-Bolden (VA) Sandra Conrady (MT) Kyle Covington (NC) Belinda Anderson (OH) Faith Anderson (MB) Daniel Anikwue (NY) Nhu Arn (WI) Denis Beaudry (AB) Ellen Becker (IL) Michael Berstein (PA) Dayna Bischof (MO) Rebecca Blain (AB) Dionne Bridgeforth (VA) Marcus Briscoe (NY) Raymond Brown (NEAP) Venita Brown (OH) Ashley Burgess (OH) Kerry Bush (CO) Cherryl Butler-Moore (NY) Steven Calame (TX) Tim Carrion (OH) Michelle Carter-Bolden (VA) Sandra Conrady (MT) Kyle Covington (NC) Kathleen Daniel (NY) Krystal Davis (NY) Gregory Delts (NY) Lynne DePaulo (OH) Paula Diaz Antonopoulos Wolfe (NY) Dion Dizon (HI) M. DuBose (TN) Patricia Evans (PA) Lynne Fasone (OH) Tracy Floyd (PA) Ryan Foor (NE)
Joy Foster (NY) Joshua Franklin (NY) Mitchell Friedman (CA) MIchelle Gay (NY) Carole Gilmore (TX) Eugenia Gomez (FL) Christine Grant (WA) Yanni Gray (NY) Robert Green (PA) Sandra Hadley (MD) Elizabeth Harper (NY) Sonia Harris (VA) Nishelle Harris-Hines (DE) Keith Haxton (OR) Anne Henebeng (NY) Julie Hicks (CO) Roy Hill (AZ) Debra Hopson (TX) Marquasa Hopson (CO) Debra Hughes (IL) Taniqua Hunter (NY) LaDacher Jackson (TX) Latoya Jeffers (NY) Elliot Jeffery (KY) Ayesha Johnson (NY) Rhonda Joseph (NY) Tami Kelly (OH) Estelle Kendall (VA) Michael Kitsko (MI) Bobbie Krause (AK) Stephen Laudig (HI) Matthew Lewis (AZ) Hope Maddox (NY) Ashby Martin (NY) David Mathies (LA) Ekemini Mbatt (NY) Ivan McDaniel (NY) Michael Miller (NY) Michael Mitchell (NY) Muriel Mitchell (MD) Gina Moore (CO) Heather Moore (OH) Tiana Morrison (NY) Charlie Nichols (FL) Justin Nobles (TX) Chandra Owens (DE) Noah Peace (NY) Tara Peet (OH) Shatara Pell (NY) Nazaaha Penick (WA) Corinthia Pierce (DE) Karen Platt (AK) Cathi Poer (NV)
George Pryor (ON) Stephanie Reid (TX) Genine Riley (TX) Karen Roepken (AZ) Jake Rondot (ON) Tonya Ross (PA) Christopher Saint Jean (NY) Tameya Sam (TX) Reginaldo Sandiford (NY) Gail Sawyer (WA) Lou Seabourn (TX) Mercedes Sheppard (IL) Carol Sinclair (GA) Lee Smith (NY) Karen Spencer-kea (MI) Theresa Staples (CO) Caleb Terry (NY) William Wells (IA) Zachary West (NY) Kanesia Williams (TX) Roland Williams (NY) Shanecca Williams (VA) Gabriella Williams-Hill (TX) Dedria Willis (MI) Michael Wilson (PA) Jarnitha Woodson (MD) Pauline Young (TX) Thank you instructors! A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Al Gage, PRP Barbara Horton, PRP-R Beverly Tatham, PRP Cindy Hinckley, PRP Debra McAllister Alaina Jackson Reba R. Hollingsworth Rose Acker-McIver, PRP Edward Magiste Fashika N. Willis, PRP Frances Jackson, PRP Jeannine Hunte, RP Kay Crews, PRP Kevin R. Connelly, PRP Larry Stegent Linda Sehrt, PRP Patricia A. Koch, PRP Patrick Knoll, PRP Robert Robinson, RP Roland Williams, RP Shirley Gomes, RP Wanda M. Sims, PRP William Puette, PRP
* For the period September 1, 2018 thru December 20, 2018 36 National Parliamentarian • Winter 2019
Remembe r ing
NAP Honorary President Henry M. Robert III (1920-2019) Henry Martyn Robert III, grandson of General Henry Martyn Robert, passed away peacefully on Sunday, January 6, 2019, in Annapolis, Maryland, where he lived for many years. He was 98 years old. Mr. Robert is best known for following in the footsteps of his grandfather, General Henry M. Robert, the original author of Robert’s Rules of Order. He participated in five revisions of the rules, beginning with the 1970 revision and expansion that resulted in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. Up until his death, Mr. Roberts actively participated as the senior member of the authorship team, which is working on the 12th edition of RONR. The new edition is expected to be released at NAP’s 2020 Training Conference in San Antonio. In 2015, the NAP assembly voted to name Mr. Robert an honorary president of the association; an honor bestowed on only one other individual – NAP’s founder Dr. Silas Longan. Mr. Robert served as national parliamentarian for NAP President William J. Evans in 1979 to 1981, who also was a member of the RONR authorship team. He set the standard for all authorship team members by becoming a registered parliamentarian in 1981 and then a professional registered parliamentarian in 1983. He was a regular fixture at NAP annual events and at the state and unit levels. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. You will be missed.
Learn more about Henry M. Robert III and his life in the next issue of NP Magazine.
www.parliamentarians.org
37
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