National Parliamentarian (Vol. 81, No. 2)

NP

Volume 81, No. 2 | Winter 2020

National Parliamentarian

Renewal and New Beginnings

Does the President Always Preside? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

page 4

Returning to High School with RONR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

page 13

An Update from the Commission on Credentialing . . . . .

page 28

Invest in Our Future Your generous contribution to NAP’s “Bridge to the Future” campaign will help ensure NAP’s infrastructure can meet the challenges and opportunities of the coming years.

The immediate focus is on long-needed improvements to the headquarters building to make it more ergonomic and to accommodate our growth.

Two easy ways to invest: • Purchase a porcelain tile for the NAP Honor Wall www.parliamentarians.org/future — 12" x 12" = $350 — 6" x 6" = $125 • Make a donation online at www.parliamentarians.org

Donate today and watch your investment grow!

NP

National Parliamentarian

Volume 81, No. 2 | Winter 2020

Contents 2019-2021 NAP Officers President Darlene T. Allen, PRP Vice President Wanda M. Sims, PRP Secretary Kevin R. Connelly, PRP Treasurer Carrie Dickson, PRP Directors-at-Large Joyce A. Brown Watkins, PRP Adam Hathaway, PRP Carl Nohr, PRP District Director Representatives Larry D. Martin, PRP Robert G. Schuck, RP Parliamentarian Timothy Wynn, PRP Legal Advisor Melanye Johnson Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh

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

From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message Renewal and New Beginnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEATURES Does the President Always Preside? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 John R. Berg, PRP Without Rules No One Can Guarantee Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP Returning to High School with RONR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Sally F. LaMacchia, RP Writing Committee Reports & Recommendations . . . . . . 16 William J. Puette, PRP Departments Test Yourself It’s Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

David Mezzera, PRP Are You Present or Absent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

David Mezzera, PRP The Power of Inquiry: An invitation to submit parliamentary questions to the Question & Answer Team . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alison Wallis, PRP Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Answer Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NAP Connections An Update from the Commission on Credentialing . . . . .

Grow Our Own: A VSAP Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cynthia R. Mayo, PRP NAP Is an Association of People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

David A. Whitaker, PRP New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . .

Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.parliamentarians.org

20 21

22 24 35 28 30 32 35 35 35 36 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 (17th 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 “Assignment and Transfer of Copyright” form with their submission, granting NAP the copyright or permission to publish.

Submission Deadlines

Volume 81, No. 3 . . . . . . . . February 1, 2020 (Spring 2020) Volume 81, No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2020 (Summer 2020) Volume 82, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2020 (Fall 2020)

Editor

TennieBee Hall npeditor@nap2.org

Assistant Editor

Betty Turnstall, PRP

NP Review Committee

Dana Dickson, RP-R, Chair Ronald Dupart, RP Ferial Bishop, PRP

Parliamentary Research Committee Alison Wallis, PRP Rachel Glanstein, PRP Ann Homer, PRP Timothy Wynn, PRP, Parliamentarian

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN®

(Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592) Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians ©2020 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

As President Allen mentions in her message, we are in the cycle of new beginnings.

Our authors in this issue of National Parliamentarian address various issues related to new beginnings.

In our feature articles we look at new perspectives in using Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th ed., whether it be the finer points of presiding or that of teaching high school students. We read about the value of establishing friendships through connections at NAP annual meetings and conventions.

We learn of a very successful state initiative to expand membership, and we read about the progress being made by the NAP Commission on Credentialing.

Our hope is that by reading these articles and others in this issue, you, too, are inspired to commit to rejuvenation.

TennieBee Hall 2

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

President’s Message

Renewal and New Beginnings Albert Einstein has been quoted as saying, “The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.”

The NAP membership renewal cycle comes at a time of the year when new beginnings, rejuvenation, reinvigoration, and restoration are at the forefront of our personal activities and our activities as parliamentarians. The time for membership renewal is now.

Our units, associations, districts, and board of directors are engaged in membership recruitment year-round. In this effort we have to ask ourselves, if membership recruitment is designed to complement our membership retention goals and whether we have given retention its proper place in our long-term plan? The membership renewal cycle provides us with a reality check on meeting our retention goals.

It’s imperative to assimilate new members into our parliamentary culture, but we would have nothing to build upon without the loyalty and commitment of our renewing members.

Members join for many reasons. Election to a leadership position that creates a need to know more about parliamentary procedure ranks high on the list. Once their individual needs are met, how well we have maintained a connection with members is critical to our renewal efforts. Members remain based on our relationship-building activities. These activities should be a part of both our short- and long-term plans.

Unit membership has proved to be beneficial by providing year-long opportunities for members to learn, lead, and develop. Belonging to a unit strengthens the parliamentary bond and makes the decision for members to renew a lot easier because they are engaged. Members who are not geographically able to attend in-person unit meetings are not forgotten. We have electronic units for members to join as an option. We’ve got you covered.

We’ve increased opportunities for members at all levels to receive quality training and to share their expertise with others. We’ve offered facilitated in-person and webinar presentations, on-demand webinars, webinar study preparatory sessions for members preparing for the registered parliamentarian exam in addition to basic, intermediate, and advanced parliamentary training. We’ve also provided in-person opportunities through repetition and practice to sharpen members’ skills as parliamentarians.

We will pilot different events and activities to show our appreciation to members choosing to continue their membership in NAP. In December 2019, there was an encore presentation of Timothy Wynn’s “Navigating RONR” workshop that was the talk of the town at the 42nd Biennial Convention. The workshop was priced at zero dollars for members whose 2020 membership dues were paid by December 19, 2019.

The board is committed to supporting efforts that will produce members who shine brightly when representing our profession and who enhance NAP by renewing their membership. Thank you for being a member of NAP! Darlene T. Allen, PRP NAP President 2019-2021 www.parliamentarians.org

3

Does the President Always Preside?

By John R. Berg, PRP

It is common for bylaws to contain a provision that the president presides at all meetings. This, however, is not an absolute rule and is subject to limitations, exceptions, and suspension.

If such a bylaw provision that the president presides at all meetings were absolute, the society could not function if the president were absent, since no one else would be authorized to preside under that bylaw. The president would also be unable to temporarily and voluntarily relinquish the chair in order to enter into debate.

Most bylaws with a provision that the president presides at all meetings also have a provision that the vice president presides in the absence of the president. This is not a contradiction in the bylaws, but a case in which a specific rule prevails over a general one.

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.) (RONR) provides principles for interpretation of bylaws. It states on p. 589, ll. 17-18: A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it. It is not practical to state a rule in its full detail every time it is referred to. General statements of rules are seldom strictly correct in every possible application. The specific statement of the rule that gives the details applying to the particular case must always be examined.

The general rule is that the president presides at all meetings.

The specific rule, to which it yields, is that the vice president presides in the absence of the president.

If the parliamentary authority ranks below the bylaws, how can a provision in the parliamentary authority appear to overrule a specific bylaw provision? When the parliamentary authority is adopted within the bylaws, the rules in that parliamentary authority are incorporated by reference into the bylaws. RONR’s recommended bylaw provision for adoption of a parliamentary authority is: The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society 4

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt. (RONR, p. 588, ll. 4-8).

Rules in the bylaws may not be suspended unless they provide for their own suspension or are clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order. (RONR, p. 17, ll. 20-27.) The example given in RONR of such a bylaw that is subject to suspension is the very one that the president presides at all meetings (RONR, p. 652, footnote 2).

When the bylaws adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority, they also adopt this provision that the president’s authority to preside at all meetings may be suspended.

As mentioned previously, if the chair wishes to enter into debate, he or she must relinquish the chair until the pending main question has been disposed of (RONR, p. 395, ll. 1-18). In addition, if any motion refers to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures the presiding officer with others, he or she should relinquish the chair (RONR, p. 451, ll. 29-35). When the chair presides during an appeal from the decision of the chair, the chair would not normally relinquish the chair, even though speaking on the issue, since it is the decision that is being appealed, not the chair personally (RONR, p. 395, ll. 22-26).

The situation becomes more complicated if a Point of Order is raised that impacts the chair personally or in a capacity other than that of presiding officer. If the presiding officer were a candidate for re-election and a point of order were raised challenging his or her right to be re-elected, it would be impossible for the chair to rule on such a point of order while still maintaining any appearance of impartiality, unless the ruling was against the candidacy. The chair should immediately relinquish the chair to the next ranking officer (who is not running for that same position or has not otherwise relinquished impartiality).

In the same light, if a special meeting were called for the purpose of voting to censure or recall the president, it would be impossible for the president to maintain any appearance of impartiality while presiding, no matter how hard he or she tried. As soon as the meeting were called to order, the president’s supporters could move to Adjourn or make some other procedural motion intended to defeat the purpose of the meeting. Even though the motion to Adjourn does not “refer only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared www.parliamentarians.org

5

in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others” (RONR, p. 451, ll. 29-31), the intent and effect of such a motion to Adjourn would be clear to everyone. Hugh Cannon writes in Canon’s Concise Guide to Rules of Order (1992), p. 23: Basic to the parliamentary system is the impartiality of the Chair. If that person and the members become adversaries, then the Chair’s decisions – from recognition of members to procedural rulings – can become highly suspect. The Chair may be perceived to lack basic fairness.

RONR, pp. 651–653, has six paragraphs following the heading of “Removal of presiding officer from chair for all or part of a session” which can be employed “if the chair fails to act in accordance with the assembly’s decision on an appeal (or on a point of order submitted to a vote of the assembly) or otherwise culpably fails to perform the duties of the chair properly in a meeting” (RONR, p. 651, ll. 16-21).

Failure to relinquish the chair when necessary to maintain the appearance of impartiality would fall into this category.

The second paragraph provides that a majority vote can remove an elected or appointed chairman pro tem. The next three paragraphs apply to a permanent chair or a president who presides at all meetings under the bylaws. This requires a two-thirds vote to “Suspend the Rules so as to take away from him the authority to preside during all or part of a given session. When such a motion is made and seconded, after stating the motion he must turn the chair over to another…” (RONR, p. 652, ll. 5-9).

The last paragraph (RONR, p. 653, ll. 17-19) introduces the permanent removal of the presiding officer. Under the procedure that follows, in the process of preferring charges against the officer by a majority vote, the rights of the officer as an officer can be suspended (RONR, p. 662, ll. 25-31). Thus, the ability of the president to preside at meetings can be suspended with a majority vote in this case. The result is that the president would not be presiding at his or her own trial.

The bylaws may provide for the removal from office without a formal trial if there is another process or if the fixed term of office adds “or until a successor is elected” rather than “and until a successor is elected. (See RONR, pp. 573-574.) If the president failed to relinquish the chair during those proceedings, a Point of Order could be raised that the president should relinquish the chair. If he or she 6

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

refused and the decision of the chair was not sustained by a majority vote, the body would have just voted by a majority vote that the president should not be presiding. This is similar to what has been referred to as a nuclear option in the United States Senate, which, in effect, adopts something by a majority vote that the rules state requires a sixty percent vote.1 RONR is silent on the application of this nuclear option, yet does provide that a society determines by a majority vote the meaning of its own rules (RONR, p. 588, l. 25).

The so-called nuclear option is based on the premise that since the U.S. Constitution requires that specific decisions of the Senate be made by a two-thirds vote (conviction after impeachment, expelling a member, approving a treaty, amending the Constitution, or overriding a veto) all other decisions are by majority vote. This is consistent with the principle that a limitation prohibits anything greater but permits things in the same class not mentioned in the limitation (RONR, p. 590, ll. 17-22). A long-standing rule of the Senate requires a sixty percent vote to end debate and bring a measure to a vote. The consistent application of this rule results in the requirement that all measures must have a sixty percent approval before passage, which violates the majority requirement in the Constitution. A Point of Order is raised to that effect, the contrary ruling of the chair is appealed, overturned, and the majority decides that the measure can be adopted by a majority rather than the sixty percent required by the rules.

1

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 was recently elected to the board of directors of the South Kitsap School District in Washington State.

www.parliamentarians.org

7

Without Rules No One Can Guarantee Rights

By Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP

Societies often find that a thorough solution is overwhelming. So, they settle for an incomplete solution based on a watered-down set of rules, even if the price for that superficial solution is the surrender of some of the members’ rights. In California, we observe that some state, regional, and local boards prefer Rosenberg’s Rules of Order (an eleven-page pamphlet) to Robert’s Rules of Order.

The author, Dave Rosenberg, brings to the boards his experience as a former mayor of a city, and as a current judge on a Superior Court.

His behavior as a judge towards everyone in the courtroom explains his approach to presiding at his discretion with his own rules of order.

No one can challenge the judge. The judge has the final word.

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order even pretend to be superior to a California state law called the Open Meeting Act. Every state in the U.S. has an open meeting act that obligates an agency which receives tax money, or was created by legislation, to allow the public to witness the agency’s proceedings. This means that although the public may trust the agency with the public’s tax money, 8

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

the public does not trust any agency with the public’s tax money behind closed doors. This state law always supersedes any agency’s documents of governance (e.g., constitution, bylaws).

When I have worked with boards that use Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, with much surprise, I have noticed that many individuals keep citing Robert’s Rules of Order, not Rosenberg’s.

Board members already understand more about Robert’s rules than they realize. Unfortunately, there is always someone who, for self-serving purposes, weaponizes Robert’s rules to intimidate those who are less knowledgeable. However, individuals want, and can, handle more than a watered-down set of rules. Chart 1 shows some of the watered-down Rosenberg’s rules that confuse and intimidate the members.

Some of the Rosenberg’s simplification of Robert’s rules confuses members so that they are unable to function in any other parliamentary environment. An individual will not protect his rights with confidence if he is unsure as to which rules apply in which circumstances. Rosenberg appears

Concept

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order (2011)

Robert’s Rules of Order (2011)

Main Motion first

No. Debate first, much later a proposed motion.

Yes. Motion proposed first, followed by debate.

Steps to handling a Main Motion

10 Steps (i.e., agenda item; report; answer questions; public comment; motion proposed; seconded; chair states motion; debate; put to a vote; vote results announced)

6 Steps (i.e., motion proposed, seconded; chair states motion; debate; put to a vote; vote result announced)

Friendly Amendment

Valid if accepted by the mover of the motion and the seconder.

All actions on a motion are the exclusive right of the assembly as a whole, once stated by the chair.

Three Motions allowed at one time

As stated by these rules, only a main motion, a primary amendment, and a substitution motion can exist at the same time. (Substitution would probably violate the open meeting act.)

Only one main motion is permitted, but it can have primary and secondary amendments of which substitution is one.

Debate by the chair

Chair may debate especially immediately before the vote is taken.

No. Chair must remain impartial.

Informational Permitted, but not described.

Meeting Informational meeting would

violate open meeting act.

All meetings are formal business meetings.

Chart 1

to re-purpose or re-form some of the common motions for no reason other than to strengthen the power of the chair. See Chart 2 on page 10.

In addition to introducing confusion to the motion and to the language that the members are probably already familiar with, Rosenberg’s Rules of Order simplifies Robert’s Rules of Order by dropping numerous

critical rules and procedures. Rosenberg proposes that any simplification is a parliamentary advantage. But we can see that replacing a fully functional rules of order with one that offers no guidance under numerous situations merely complicates and confounds a board’s productivity.

This simplified but incomplete solution, Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, www.parliamentarians.org

9

Rosenberg’s (2011) Motions vs. Robert’s (2011) Motions Recess

Length is determined by the chair.

Length is determined by the assembly.

Fix the Time Sets adjournment time. to which to Does not set an adjourned Adjourn meeting.

Establishes that when the assembly adjourns, it will adjourn to meet at an adjourned meeting at a specific time and location.

Table Postpones a motion far into

the future or can be brought

back at any future meeting.

Temporary, urgent, and unplanned interruption of the consideration of a motion. Motion is brought back before the end of the next meeting.

Limit Debate

Stops further debate and the assembly votes immediately, unless someone specifies duration per speech. Treated as “Move the Previous Question,” but as a request and not as a formal motion.

Changes the duration of each speech or the number of speakers.

Shouting “Question!”

Without recognition or vote may stop debate and lead to the vote.

Is considered rude behavior. Member must wait to be recognized, seconded, and motion receives a 2/3 vote.

Reconsider Must be moved by someone the Vote 1 who voted with the majority.

Must be moved by someone who voted on the prevailing side. In a 2/3 vote with the majority of 60 for and 40 against, those who voted in the majority are not on the prevailing side.

Reconsider the Vote 2

Must be moved during meeting when the vote was taken and must be called up no later than the following meeting.

May be made during the meeting when the vote was taken or during the following meeting.

Call for the If chair fails to enforce this rule, Rule may be set aside with 2/3 vote, Orders of the the assembly may appeal, but with an extension of debate time, Day the rule may not be set aside. or with a Suspend the Rules.

Suspend the Rules 1

Debatable

Not debatable

Suspend the Rules 2

May suspend own rules of order.

May NOT suspend own rules of order.

Withdraw Mover of the motion may a Motion withdraw his motion.

Chart 2 10

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

All actions on a motion are the exclusive right of the assembly as a whole, and not of a lone individual once the motion has been stated by the chair.

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order (2011) lacks instruction or rules on…

1. Preference of Recognition 2. Explanation of a Notice 3. Motion to Refer 4. Standing Committees 5. Special Committees 6. Executive Committee 7. Discipline 8. Convention of Delegates or General Assembly 9. Bylaw Amendment procedures 10. Postpone Definitely or Postpone Indefinitely 11. Point of Parliamentary Inquiry 12. Request for Information 13. Open Meeting Laws 14. Correct definition of majority (claims it is 50% + 1) 15. Adjourned Meeting 16. Motion to Close Polls 17. Electronic Meeting procedure 18. Teleconference Meeting procedure 19. Fill in the Blanks 20. General Order/Unfinished Business/New Business 21. Voting by mail 22. Minutes 23. Debate limits (i.e., How often?

Duration?)

24. Officer or member Removal Process 25. Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted 26. Resignation 27. Proxy 28. Members’ Rights

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order (2011) grants the Chair sole discretion on the following situations.

1. “The Chair makes the final ruling on the rules every time the Chair states an action.” (p. 2) 2. “The Chair may limit the time of public speakers.” (p. 3) Would violate open meeting act.

3. “The Chair can proceed with consideration and vote on a motion even where there is no second. This is a matter left to the Discretion of the Chair.” (p. 3) 4. “The Chair may make a motion if the Chair believes no one else is willing to make the motion.” (p. 3) 5. If a member moves to amend, but the chair determines that it is a motion to substitute, the “Chair’s designation rules.” (p. 4) Would violate open meeting act.

6. Debate continues except that it is, “subject to the decision of the Chair that it is time to move on and take action.” (p. 4) 7. “The Chair determines the length of the recess.” (p. 4) 8. Without being recognized to speak, a member shouts, “Question”. If even one person wishes to continue the debate, the chair treats the shout as a formal motion and proceeds to it. (p. 5) 9. “In the interest of time, the Chair may, however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body.” (p. 7) Would violate open meeting act. www.parliamentarians.org

11

robs the members of some rights related to debate, power to decide, and protection of their motions.

A member’s rights and a society’s rights are then placed in the hands of a unilaterally acting entity, the chair.

Parliamentarians must help protect members’ right to debate, their power to decide, and their right to have their motions handled fairly. We must

teach parliamentary procedure at the level of the member’s understanding.

It is training, not dummying up the material, that is needed. We must not weaken the rules of order by yielding to a misguided set of rules that promises a simpler version but merely removes critical concepts. We must insist on a full set of rules because without rules no one can guarantee rights.

Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP, is a former president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians and a current workshop presenter for boards, conventions, and special groups. Lorenzo has been teaching parliamentary procedure for over 20 years. He is convinced that Telling is not Teaching; Listening is not Learning; and only by Engaging the Mind will we Enlighten the Learner.

Did You Know?

By Lynna Gene Cook, PRP

Did you know that the NAP Educational Foundation (NAPEF) offers dues scholarships?

Mark November 1, 2020, as the deadline for two scholarships available from NAPEF. Check the website (napef.org) and apply for the Alice Ragona Memorial Scholarship for students 23 years of age or less, or the Young Professional Dues Scholarship for young professionals between the ages of 24 and 35.

Don’t miss out on this valuable opportunity.

12

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

By Sally F. LaMacchia, RP

On the beautiful Thursday morning of November 9, 2019, I walked onto a high school campus to participate in a lesson. The last time I did that was in 1973 at Camarillo High where, as a third-year transfer student from Oxnard, I kept my head down, did my work, and sang in the choir.

On the morning of November 9, I indulged the feelings of that shy high school student as I walked onto Morro Bay High School campus and toward Room 201, an NAP convention bag hanging from my left hand.

I was an expected guest speaker on parliamentary procedure but to whom, I was not sure. It turned out to be the governing members and administrative sponsor of the Morro Bay High School Student Body Association (SBA). This elective period was regularly used to conduct

SBA business. My concern about holding the students’ interest was relieved when I learned that every person in the room chose to be there to participate in student government.

I’d hit the jackpot!

There were 36 students in class that morning and all seemed physically larger than their thirty-something year-old teacher. I squared my shoulders, straightened my back, and lifted my chin. I imagined myself tall.

I located available shelf space and unpacked my supplies and handouts.

The classroom was in slight disarray with various-sized tables, desks, and chairs covering about 1500 square feet. The students sat on every surface (mostly the chairs) talking and laughing. A lectern stood at the front of the room to the right of the teacher’s desk. www.parliamentarians.org

13

asked good questions about NAP membership, the credentialing exam itself (RP), and related matters.

I then distributed the first script.

I brought only enough copies for those with speaking roles but made it clear that everyone present was vital to the process.

The SBA president read for the chair. Five volunteers read for M1, M2, M3, M4, and M5. Once all readers were clearly identified and the chair was at the lectern, I read the underlying fact pattern and the fun began.1 In a span of 10 lively minutes, this group voted on multiple main motions after amendments, some of which were adopted and some of which failed. They moved to refer to committee and included the necessary details, they saw how a question of privilege and a request for information are used, and the value of each was clear. They witnessed (many for the first time) the handling of business by use of parliamentary procedure and they, along with their teacher, were impressed. The chair – SBA president and a natural leader – was surprised to learn about the rule of neutrality, and did not hide her enjoyment each time she said “The chair recognizes…,” or “It is moved and seconded that…,” or “Is there further debate?,” “Are you ready for the question?,” and other standard

The students were called to attention, I was introduced, asked to say why I was there (“To talk about parliamentary procedure.”), and the class was mine.

I am an experienced classroom teacher, most recently as a first-year law school professor. I learned to appreciate a captive audience and at Morro Bay High School was especially happy to have an audience interested in parliamentary procedure, whether they knew it or not. The students were 15-to-18-year-olds who, it soon became clear, were motivated, interested, outspoken, and opinionated. I knew I had to engage them quickly so, as any good teacher of parliamentary basics would do, I came prepared with homemade scripts designed especially for my target audience.

I arrived in the classroom at 10:30 a.m. and left 12:30 p.m. It was a fun two hours. The first began with introductory remarks. These were followed by discussion of my association with NAP and my NAP credential, NAP youth groups, and a few words on the viability of professional parliamentarian as a career path. I distributed some handouts and placed a couple of copies of RONR on the front table with RONR in Brief. The students wanted to know more about becoming a credentialed parliamentarian. They

This script is available by sending an email to sally@losfl.com with the subject line MB Script.

1

14

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

parliamentary phrases used by a presiding officer.

After the first apparent success, we discussed moving on to the second script when the teacher suggested that the SBA hold an actual meeting instead. She said SBA meetings were not getting a lot done lately and felt the morning had been very helpful.

She recommended that students hold a meeting and apply what they learned. The students agreed that it was a great idea, and that’s what was done. I continued in the role of instructor as needed.

It was a spirited second session. The meeting didn’t start for 15 minutes, during which the teacher and the SBA president wrote what they called an “agenda” on the board. What they actually wrote were general orders for that meeting.

With no time to spare, the SBA president rapped the gavel and called the meeting to order. They had several items to consider, ranging from chores distribution to the re-naming of “Secret Santa” and election of SBA officers.

Each item came to the floor by motion of a recognized member, just as was done in the earlier script. After a second, the chair stated the question (“It is moved and seconded that ….”),

and debate ensued. The chair put the question, members voted, and results were announced, just as was done in the earlier script. It was messy but thoughtful and at times hilariously “high school.” One member obtained the floor during debate of a change to “Secret Santa” and said, “I move that we change “Secret Santa” to “Boogie Bear Baby” and limit gift giving to things-that-live-in-the-nose.” The motion was declared dilatory and out of order by the chair. Meanwhile, the members were fully engaged!

About 10 minutes of the 50-minute meeting was devoted to silliness.

It was welcomed and reasonable considering the context and my mission. Before, during, and after the fun, these students paid attention.

They were impressed with the power of parliamentary procedure and delighted to have experienced the benefits in real time.

How did the whole thing happen, you ask? I went to the school district website; chose someone from the drop-down list in administration that I thought could help; and explained what I had to offer, to whom, and at what cost (none). That was all it took to find myself having fun with parliamentary procedure in a high school classroom on November 9, 2019.

I can’t wait to do it again!

Sally F. LaMacchia, Esq., RP, serves on the California State Association of Parliamentarians (CSAP) Governing Documents Committee, and is the current CSAP Southern Area Parliamentarian, past Southern Area Director, past Unit President, 2015 CSAP Annual Meeting Coordinator, and an NAP member since 2011.

Ms. LaMacchia is self-employed at Federal Workplace Service. www.parliamentarians.org

15

Writing Committee Reports & Recommendations

By William J. Puette, PRP

Committees, as RONR describes them, are bodies that are often, but not necessarily, very small, and are subordinate instruments of an assembly, or are accountable to a higher authority (“parent assembly”) in some way not characteristic of an assembly, RONR (11th ed.), p. 9. When they meet, they are considered non-deliberative bodies and, unless expressly given power by their parent assembly, have no authority except to recommend actions to the parent assembly.* As a subordinate body to the “parent assembly,” the committee’s report is an official statement submitted in the name of the committee of information obtained, notice of authorized action(s) taken by the committee, or of recommendations agreed to by the committee in the form of motions to be moved by the committee for action by the parent assembly. “…a report of a board or committee can contain only what has been agreed to by a majority vote at a regular or properly called meeting of which every member has been notified (or at an adjournment of one of these meetings, pp. 93-94) – where a quorum of the board or committee was present. A presentation of facts or recommendations made merely upon separate consultation with every member of a board must be described thus to the parent assembly, and not as an official report of the board.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 503.

Committee reports should not be confused with committee minutes.

Committee minutes are neither required by RONR nor should they ever be submitted to the parent assembly for approval or action of any sort. “In small committees, the chairman usually acts as secretary, but in large ones and many standing committees,

Committee reports are not the same as committee minutes.

16

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

a secretary may be chosen to keep a brief memorandum in the nature of minutes for the use of the committee.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 500.

No motion should be made to approve or adopt a committee report that contains only information.** Normally, only the committee’s recommendations should be moved by the chair or other reporting member of the committee.

RONR (11th ed.), pp. 506-507.

General Form for Committee Reports, RONR (11th ed.) p. 511, ll. 11-34 “All committee reports should be submitted in writing, except as noted (for particular types of brief reports in a small assembly)… a report can be given orally only if it is brief enough that the secretary can record its complete substance in the minutes on hearing it given – which he must do if no written copy is submitted for file.”

“Usually a written committee report is not addressed or dated. It is understood to be addressed to the assembly, and its date is that on which it is presented in a meeting of the assembly as recorded in the minutes.”

“A committee report should always be worded in the third person… . (not ‘I report…’ or ‘We recommend…’). Similarly, in an assembly a committee report is always spoken of by the chair and others as, for example, ‘the report of the Finance Committee’ or ‘the report of the committee to which was referred…[stating the subject].’ It should never be spoken of as ‘the report of the chairman of the Finance Committee’ and never as ‘Mr. Smith’s report,’ even though it is usually presented by the committee chairman and even if he may have personally drafted it or done most of the work reported.”

Form for Reports to Single Items of Business, RONR (11th ed.), p. 512, ll. 1-18: A committee report should begin with an identification of the committee submitting it – the name of the committee in the case of a standing committee, or the subject that was referred in the case of a special committee or taskforce. “[For a standing committee:] The Committee on…wishes to report [or, ‘reports’] that…[or, ‘submits the following report:…’].

Or:…

[For a special committee,] The committee to which was referred [stating the subject] reports [or ‘recommends’] that…”

www.parliamentarians.org

17

Writing Committee Recommendations: “When a report is made for the purpose of presenting recommendations on a single subject…it is often best for the formal report to be confined as much as possible to the recommendations… .” RONR (11th ed.), p. 504, ll. 33-35, p. 505, ll. 1-3.

Specific recommendations for immediate action by the parent assembly should be grouped at the end of the report, repeating them if they have already been noted at separate places in the report – and should generally be cast in the form of one or more proposed resolutions. Be sure they are drafted as actions of the parent assembly, not the committee.

If it is desired to bring supporting reasons to the attention of the assembly, the reporting member can include brief oral explanations with his presentation.

Supporting reasons can be explained at greater length during debate on the report – by the reporting member, who has the right to the floor first in debate, and also by other members of the board or committee, if appropriate, as the debate progresses. RONR 11th ed. pp. 504-505.

Presentation to Parent Assembly: At meetings other than annual meetings, the chair calls only on those who have reports to make, as by saying “…‘The chair recognizes Mr. Downey, Chairman of the Membership Committee, for a report.’ If the chair is uncertain, he may ask, for example, ‘Does the Program Committee have a report?’ Standing committees listed in the bylaws are called upon in the order in which they are listed.”… .“In the case of a committee report, the chairman or other reporting member should make any motion(s) necessary to bring the committee’s recommendations before the assembly for consideration. A motion arising out of an officer’s, a board’s, or a committee’s report is taken up immediately, since the object of the order of business is to give priority to the classes of business in the order listed.” RONR (11th ed.), pp. 355-356. e.g. By direction of the Communications Committee, I move

“That the Society for the Advancement of Civil Discourse

create and maintain a public website.”

* As such, committees should not have or attempt to create their own charges, instructions, or rules. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 500-501; nor should they be issued charters or bylaws. ** Notable exceptions to this advice are the consideration and adoption of the Credentials, Standing Rules and Program committees that bring about the official organization of a convention. RONR (11th ed.), pp. 609-610.

18

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

Additional Tips & Suggestions for Writing and Considering Committee Reports: • Write committee recommendations in active (not passive) voice and as proposed actions of the parent assembly, not the committee; • Write reports in declarative sentences only; pose no questions (particularly rhetorical questions) that will not be voted on by the assembly; • Reports should not contain “pre-debate” of proposed recommendations – only brief oral explanations allowed, RONR (11th ed.), p. 505; • Do not permit ad lib, committee oral reports by a committee chair which were not agreed to by the committee at a previous committee meeting, RONR (11th ed.), p. 503; • After a committee report is presented, (except when adoption of the whole report is moved) a report is not open to debate or comment; only the committee recommendations, after they have been moved, are debatable, amendable, etc.

• Likewise, at the end of the report, only the presiding officer (not the committee chair) may ask: “Are there any questions?”

See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 392 and 453; • Adopt a special rule to limit and/or move mere “status reports” (especially oral reports) of subordinate units which are not actual committees, such as regions, divisions, caucuses, etc., to after new business.

William J. Puette, Ph.D., PRP, CP, is Director of the Center for Labor Education & Research at the University of Hawai‘i-West O‘ahu Campus. He is a tenured member of senior faculty, teaching labor history, law, and Parliamentary Procedure. Puette is co-author of the Nā Lula Hālāwai, Hawai‘i State Association of Parliamentarians’ 250-page parliamentary guide to conducting meetings in Hawaiian. He is a past president of the Hawai‘i State Association of Parliamentarians, is currently a member of the NAP International Services Committee, and has served on the Professional Development Committee.

www.parliamentarians.org

19

Test Yourself

IT’S

Elementary

By David Mezzera, PRP

Anyone reading this magazine who did well in chemistry class may want to try tackling this challenge. Even if you’re not a chemistry wiz, be creative and give it a try: What is significant about this list of chemical elements?

Phosphorous / Argon / Lithium / Americium / Erbium / Nitrogen / Tantalum / Rhodium / Yttrium Answers on page 35

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 20

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

Test Yourself

ARE YOU OR

Present

Absent?

By David Mezzera, PRP

The Results Are In! Page numbers for the citations are from the “Are You Present or Absent?” quiz in the National Parliamentarian® Vol. 81, No. 1 (Fall 2019), pp. 15-16: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Page 566 Page 122 Page 88 Page 595 Page 372 Page 103 Page 124

The total of the page numbers for all seven citations is 1970, which was the year of publication of the 7th edition of Robert’s Rules. It was a significant edition as it was the first for which Henry M. Robert III was part of the authorship team, and the first where “Newly” was added to the title to become Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. ROR became RONR. The first person to send a correct answer was Jeanette Taylor, president of the Tri-County Parliamentary Study Unit in South Carolina.

Congratulations. Her award is an original copy of the 4th edition of Robert’s Rules, published in 1915.

This was first edition where “Revised”

was added to the title, so the publication became Robert’s Rules of Order Revised. RO became ROR. An interesting alternative response was provided by Steven Walls, PRP, a member of the District of Columbia Unit. He added the numbers of the § hints from page 36, and arrived at the total of 192, which he reported was the exact number of pages in the 2nd edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, published in July 1876, clearly before the “Revised” or “Newly Revised” editions. Quite serendipitous.

Apology: A friend and colleague from Arizona pointed out that asking for the first correct response that was sent was a disadvantage for those living in Canada or out West (where the pony express takes a little longer for the NP to arrive!). The author of the quiz learned a lesson that if anything similar were ever tried in the future, any reward should be chosen at random from all correct responses.

And lots of correct responses were indeed received for this quiz. Thanks for participating.

David Mezzera, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians and past District 8 Director.

www.parliamentarians.org

21

Test Yourself

The Power of Inquiry

An invitation to submit parliamentary questions to the Question & Answer Team

By Alison Wallis, PRP

“It’s not that I’m so smart, but I stay with the question much longer.”

— Albert Einstein

Questions: Do you have questions about challenging parliamentary concepts?

Do you wish for practical guidance in applying parliamentary procedure to real-life situations? Did you know that a benefit of your NAP membership is to put the Question & Answer Team to work for you?

Answers: The Parliamentary Research Committee, also known as the Question & Answer Team, exists to provide helpful answers to parliamentary queries. Your Q&A Team works for you in two meaningful ways.

First, the team will respond to NAP member questions on parliamentary

22

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

procedure. Questions from members are addressed to the National Parliamentarian Q&A Research Editor at npquestions@nap2.org as described on page 24 of this NP, who forwards them to the Q&A Editor. There is no limit to the length of the question, but we ask you to be as succinct as completeness allows. After receiving the question, a member of the team will research your query and respond privately in a few weeks. After further review by the whole team, the question and answer may be included in the National Parliamentarian.

Anonymity is preserved and the name of the questioner is not included in the NP. Member-generated Q&As will not be published if the Q&A Editor feels

Test Yourself

that the question is straightforward and easily answered in the parliamentary authority, if the Q&A Team judges that the question does not advance parliamentary knowledge or serve as a useful reminder of important parliamentary concepts, or if the question has been answered previously. In addition, complex questions more appropriate for a professional parliamentary opinion or questions that seek strategic advice will not be published.

Second, the Q&A Team will publish questions and answers on unclear, undecided, or rare parliamentary situations. After all, no matter how many parliamentary treatises you read or how much experience you have, there will always be areas that should be explored.

These questions may come from NAP members or may arise from a team member’s parliamentary practice and

teaching experience.

For all questions submitted to us, the Team will not provide a formal or official opinion but will provide a solid, well-researched answer, bringing in additional material as appropriate that would interest or educate the membership of NAP. Our goal is to provide answers that are accurate, informative, and interesting as we delve into parliamentary tangles.

NAP members have interesting and greatly varied experiences in the parliamentary realm. We hope you will share questions that arise as you ponder these situations. Please share your curiosity with other members and send us your questions. Your experienced Question and Answer Team, Alison Wallis, Ann Homer, Rachel Glanstein, and Tim Wynn, looks forward to exploring your parliamentary questions.

Alison Wallis, PRP, a member of NAP since 2003, is an attorney who lives outside New Orleans. She is a Certified ParliamentarianTeacher, past president of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, and currently the president of the American College of Parliamentary Lawyers. She has actively promoted parliamentary education since obtaining the PRP credential in 2005.

www.parliamentarians.org

23

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 emailed to npquestions@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:

24

RO

Editions 1-3, Robert’s Rules of Order

ROR

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

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers

Q

continued

Question 1: At my annual meeting last night, an election of officers was held, and all positions were filled, except for that of the Secretary. There were three nominees for Secretary. We voted by ballot six times, and none of the three nominees received a majority of the votes cast, which is required for election. It was late and we adjourned without filling that position. Why couldn’t we require the lowest candidate to withdraw from the election? What could we have done, and what do we do next?

Answer: Individuals can’t be removed from candidacy on a ballot vote unless they voluntarily withdraw, which they are not obligated to do. RONR, p. 441. The rules could have been suspended, or a special rule of order adopted, specifying that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots. However, members could still vote for that candidate unless a bylaws provision was adopted making the dropped nominee actually ineligible for election.

Additionally, an adjourned meeting could have been established to complete the election. RONR, p. 444. Since the adjourned meeting was not provided for, the election should be completed at the next regular business session within a quarterly time interval. If more than a quarterly time interval will pass, it’s recommended to call a special meeting to complete the election.

If the bylaws require that officers continue until their successors are elected, then the Secretary will continue in office until the next meeting where the election can be completed.

www.parliamentarians.org

25

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers

Q

continued

Question 2: We have a board composed of four officers (president, vice president, secretary, treasurer), five directors, and the immediate past president, ex officio. One member passed away unexpectedly, one member was removed from office in a disciplinary proceeding, one member has told people she resigned, one member has a known conflict of interest with a matter set in a special meeting, and the past president has formally resigned. We wish to know what the quorum for the special board meeting will be. Our bylaws are silent.

Answer: If the governing documents are silent, the quorum of a board is majority of its members. RONR, p. 347.

At the beginning of the term, there was a ten-member board.

Vacancies may occur from death, resignation, or removal. The ex officio position of the immediate past president is not counted toward the quorum because, as a result of his resignation, he is no longer under the control of the society. RONR, p. 483-4.

A resignation submitted in writing or orally in person should be voted upon in a board meeting. RONR, p. 291. Statements outside of a meeting, such as the one you describe, have no effect.

It might be advisable to contact this member privately to inform her that she should resign in writing or in person at a meeting, and that the board must accept the resignation for it to have effect. Until the resignations are accepted, the individual is a member of the board and as such is counted toward the quorum.

In your case, membership on this board was reduced by the death of a member, by the removal of a member in disciplinary proceeding, and by resignation from membership of the past president; the quorum of the seven-member board is 4. Any resignation must be approved by the board to be accepted and unless that is done, the member is still on the board and is still counted toward the quorum. If the individual submits a proper request to resign and such is accepted by the board, composition of the board is reduced; if no resignation is given or accepted, the composition of the board is not affected. The presence by one with a conflict of interest does not affect the quorum calculation.

26

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers

Q

continued

Question 3: My condominium association has a board of directors’ seat reserved for a commercial unit owner who is elected by the commercial unit owners. According to the bylaws, if that seat becomes vacant for any reason other than the expiration of the director’s term, the board fills the seat “from among a slate of nominees submitted by the commercial unit owners.” Additionally, the bylaws state that directors hold office “until their successors are elected.”

At the last annual meeting, no one ran for the commercial unit seat, so it is now vacant. What happens if the commercial unit owners fail to submit a slate of nominees?

Does the seat just remain vacant until the next annual meeting? Does the prior incumbent remain in office?

Answer: If the incumbent commercial director did not resign, he or she is still occupying that position on the board, since the bylaws require continued service until a successor is elected.

If the incumbent did resign, and the commercial unit owners fail to submit a slate of nominees, then the board is unable to fill that commercial unit seat between association meetings, and there will be a vacancy in that seat until the next association meeting.

It may be advisable to amend the bylaws to either require the commercial unit owners to submit at least one nominee any time the commercial seat is up for election, or to strike the requirement entirely and allow the board to fill a vacancy between association meetings with any eligible commercial unit owner.

Questions & Answers Research Team

Alison Wallis, PRP Q&A Research Editor

Ann Homer, PRP Assistant Q&A Research Editor

Rachel Glanstein, PRP Parliamentary Consultant

Timothy Wynn, PRP Parliamentarian

www.parliamentarians.org

27

NAP Connections

An Update from the Commission on Credentialing The Commission on Credentialing has been busy since the September, 2019, convention. A resolution was adopted at the convention, asking the commission to freeze the new process and reinstate the 1200 question-based system for Registered Parliamentarian (RP) credentialing. Since the commission is a quasi-independent body and cannot be controlled by the convention delegates or the board, the adopted resolution is advisory only.

The commission declined to freeze the process, as this seemed to offer no practical or process advantage. The commission therefore continues to develop the new RP credentialing process without interruption and with the same pace as before, while recognizing that it is still in the testing process. The commission did, however, reinstate the 1200 question-based system as an alternative option. Beginning November 1, 2019, until the new system is fully functional and adequate testing has been done, those who began the new system on or after August 1, 2019, were allowed to revert to the 1200 question-based system if they chose.

The commission has also heard from a significant number of members expressing concerns about the testing process. The commission shares the concerns expressed

28

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

NAP Connections

regarding unproctored and untimed quizzes, and the amount of time the testing is taking. Proctoring requires significant coordination and, unfortunately, does not always guarantee the proper oversight of the tester. Instituting a time limit for step one quizzes was considered to be the best option, and is possible with the online testing system in use.

A related issue was the beta testers, and the time it has been taking to complete that process. Beta testing is a time-consuming process, and many testers have had difficulty completing the testing due to that time commitment.

Therefore, the commission announces two new rules for the RP exams taken under the commissions system.

1) For step one, Parts 1-7, the tester will be allowed 60 minutes to complete each quiz. This rule took effect on January 1, 2020.

In order to make the necessary adjustments to the system, the RP step one quizzes were not available between December 26 and 31, 2019.

2) Effective January 1, 2020, the deadlines for completing the l RP credentialing process recently announced as applicable to anyone starting the testing process under the new RP credentialing system on or after August 1, 2019, will

apply to beta testers as if they had started the process on January 1, 2020. Anyone who does not complete the steps within the deadlines will be required to wait six months, then pay the application fee in order again to seek the RP credential. Please see the NAP website for details of the deadlines, including provisions for granting extensions.

The commission is very grateful to the NAP Educational Foundation which has approved our grant application to fund the production of the videos necessary for part 3 of the new RP credentialing system. The creation of these videos will allow performance testing of RP candidates without having to stage an in-person mock meeting for each person. Each video meeting will be approximately one hour long and require the candidate to give advice to the presiding officer of the meeting, both in response to questions, and by interrupting to note important errors in procedure, even when not asked.

The commission meets frequently via Adobe Connect and had a multiday face-to-face meeting in January.

The commission is committed to achieving full roll-out of the new system by the end of 2020.

Your comments, ideas and suggestions are welcome. Please email the commission at commission@nap2.org.

www.parliamentarians.org

29

NAP Connections

Grow Our Own: A VSAP Initiative

By Cynthia R. Mayo, PRP

Grow Our Own (GOO)was a creative initiative to recruit new members for the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP). It was developed by the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians (VSAP) to increase membership through the parliamentary units and the club in Virginia. Due to the initiative, VSAP (District 2) increased its membership more than 20 percent.

The increase came as a result of units and the club writing a proposal to sponsor and conduct communitybased workshops.

With the leadership of President Raymond Duke, PRP-R, and Vice-President Cynthia R. Mayo, PRP, VSAP officers developed a request for proposal that was approved at the annual convention in May 2015. Units and the club were charged with the task of developing a proposal with goals, objectives, dates, activities, and a budget not to exceed $350.00, to conduct free outreach workshops for their local communities. Each of the 12 units and club had the opportunity to submit a proposal any time during the year, once they had concrete plans to conduct the outreach workshop. The funds were to be used to purchase instructional materials and other essentials.

During the 2015-16 year, six of the eleven units and the club wrote proposals. Each was granted $350.00 to conduct the parliamentary procedure workshops. During the 30

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

2016-2017 annual convention, each unit and the club presented their results from offering the communitybased workshops. The attendance at the workshops was excellent. Each workshop drew from 25 to 75 persons.

During the first year, a total of 335 persons attended the workshops. The participants received RONR In Brief as a takeaway resource. Members reported that interest in parliamentary procedure was stimulated. Units and the club increased their membership by inviting persons to their meetings and conducting membership workshops to prepare attendees to take the membership exam.

During the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 years, units and the club requested funds to conduct annual workshops, with the option to offer a workshop on presiding. The “Presiding with Passion” workshop was offered two times by members of two units. After the presiding workshops for 20 persons, ten of the attendees joined a unit or club and have taken the membership test.

Seven units and club of the 11 have conducted free outreach workshops for the community.

Two units and the club extended the option for persons to pay and take the membership examination following the parliamentary outreach model and a review of questions found on the membership exam. Two interactive workshops were conducted where persons prepared for the

NAP Connections

membership examination. The membership examination was given to all participants. Thirty-four of those participants became members of NAP and one of the 11 units or club.

According to data reported in the VSAP Membership Directory 2017, and the NAP Membership Directory, 2018, VSAP membership increased 31%, from 138 to 192.

According to the National Parliamentarian, Volume 80, No. 2, Winter, 2019, VSAP membership has increased to 217, ranking third behind Texas and New York. Some of the membership increase was the result of GOO efforts.

GOO is a model that can be replicated across the country to assist associations to increase membership.

VSAP did not increase the annual convention fees to provide the funds to units and club. The state association had a savings account where funds were allocated each of the past four years to support the GOO and the presiding workshops. While $350.00 was allocated, some units and club did not use the entire amount to conduct

the outreach workshops. Therefore, VSAP has spent less than $5,000 to fund the GOO and “Presiding with Passion� workshops.

The cities where units and the club operate have increased membership, and raised awareness of the need to learn parliamentary procedure for effective organization operations.

As a result of the outreach efforts, membership has increased in units and club; inquiries about learning parliamentary practices have increased 200 %. Records of inquiries for parliamentary procedure in 2016 show that 12 inquiries for information were reported. In 2018, inquiries increased to 36, a 200 % increase.

In conclusion, Grow Our Own (GOO) is one avenue for increasing NAP membership. Not only will membership increase, it provides the tools to increase operational efficiency of organizations who have RONR, as their parliamentary authority in their bylaws. Outreach in the form of Reaching Out to the community yearly keeps the NAP vision of providing parliamentary leadership to the world.

References: National Association of Parliamentarians Membership Update, National Parliamentarian, Volume 80, No. 2, Winter 2019, p. 34.

VSAP Membership Directory, 2017-19.

VSAP Minutes, 2017-2019.

Cynthia Mayo, PRP, is a past president of Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians (VSAP) and the initiator of the GOO idea. She currently serves as the treasurer of VSAP. She is District II Director for years 2019-2021.

www.parliamentarians.org

31

NAP Connections

NAP Is an Association of People

By David A. Whitaker, PRP

My boss laughs whenever I submit a time-off request to attend an NAP event. “You are the only person I know who takes your vacation time to go to a meeting about meetings!�

I explain that one must keep current with developments and continuing education units for renewal. She continues to chuckle.

She is correct in saying that I spend my vacation time doing what I can for the association. She also knows that attending the events are more than a learning experience for me.

Aside from having a lifelong passion for learning how parliamentary procedure works, I also enjoy meeting new people from places I have never 32

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

visited. NAP is the mutually inclusive union of both. I believe my successes are because I have found mentors who truly want to foster success, and because NAP is a place where all are welcome, regardless of ability level. My experiences are based on the people I have come to know and consider great friends.

My state president, Tannis F. Nelson, PRP, introduced me to a wonderful group in North Carolina.

She is the epitome of a professional, practiced, polished, and polite parliamentarian. She encouraged me to attend the national convention.

Without her, I would have never taken my first step toward national service.

NAP Connections

That first event was the convention in Lombard, Illinois, in 2017. I knew no one who would be in attendance, and I was a little hesitant. The first morning, as I walked toward the main hall, a woman approached me with a broad smile. Her hand extended, she proclaimed, “Hi! My name is Joyce Brown-Watkins.” I answered, “My name is Dave Whitaker.” Still smiling, she continued, “I am running for Director-at-Large and I would like your vote!” “I will be voting for you because you are the first person to ask me,” I replied with a huge grin.

We shared a laugh and had dinner together the next night. Over the next two years, every time we “e-saw” (what some members call seeing someone at an electronic meeting or event) we would chat or say hello.

At this year’s Las Vegas national convention, nearly two years to the day after our first meeting, I was rushing toward the NAP Bookstore and someone caught my eye. Without regard for anyone who happened to be nearby, I yelled “Joyce BrownWatkins!” Turning quickly, she yelled “Dave Whitaker!” I rushed over and after a hug, we caught up for nearly twenty minutes standing in the middle of the casino hallway, paying no attention to the people walking around us. I had an excellent experience meeting a warm and kind lady that I had no idea would be on our board of directors for the next biennium.

I addressed the first timers’ orientation in Las Vegas, and my

statement is one I truly believe. It is engrained as part of my NAP experience. As each presenter began, they would state their name, their home state, a position, and how many conventions they had attended. Most of the presenters had attended four, five, or more conventions. I stood after I was called and gave my name.

I said, “I am the Guidebook person, I am the 2020 NTC Workshop Coordinator. Last biennium I was the Editor of the Leadership Connection newsletter, a member of the Association Relations Committee, the Treasurer of the Electronic Association of Parliamentarians, – and this is my second Convention.”

There was an audible gasp which echoed a little in the filled room.

“My reason in saying all that is because next convention, if you want, the person standing here could be you.”, I remarked. “Look around,” I said, “a year from now you will see someone in this room and you will yell across a lobby or a room to catch their eye. We will learn about parliamentary procedure, of course.

But I hope you will find that the new friends you make this weekend will be what brings you back.” I spoke about the mentors I have been fortunate to have during my three years in NAP. In closing, I told them, “Come to San Antonio. Plan to attend the workshops that interest you.

Remember how things happened this year, which instructors you enjoyed, and who you met. Because next time won’t be your first time. But I can www.parliamentarians.org

33

NAP Connections

assure you, when you see that friend you have missed for a year, and the two of you walk up to each other with a handshake or a hug, it will be just like your first time all over again. But don’t take my word for it.”

As President Darlene Allen says, “NAP is the keeper of the Democratic process.” NAP is first, an association of people. People who believe in freedom of speech in debate, in the preservation of rights of all members, and teaching and learning together. When we teach others how to defend the voice of the minority but protect the will of the majority, we carry out that mission.

Sharing our experiences in teaching and learning deepens our relationships and fuels many stories by members seated around tables, common areas of hotels, or even empty meeting rooms. You will see that for yourself when you join us at our next national meeting.

It is a fascinating and exciting time to be an active member of NAP. The

90th Anniversary of NAP is in 2020.

In San Antonio, we will be present for the unveiling of the 12th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised.

There is so much to be done and you are a vital component of the Association’s success. Should you wish to join a committee, just find your unit or association president, your district director, a member of the board of directors, or a member of our headquarters staff. They will be able to point you in the right direction.

NAP would not exist without you – without us – looking for new ways to engage the world in parliamentary education. Meeting new friends and establishing lifelong contacts is a happy side effect of joining that effort.

These statements may be sentimental hyperbole to some, but I believe that the statements have the additional merit of being completely true.

The experience is yours to discover; but, like I said before, don’t take my word for it.

David A. Whitaker, PRP, is a member of the North Carolina Association of Parliamentarians, where he serves as State Webmaster. He is Treasurer of the Electronic Association of Parliamentarians until 2021. He is currently the Workshop Coordinator for the 2020 National Training Conference in San Antonio, Texas. Professionally, he is the Practice Secretary for Central Triad Retina Professional Association.

34

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Jacquelwyn Anthony (GA)

Ryan Foor (NE)

Lois Shulman (MO)

Vanessa Brown (FL)

Melanye Johnson (DC)

Kathleen Sutherland (DC)

Makisha Cheeks (FL)

David Moskowitz (DE)

Glendell White (DC)

Margaret Evans (MO)

Lance Neward (UT)

Mary Wiggins (NJ)

Lillie Fontenot (EL)

Louis Rivera (FL)

Nicole van Woudenberg (ON)

New Professional Registered Parliamentarians* NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarian: Paul Belz-Templeman (OR)

Daniel Earheart-Brown (TN)

Joe Neglia (AZ)

Bennyfer Bridgewater (TX)

Carol Farmer (KS)

Lawrence Taylor (OR)

Gregory Carlson (CO)

Kelley Jones (NV)

Debi Wilcox (ON)

Karen Cole (EL)

Brenda Kennedy (TX)

Silent Gavels* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Christina Burns (MI)

Jacquelyn Pierce (FL)

Nancy Vaughan (OK)

* For the period October 21, 2019 through December 17, 2019

Answer Key

Test Yourself

It’s Elementary from page 20

For all you Sodium Phosphorous (NaP) members and Nitrogen Phosphorous (NP) readers, place the classic chemical symbols for the previously listed elements in order and see what they spell.

(P) Phosphorous (Ar) Argon (Li) Lithium

(Am) Americium (E) Erbium (N) Nitrogen

(Ta) Tantalum (R) Rhodium (Y) Yttrium

www.parliamentarians.org

35

NAP Connections

New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Dianna Anderson (FL)

Stacey Lawson (NJ)

James Snow (AB)

Charmaine Arredondo (WA)

Bridget Lewis-Burgess (NJ)

Kimberlie Story (TX)

Richard Atwell (MI)

Cynthia Lilly-Hughes (MD)

Sheryl Lynn Swearingen (CO)

Tobi Basile (CO)

Cassandra Mack (PA)

Patricia Twitty (MD)

Steven Black (NC)

Gina Merritt-Epps (NJ)

Arabella Walker (FL)

Melanie Burney (PA)

Keith Moens (IL)

Juenara Washington (NEAP)

Maria Bynum (DE)

David Moskowitz, RP (DE)

Berthlyn Williams Scoulios (MD)

Daniel Carroll (TX)

Jennifer Myers (NJ)

Joshua Witten (SC)

Loryn Cauthen (NJ)

Penny Nixon (PA)

Crystal Wright-Johnson (NY)

Shavonde Chase (TN)

Karen Odom (NJ)

Candyce Coates (MD)

Kenya Pace (NJ)

Gwenneth Corujo (MD)

Adam Palmer (AB)

Cassandra Dancy-Potts (NY)

Lael Pierce (NY)

Annette Draper-Moore (NEAP)

Dionne Quow-Collins (NJ)

Robert Gary (CA)

Boyd Ready (HI)

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Beverly Tatham, PRP

Julia Hale (TN)

Connie Rensink (TX)

Kay Crews, PRP

Prudence Henderson (MD)

Megan Roach (FL)

Mary Badhe, PRP-R

Brad Holt (UT)

Virginia Roberts (MD)

Theljewa Garrett, PRP

Gregory Jackson (DC)

Jennifer Romaszewski (TX)

Dorothy White, RP

Twylah Jenkins (PA)

Kimberly Rush (PA)

Joyce Gleason, RP

Naeemah Johnson (NJ)

Kevin Schell (VA)

Erica Lindsey

Cynthia Jones (PA)

Ivy Scott (DE)

Zhimin Zhong

Nichelle Jones (PA)

Aisha Sharif-Lucas (PA)

Steve Glanstein, PRP

Abbey Kind (AB)

Ryan Shoefelt (WY)

Jewel Johnson Jones, PRP

Thank you instructors!

* For the period October 21, 2019 through December 17, 2019

12th Edition Roll Out

By Sheryl Womble, PRP

The 2020 National Training Conference Committee invites you to the Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition “Roll Out”

Thursday, August 27, 2020

from 6:30-10 pm.

Join us for an evening of fun, food, and entertainment with a fiesta flair.

You would not want to miss it!

36

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2020

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