National Parliamentarian (Vol. 81, No. 3)

NP

Volume 81, No. 3 | Spring 2020

National Parliamentarian

Engaged Members Remain Members Electronic Absentee Voting Methods . . . . . . . .

page 4

Knots and Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

page 16

Come. Celebrate. Learn. San Antonio. . . . . .

page 19

NAP Conference

Leadership 2O2O

August 26-27, 2020 • San Antonio, TX

Strengthen your leadership skills and unleash the potential in your organization.

WHAT TO EXPECT

WHEN

• Small-group exercises

August 26, 2020 4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.

• Exchange program

August 27, 2020 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

ideas with others

• Network with other

WHERE

leaders

Hilton Palacio del Rio 200 S. Alamo St. San Antonio, TX 78205

• Learn how NAP can assist units and associations Topics to be addressed include:

• Tim Wynn, PRP –

Navigating RONR

• Cyndy

Launchbaugh, NAP Executive Director – NAP at Your Service

• Mary Remson, PRP –

Planning& Organizing

• Azella Collins, PRP – There Is No Regret in General

Consensus, but I’d Do It This Way Instead

• Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP – Five Powerful Parliamentary

Tools Often Neglected by Experienced Presiding Officers

• Steven Britton, PRP – What Should It Say

in the Bylaws?

Register online today at www.napconference.org/2020leadership

WHO Current and future leaders • Unit president & officers • Association presidents • District directors • Members

REGISTRATION Early Bird (by 6/15): $90 Regular: $125

COORDINATORS Deborah Underwood, RP Coordinator Freddie Colston, PRP Assistant Coordinator

NP 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, RP Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh

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

National Parliamentarian

Volume 81, No. 3 | Spring 2020

Contents From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message Engaged Members Remain Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEATURES Questions and Considerations in Electronic .

Absentee Voting Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Brandon Walters, PRP A Short Treatise on “Executive Se-sssh!-ions” . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Scott M. Burns, PRP I Move to Reaffirm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Carl Nohr, PRP Great Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Robert B. Blair, PRP Knots and Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 John R. Berg, PRP Special Section NAP Training Conference Come. Celebrate. Learn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Schedule at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Where to Stay and How to Get There . . . . . . . . . . 24 Registration and Activity Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 DEPARTMENTS Test Yourself A to Z Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

David Mezzera, PRP Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

NAP Connections A First-Timer’s Experience at the NAP Convention . . . . .

Thomas Holmes From the Communications Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Adam Hathaway, PRP From Mission to Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Valoree Althoff, PRP California Channel Islands Parliamentarians .

Golden Anniversary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sally La Macchia, RP New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 28 37 31 32 34 36 38 38 38

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 (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. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2020 (Summer 2020) Volume 82, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2020 (Fall 2020) Volume 82, No. 2 . . . . . . November 1, 2020 (Winter 2021)

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

During the weeks this issue of National Parliamentarian® has been assembled, voting has been on the minds of many American citizens. As you will see, voting has also been on the minds of some of our contributing authors. Brandon Walters advises us on some considerations in deciding to use electronic voting, while Carl Nohr addresses the issue of voting to reaffirm a previously decided issue, and John Berg directs our attention to ways to break a tie vote. Our Q & A team mentions voting during a request to be excused from a duty.

As you peruse these and the other articles in this issue, don’t miss the special section with information about the NAP Training Conference.

Start planning now for a wonderful learning experience in San Antonio this August.

TennieBee Hall 2 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

President’s Message

Engaged Members Remain Members We’re almost halfway through the year 2020. Units are preparing for the summer break. With membership renewal and Parliamentary Law Month behind us, this is an appropriate time to evaluate the efforts, activities, and events carried out thus far by your units and associations.

As stated by Craig D. Lounsbrough, “In evaluating ourselves, we tend to be long on our weaknesses and short on our strengths.” There may be a tendency to be critical of efforts without acknowledging and celebrating the successes. Although the goal may have been missed, an opportunity to try again and improve, occurs each day. The challenge will be to further develop a culture that embraces continuous improvement.

Membership retention is the next phase (after recruitment and assimilation) in the life of a thriving unit and association. According to Webster’s dictionary, to retain is to keep possession of or to continue to hold or have. The commitment by members to continue their membership allows us to have a built-in team of supporters. The team grows larger and stronger using regular two-way communication and actively engaging the members. Membership retention does not begin on January 1 and end on March 1 of each year. It is a continuous process.

Members should be made aware of the time and place of meetings and have access to the governing documents and meeting minutes; and they are engaged through robust unit educational programs. Information and lessons to assist your unit or association are available in the members only section of the NAP website.

Retention efforts must also include a component by which your unit and our associations reach out to those who have not renewed their membership. The reasons a former member does not renew are also important.

It’s not too late to ask or to inform about the NAP reinstatement policy.

Reinstatement for lapsed 2020 membership, without retaking the membership exam, remains an option until February 2021. Unit and association leaders should compile and share the information gleaned from the exit interview/survey in order to improve retention efforts. As an added measure, consider keeping the non-renewing member on the email distribution list. Your unit and association communications may be the only contact and primary source of information until a non-renewing member decides to return.

Even if you missed the target, be proud of your efforts. “Nothing beats a failure but a try,” according to R. J. Smith.

June marks the 90th anniversary of the National Association of Parliamentarians.

We want as many members as possible to join in the celebration. However, this celebration should pale in comparison to the fiesta at the National Training Conference for the release of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition.

See you in San Antonio!

Darlene T. Allen, PRP NAP President 2019-2021 www.parliamentarians.org 3

Questions and Considerations in Electronic Absentee Voting Methods

By Brandon Walters, PRP

When one thinks of absentee voting, one generally thinks of voting for government officials by mail instead of physically going to a local polling precinct on election day. Many of the same principles can be utilized in ordinary societies if the organization chooses to do so. There are even some very basic guidelines given in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) for organizations that wish to utilize absentee voting methods. But, is absentee voting right for your group and, if so, by what means should it be conducted? One of the major discussions in voting today is whether to consider using electronic voting technology and how best to use it.

For many years, electronic voting methods have been discussed and some organizations have made the switch.

When it comes to RONR and electronic absentee voting, there’s bad news and good news. The bad news: RONR devotes little space to the 4 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

notion of electronic absentee voting.

The good news: This scarcity gives groups the ability to adapt their own rules to meet their specific needs and does not restrict them to any particular technology requiring them to develop their own unique rules on how to operate.

One thing is certain, if a group wants to utilize any sort of absentee voting, whether electronic or not, it must provide for it in the bylaws.

“It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule should be expressly stated in the bylaws.” RONR 423 (emphasis added).

When dealing with absentee voting in an organization, there are three

main considerations each group tends to consider first and foremost: ease of use, privacy, and cost.

Ease of Use If a group is considering using an electronic voting method, the following are some of the usual questions that arise: • Is it accessible to all voters?

• How easy is the technology for the average member to use?

• Does it require a computer?

• Can it be done from a smartphone?

• What if a member does not have a computer or a smartphone?

• Is there training for members on how to vote (including if training is conducted either in-person, electronically, or both)?

• Is there a contact person to assist members who need assistance in casting a vote?

A member’s inability to, vote for whatever reason—faulty technology, misunderstanding of how to use it, inaccessibility, etc.—could lead to disenfranchising that member.

Ultimately, a voting method should empower members and make the process more accessible to them, not potentially prevent their ability to cast ballots in elections in which they are eligible to vote. The process for using the technology should be clear to everyone, from the person who does not use technology regularly to the most technologically knowledgeable members.

Furthermore, the considerations for conducting the voting are: • Is it easy to count the ballots that have been cast?

• Is there training for the tellers and those in charge of voting?

• Is there technical support for voters in case they encounter any issues?

Privacy In RONR, there are specific references to the non-secret ballot versus the secret ballot when voting by electronic means. RONR 424-425.

In most organizations, any ballots cast are expected to be secret unless otherwise specified. Members view this tenet as one of the most fundamental principles of elections and voting; members casting their ballots must be ensured of the integrity of the process, from start to finish. Thus, it is vital to have safeguards in place to maintain privacy.

Questions to ask when putting electronic voting means into place: • Does this technology allow for a secret ballot to be cast by a voter?

• Are there unique identifiers based on login credentials, passwords, IP address, or other means that tie an account or a voter to the ballot?

• On the back side of the technology, can the tellers counting the ballots see how a member voted?

• Once a means of electronic voting is chosen, is the software maintained by a vendor or is it an application hosted by the organization? www.parliamentarians.org 5

• Are software updates released regularly? Who must perform these updates? Are they automatic? How are security concerns regularly evaluated? If so, by whom—the vendor, the organization, or both?

Cost For many organizations, one of the largest concerns is cost. Can a group afford to conduct an election by electronic means? As more companies are releasing new systems of voting, they are competing for business.

This generally means higher quality products at a lower cost.

The following are some of the questions that arise when evaluating costs of using electronic voting methods:

Monthly? A span of time to conduct the election/voting on a measure?

• Are there additional fees to use certain functions of the software?

• Does a lower tier of service by a vendor adequately address the ease of use or privacy concerns that an organization may have?

Conclusion While there are many other questions one should ask when considering electronic absentee voting, this article should provide some baseline questions to consider as you and your organization deliberate on the possibilities of using technology.

• Is there a setup fee?

• Is the organization being charged by the number of persons voting?

By user account?

• Is the organization charged by the number of administrators?

• Is the organization charged any fees based on time? Annually?

Brandon Walters, PRP, lives in north Mississippi. He is President of the Mississippi Association of Parliamentarians, Parliamentarian of the Electronic Association of Parliamentarians, and Secretary of the Young Professionals Parliamentary Practice Unit. He has been a member of NAP for 17 years and is a former election analyst on the state level, specializing in balloting, absentee voting, and legislative affairs.

6 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

A S h o rt T reat i se o n

“Executive Se-sssh!-ions”

By Scott M. Burns, PRP

Executive session defined.

“An executive session in general parliamentary usage has come to mean any meeting of a deliberative assembly, or a portion of a meeting, at which the proceedings are secret.”

RONR (11th ed.), p. 95, ll. 16-18.

Other parliamentary authorities, and common usage, often refer to this as a closed meeting or session. This is sometimes misleading, as you’ll see below since a closed meeting is not necessarily secret.

Purpose.

The purpose of an executive session is to protect the association, and its members and officers, by allowing sensitive business to be conducted without fear that the person who is the subject of the discussion, or the association’s opponents or competitors, or the public, will learn what was said or done. The business may concern, for example, misconduct and potential discipline of members or employees, terms for a contract still to be negotiated, pending or potential litigation, or the purchase of real property. There may even be a need

to exclude some association members who may not be necessary for the business to be transacted, i.e. only board of directors or certain committee members should be present.

Making sense of this means making a distinction between the need for privacy and the need for secrecy. If the body is only interested in privacy, an executive session is not strictly necessary. Non-members1 have no right to attend a meeting and the body is free to require nonmembers to leave at any time during a meeting unless the bylaws provide otherwise.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 644-645, ll. 29-3.

This can be accomplished by a ruling of the chair in cases of disorder, by established custom or rule, or by an appropriate motion. RONR describes a motion to go into executive session as a question of privilege. For reasons discussed below, a motion to go into executive session may be overkill, since it renders the proceedings secret.

Simply moving to close the meeting to include members only may be more appropriate. And, if the subject requiring privacy is known beforehand, the distribution of the meeting notice

1 Under RONR only those with the right to attend meetings, make motions, speak in debate, and vote, are considered to be members in the parliamentary sense. RONR (11th ed.), p. 3, ll. 1-5. Many associations have categories of non-voting membership—associate members, student members, honorary members—who are permitted to attend and often to participate except without the right to vote. Many associations open their meetings to the public as well.

Even though these non-members may be referred to as members in the meeting, they have no rights unless their Bylaws provide otherwise. www.parliamentarians.org 7

can be controlled so that non-members either are invited for a later time, after the private business concludes, or are not invited to the meeting at all. When this type of business occurs regularly, many associations will have a time set aside in their regular agendas for executive session matters. Sometimes the need for privacy is such that an entire meeting will be scheduled as an executive session.

Contrast this with examples of the need for secrecy:

members in attendance keep their mouths shut afterward!

This is an important distinction— privacy 2 means only members (or a specific subset of members) may attend the meeting; secrecy requires continued silence after the meeting has ended—sometimes forever. A breach of secrecy (I prefer the term confidentiality.) can have serious consequences for both the organization and the individual who disclosed the information. More about that later.

a. An association is involved in a lawsuit and needs to discuss strategy without fear that the opposing side will learn of the discussions or actions taken.

Procedure.

Going into executive session is a question of privilege. RONR (11th ed.), p. 227, ll. 22-23. Its offeror may interrupt the pending business to make the motion. If the chair disagrees that this is a subject for executive session, he or she may so state and continue with the business (an appeal of the chair’s decision can be made). If the chair agrees this is a proper subject for executive session, he or she may ask for a second, or state the motion and simply ask if there is any objection. (If done by motion there is usually no need for debate and amendment, but the motion is both debatable and amendable. Some members may dispute whether it is a subject for executive session, or may want to amend the motion to determine who is permitted to remain.)3 The motion is adopted by a majority vote. RONR (11th ed.), pp. 227-228, ll. 31-24. If adopted, only voting

b. Serious charges have been filed against a member, and public disclosure could create liability for the organization, especially if the allegations have not yet been determined to be valid. c. An association wants to purchase a building but is concerned that untimely disclosure will drive up the price or invite competing offers. d. Sometimes the need may be completely altruistic—An association wants to present a member with an award but would like it to be a surprise.

These types of discussions should all be kept quiet. It isn’t enough that non-members are excluded from the meeting. The goal is also that the 2 The word ‘privacy’ never appears in RONR.

3 The AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure differs. A motion to go into a closed session is neither debatable nor amendable (p. 108).

8 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

members, special invitees, and such employees or staff members as the assembly or its rules may determine to be necessary are allowed to remain.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 95, ll. 31-35.

Who can attend? A bit more detail.

Very important: Members, as the term is used by RONR, refers only to those who have the right to make motions, debate, and vote in a given meeting. For board meetings or committee meetings, the only members who have a right to attend are the bona fide members of the board of directors or the committee that is meeting—not all members of the association. Thus, the motion to go into an executive session is needed only if the organization has an open meeting policy. That is, if a statute requires open meetings (public bodies and homeowner/community associations), or if the need for an executive session arises after an otherwise open meeting has begun.

What actions can be taken in executive session?

Anything that can be done in an open meeting. (Unless the bylaws or a special rule of order provides otherwise.)

Myth: Boards may only go into executive session to discuss a matter and may not take official action until they resume the regular meeting.

There is nothing in RONR (or any other parliamentary authority for that matter) that says this. Many people think it is a rule because statutory

open meeting laws often have this requirement.

What about open meeting policies?

The default rule in RONR is that all meetings are open to all members.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 3, ll. 1-4. Again, this refers only to members of the particular body that is meeting, not necessarily all members of the association. But many organizations have open meeting provisions in their bylaws or operating procedures, such as: “The meetings of the Board of Trustees shall be open to all members of the association.”

Does this prohibit the board of trustees from going into executive session? Some would say “yes” and recommend that the bylaws be carefully rewritten to provide an escape hatch when truly necessary4.

My opinion is “no.” It merely means that while every member of the organization may be entitled to attend an executive session, they are then bound by the perpetual requirement for secrecy. Violating that obligation can have serious consequences.

Breaching confidentiality—Go directly to jail; do not collect $200.

Suppose a board is deciding whether to renew the executive director’s contract and a member has negative information that he or she feels is germane but that should not be made public. The board goes into executive session, discusses the confidential information, takes

4 Query: Is such a rule “in the nature of a rule of order” that can be suspended? Opinions differ.

My thought: You can’t read such a rule in isolation. You need to see how such a rule interacts with other rights of membership and then apply RONR’s rules of interpretation. See pp. 588-590. www.parliamentarians.org 9

whatever action is appropriate, and returns to the open meeting. Everyone who was present in the executive session must maintain the confidentiality of what was said during the executive session (and possibly what action was taken), except for any official report of actions taken that might be required.

If any of the confidential information is publicly divulged, it could open the board to a costly lawsuit, even if the information disclosed was true, and even if the contract was renewed.

Another example: The board meets in executive session to discuss buying some property. The information is leaked, and the listed price of the property increases substantially when another organization learns of the proposed acquisition and becomes a competitive buyer.

“A member can be punished under disciplinary procedure if he violates the secrecy of an executive session. Anyone else permitted to be present is honor-bound not to divulge anything that occurred.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 95, ll. 6-7.

Very important: Note that only members may be disciplined. This makes sense since you don’t have any authority over the guests. Even more reason to be cautious about who is permitted to attend. Attendance should be limited strictly to voting members of the body and essential

staff or guests whose presence is necessary for the particular business to be discussed (e.g., witnesses for a disciplinary hearing, but only for the time necessary for their own testimony).

Even more important—No legal advice is being given here, but you should be aware that breaching the confidentiality of an executive session could come with consequences more severe than a reprimand.

In most states, if the association suffers adverse consequences from the breach of confidentiality, the member responsible for the breach can be held liable for the damages.

This is especially true for directors of a nonprofit board who have fiduciary duties. To breach the confidentiality of an executive session can not only make a director personally responsible for any damages sustained, it may also make him or her ineligible for liability insurance coverage or indemnity.

Be especially careful of board teleconferences, confidential email discussions, and tape or digital recordings. Many states prohibit electronic eavesdropping, recording, or unauthorized dissemination of confidential communications.

Violation can result in serious financial penalties and can sometimes be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 has similar provisions.

Scott M. Burns, PRP, first developed his practical parliamentary skills as a labor union activist and officer in a variety of non-profit organizations. In 1990, Scott met Hugh Cannon at a labor convention. Hugh introduced him to NAP and AIP and the rest, . as they say, is history. Scott is also a charter member of the American College of .

Parliamentary Lawyers. His clients range from small arts organizations to large labor unions and professional associations with conventions of a thousand delegates or more.

10 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

I Move to Reaffirm...

By Carl Nohr, PRP

Scenario: You are presiding at an assembly of delegates.

You ask, “Is there any new business?” After being . recognized, a delegate says, “I move to reaffirm . the position of our association according . to a motion we adopted a few years ago.”

Do you say, “Is there a second?”, “The chair does not recall the previous motion that is referred to, and will need to research it.”, or “The proposed motion is not in order. Is there any other new business?”

The correct answer is the last one. A motion to reaffirm a position an organization has taken previously and that has not been rescinded is not in order. RONR states, “Motions to ‘reaffirm’ a position previously taken by adopting a motion or resolution are not in order. Such a motion serves no useful purpose because the original motion is still in effect; also, possible attempts to amend a motion to reaffirm would come into conflict with the rules for the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted; and if such a motion to reaffirm failed, it would create an ambiguous situation.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 104, ll. 24-31.

There are cogent reasons why a motion to reaffirm is not in order.

The first is that it serves no purpose. Every assembly has the right to protect itself from wasting time on useless motions. Parliamentary forms are designed to assist in the transaction of business.

A second important reason that a motion to reaffirm is out of order is the potential effect of the loss of such a motion. What would be the status of the previously adopted motion that the assembly has now voted not to reaffirm? There is no parliamentary device that would resolve this.

In addition to protecting the assembly from unresolvable motions, it is also part of the presiding officer’s responsibility to assist the members in achieving their purpose. In this situation, there are several ways that he can do this: After being informed that a motion to reaffirm is not in order, the 1 member may ask how to accomplish his purpose. The chair can treat this as a parliamentary inquiry. “A Parliamentary Inquiry is a question directed to the presiding officer to obtain information on a matter www.parliamentarians.org 11

of parliamentary law or the rules of the organization bearing on the business at hand. It is the chair’s duty to answer such questions when it may assist a member to make an appropriate motion, raise a proper point of order, or understand the parliamentary situation or the effect of a motion.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 293, l. 29 – p. 294, l. 1.

2 If the mover does not make a Parliamentary Inquiry, but rather

appeals the ruling of the chair, the presiding officer can take the opportunity to provide an explanation as to why the motion is out of order, embedding within the explanation alternative means to achieve what the mover is intending.

3 If it is the intention of the mover to add emphasis by inserting

stronger language in the form of additional adjectives or to change the meaning of the previously adopted motion, the chair may state that the motion to reconsider is in order if the time for its use has not expired and if the mover voted with the prevailing side of the vote to be reconsidered. RONR (11th ed.), p. 315-332. If either of these conditions is not met, the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted can be used. RONR (11th ed.), p. 305-310.

4 If the delegate wishes to remind the assembly that a previously

adopted motion is still in effect, this could be brought up in the portion of the agenda called Good of the Order where a member may provide information to the assembly without the need to make a motion. The heading Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum, which some types of societies include in their order of business, refers to the general welfare of the organization, and may vary in character. “Under this heading (in contrast to the general parliamentary rule that allows discussion only with reference to a pending motion), members who obtain the floor commonly are permitted to offer informal observations regarding the work of the organization, the public reputation of the society or its membership, or the like.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 362, ll. 4-13. If Good of the Order is not part of the assembly’s agenda, the member may ask permission of the assembly to make comments without offering a related motion and the chair can ask general consent that the request be granted.

If the situation is a committee or small board rather than a large assembly, the chair would have to take no action since the greater flexibility and informality offered by RONR would likely permit such a reminder to be given without requiring a motion. “In small boards, and in committees, most parliamentary rules apply, but certain modifications permitting greater flexibility and informality are commonly allowed.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 9, ll. 30-33.

12 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

5 If the intent is to make a public statement that the organization still

supports its previous position, the chair could state that a motion to create an advertising or social media campaign to accomplish this purpose is in order.

While it would be time consuming for the chair to assist the member in achieving his purpose by listing all possible options, it would be a good use of the assembly’s time for the chair to briefly ask if a motion to reconsider, or to amend something previously adopted would suit the member’s purpose. If not, the presiding officer could offer to provide parliamentary assistance outside of the meeting time with advice for the member about how he can best accomplish the purpose of the well-intended, but unnecessary and confusing, motion to reaffirm.

Carl Nohr, M.D., PRP, joined the NAP in 2013 and became a PRP in 2018. He serves as a Director, Vice Chair, Secretary, and Speaker for several associations. He is a student of good governance, meeting management, and decision making. He loves to share knowledge and believes we can all learn much from each other.

Did You Know?

Did you know that the .

NAP Educational Foundation .

(NAPEF) offers dues scholarships?

By Lynna Gene Cook, PRP

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.

www.parliamentarians.org 13

By Robert B. Blair, PRP

Parliamentary procedure competitions for youth organizations often include a “quality of debate” item in addition to . requirements such as voice quality, volume, . and other related oral communication skills.

When coached properly, parliamentary procedure teams do a fair job with the technical aspects of the competition by making sure to include the requisite number and types of motions, rising and addressing the chair, waiting to be assigned the floor, and wording a motion properly.

A quick indicator of competition savvy is when team members can think on their feet and debate a motion with clear, logical, and germane ideas.

When debate confidence increases, professional presence, voice quality, and volume automatically improve.

After judging local, state, and national competitions for many years, I realize that getting over the fear of speaking in front of people is the first hurdle for most competitors. The second hurdle is staying focused on the debate topic during the rapid pace of competitions. In order to address these issues, I developed the following simple impromptu debate exercise, “Great Debate,” while working with two local youth organization parliamentary procedure teams.

Debate Topics: Round 1 Since practice time was limited after school, I initially prepared a list of topics. Round 1 topics included Favorite Color, Best Subject, Shoes, Best Friend, Shopping, Favorite Food, 14 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

Pet(s), Sports, Exercise, College, Fun, Favorite Television Show, Outstanding Movie, Social Media, and Most Challenging Video Game. Most students could easily relate to these topics.

Speaking about something you already know helps get over the first hurdle.

These topics were printed on sheets of paper in all capital letters, bold, and in a large font. The sheets were cut so that only one topic appeared on a strip of paper. Each strip was folded twice so the topic could not be read at a glance.

All topics were placed in a small basket. The team sat in a large circle facing one another. As the facilitator, I would randomly call on students to come forward, choose a topic, read it aloud, pause for ten seconds to think about the topic, and then begin speaking about the subject until they were stopped. Sometimes the speech was very short and other times students would be coached to speak for up to a minute. During Round 1, students would have up to three opportunities to speak. I varied the speaking length based on individual student performance. Everyone should feel a sense of accomplishment after the first round. Following Round 1, I would begin a brief discussion about the experience. What was easy?

What was most challenging? How did this activity impact your confidence

to speak in front of peers? What is the one thing you plan to work on to improve your debate skills?

A variation on Round 1 would be to have the students provide two or three topics. Depending on the group, the facilitator could randomly select the folded paper strip, read the topic aloud, pause for ten seconds, and then call on someone to speak. This process allows the facilitator to discard any inappropriate topics provided by the students and have everyone quickly think about the topic before one was chosen to speak. It keeps participants focused on the topic. When students gain a little confidence, this strategy can be taken to the next level.

Debate Topics: Round 2 The second round focused more on youth organization topics that might be encountered in a chapter meeting and/or competitive event.

The list chosen for illustration was from a Health Occupations Student Association (HOSA) team that I was coaching. Round 2 topics included Chapter Fundraising, Job Shadowing, Officer Campaign, Eating Disorders, Health Fair, Health Careers, Leadership Development, Field Trip, Community Service Projects, Breast Cancer Awareness, Volunteerism, and Parliamentary Procedure. These topics presented more of a challenge to team members because of their limited life experiences. The Round 2 topics were

prepared in the same manner as those in Round 1. The debate process followed the same steps as in Round 1.

Before this round began, I told participants that they would only have five seconds to think about the topic before beginning to speak. The debate time ranged from 30 to 90 seconds.

Another challenge added to this round was to raise their awareness of their body language, facial expression, vocal intonation, and pace, to ensure debate believability. Did all these non-verbal factors support what they were saying? If so, great. If not, what could be done differently to convey a clearer message to the audience?

Round 2 is more time consuming, so usually no more than two topics per student would be covered. The round was followed by a brief written self-reflection on their performance during Round 2, starting with strengths and followed by weaknesses and suggestions for improvement.

This self-reflection is then shared verbally with their teammates as a wrap-up activity. This is another opportunity for the participants to speak in front of their peers about a subject they know best.

There are many variations of this learning strategy. It can be adapted to any group of learners to help strengthen the quality of debate. Most participants will find this activity fun, engaging, and worthwhile.

Robert B. Blair, Ph.D., PRP, is a professor of marketing at Middle Tennessee State University. He is a business/marketing teacher educator, Collegiate DECA advisor, and certified Dale CarnegieÂŽ Trainer. His teaching repertoire includes all aspects of business, managerial, and international communication.

Dr. Blair is president of the Tennessee Association of Parliamentarians and past president of the Tennessee Delta Unit of Parliamentarians. www.parliamentarians.org 15

Knots and Ties

By John R. Berg, PRP

Nature abhors a vacuum and voters abhor ties. Not all methods of preventing and resolving ties are equally . effective, as will be seen.

In competitive sporting events, the participants, spectators, and those wagering on the events want to have a clear winner. Ties are tolerated in some events when there is a series of events with multiple scores accumulating over a season. However, in single or final events, the preference is to continue playing until a winner is determined, or to have some other activity for breaking the tie.

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, (11th ed.) (RONR), p. 4, ll. 3-9 states, “The basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly is that, to become the act or choice of the body, a proposition must be adopted by a majority vote; that is, direct approval—implying assumption of responsibility for the act—must be registered by more than half of the members present and voting on the particular matter, in a regular or properly called meeting of the body.”

16 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

For variations on the concept of majority, see also the author’s “Majority of What?” in National Parliamentarian, Summer 2019, Vol. 80, No. 4, p. 5.

For a simple yes or no proposition, a tie causes the proposition to fail, since a majority is defined as “more than half,” as stated above. When a proposition fails, the meeting generally moves on to the next item of business or the previously pending motion. It is not necessary to resolve or avoid a tie in this case, because the proposition simply fails for the lack of a majority in the affirmative. Some may argue that a tie is not a decision and creates an impasse, but this is simply not the case. Any vote in which the affirmative lacks a majority is a rejection of the proposition, whether the vote is 10 to 10, 7 to 8, or 5 to 15.

If the proposition is to elect someone to a position, a tie does not end the decision-making process, since an election is in essence filling a blank in an assumed motion “that ______ be elected.” RONR, p. 430, ll. 4-6. In an election to elect to a single office, no one seems to care if

there is a tie for any position other than first place. “Also ran” individuals are often lost to history.

The most common method of resolving a tie is to have the chair vote to break the tie. Variations are to require the chair to break the tie, or permit the chair to vote only to break a tie, but these variations have associated problems. RONR, p. 53, ll. 15-23 states, “If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly or voting body, he has the same voting right as any other member. Except in a small board or a committee, however— unless the vote is secret (that is, unless it is by ballot)—the chair protects his impartial position by exercising his voting right only when his vote would affect the outcome, in which case he can either vote and thereby change the result, or he can abstain.”

The real purpose of this rule is to allow the chair to retain some impartiality, and not because there is any inherent evil in a tie that must be resolved. Requiring the chair to break a tie deprives the chair of the opportunity to abstain and remain impartial. Allowing the chair to vote only to break a tie denies the chair the right (if a voting member of the body) to vote to create a tie or otherwise.

Requiring the chair to vote last in a ballot vote to break a tie deprives the chair the right of a secret ballot.

If the chair has voted with the body, the chair is never permitted a second vote to break a tie; that would violate

the one person—one vote principle.

RONR, p. 406, ll. 14-15; p. 407, ll. 1-4.

If a proposition requires more than a majority for passage, such as a two-thirds vote, a vote of exactly two-thirds (66 to 33 for example) is not a tie and the proposition passes.

RONR, p. 406, ll. 1-10. Normally the chair still has the right to vote last and/or vote only if it will affect the outcome. Requiring the chair to vote to break a tie or prohibiting the chair from voting unless there is a tie would not apply in these cases because failure to obtain the required two-thirds by one does not constitute a tie. RONR, p. 405. l. 16–p. 406, l. 19 provides additional information on tie votes and cases in which the chair’s vote affects the result.

One attempt to avoid a tie is to have an odd number of voting members on a board or committee, and for this reason some insist that such a body must be composed of an odd number. This may avoid some ties, but it cannot prevent all ties because an odd number of members may be absent or choose to abstain.

Most deliberative assemblies do not have bylaws requiring them to be composed of an odd number of members.

Some bylaws may provide for a non-voting chair who votes only to break a tie. In such case, the chair would not have the right to vote to create a tie. One example would be www.parliamentarians.org 17

the Vice President of the United States who serves as President of the Senate but has no vote “unless they be equally divided” (United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3). Otto Preminger’s 1962 motion picture “Advise & Consent” concluded with a tie vote in the Senate on a very controversial appointment for Secretary of State.

The Vice President announced that he was not voting to break the tie, the President had just died, and he would be appointing his own Secretary of State.

A temporary presiding officer who is not a voting member of the assembly would not cast a vote to break a tie without a specific bylaw allowing it. For example, in the recent trial in the Senate of President Donald J. Trump, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., presided as required by the Constitution, but stated that he would not vote to break a tie. (Adam Liptak, “Chief Justice’s Impeachment Handbook: Determined Minimalism,” New York Times, February 10, 2020, downloaded from nytimes.com February 10, 2020.)

In an election by voice vote, show of hands, or division, the candidates are voted upon in order with a yes or

no vote for each, with the first one receiving a majority being declared elected. RONR, p. 442, ll. 10-30. In these cases, the chair could vote to break or create a tie.

In an election by ballot, the chair would vote as and with the other members. With a ballot vote, a tie is generally followed by repeated voting until one candidate obtains a majority. RONR, p. 441, ll. 1-5.

Some bylaws may provide other methods for resolving ties, although trial by combat is not common in modern times. In public elections where the cost of subsequent balloting is high, statutes often provide for resolving a tie with a coin toss or similar method. Nevada law, contrary to popular lore, does not require a tie to be resolved with a draw from a deck of cards (Nevada Revised Statues 293.400).

A tie is not a difficult knot and is not really a problem in the case of a yes or no proposition. It only becomes troublesome in an election where a candidate needs to be elected. As with other parliamentary issues, knotty problems can be avoided by having the rules agreed upon and understood in advance.

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.

18 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

NAP Training Conference August 26-30, 2020 San Antonio, Texas

Come. Celebrate. Learn.

There are so many reasons to attend the .

2020 NAP Training Conference!

The NAP Training Conference (NTC) is the largest conference on parliamentary procedure in the country, and we are excited to offer training opportunities for parliamentary students of all levels.

Arrive early for leadership training, PRP credentialing and renewal courses, and the Board of Directors meeting.

You won’t want to miss the release of the 12th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised at the NAP Fiesta on Thursday, August 27. Books purchased during the presale will be available for pick-up, and the authorship team will be autographing copies.

This year’s conference will feature more than thirty workshops covering different aspects of parliamentary procedure, including an afternoon with members of the authorship team as they introduce the 12th edition of RONR and review the updates.

Regardless of your reason for attending NTC, be sure to save time to experience San Antonio and everything this vibrant city has to offer. The Hilton Palacio del Rio is located on the Riverwalk and within walking distance of some of the best food, art, and history San Antonio has to offer! www.parliamentarians.org 19

Come.

Experience San Antonio San Antonio was founded in 1718 when the Mission San Antonio de Valero, later known as the Alamo, was established. Over the past 300-plus years, the city has developed into a vibrant center for art, dining, and revelry. It’s the perfect site for the 2020 Training Conference as NAP celebrates its 90th anniversary and applauds the debut of the 12th edition of RONR.

Rich History This remarkable city’s past is evident in its architecture and culture.

It is home to five UNESCO World Heritage sites, four of which are mission complexes in the beautiful Missions National Historical Park.

The fifth UNESCO site is the Alamo mission located just a short six-minute walk from the Hilton Palacio del Rio.

20 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

Vibrant Culture San Antonio has seemingly endless options for those looking to experience the city’s culture. Venture north to browse the San Antonio Museum of Art, or catch a show at the historic Majestic Theater. Neighboring our hotel is the La Villita Historic Arts Village, a restored Spanish village. This is the original San Antonio, complete with shops offering handmade goods and wonderful dining venues.

Food Scene San Antonio is a foodie’s dream.

Multiple cultures influence the city’s food scene, which is one of the reasons the city has been designated a UNESCO Creative City of Gastronomy. Be sure to hit one of the San Antonio Food Trails for tacos and BBQ. If you’re feeling thirsty, drift down the Margarita Trail.

Celebrate.

Activities and Highlights The 2020 NTC is going to be one big celebration as we celebrate NAP’s 90 great years of providing parliamentary education. Join us for lunch Saturday and revisit our past as the foundation of our future.

We will also celebrate the release of the 12th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. Be sure to arrive Thursday, August 27, for the colorful, exciting NAP Fiesta! The San Antonio Historical Preservation Society, host of San Antonio’s annual Night in Old San Antonio Fiesta, promises a memorable night of mouth-watering Tex-Mex food, tasty margaritas, and exciting, authentic Mariachi music, plus performances by Ballet Folklórico dancers. It’s our own little Night in Old San Antonio Fiesta! In addition, members of the RONR authorship team will be autographing copies of the new edition. The event will run 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at The Venue Villita, around the corner from our hotel.

Purchase your Fiesta tickets when you register for NTC.

Learn.

Workshops at 2020 National Training Conference The 2020 NAP Training Conference workshop coordinators are putting together a tremendous educational experience for parliamentarians of all levels.

The program will be full of talented presenters and material for every academic taste in NAP. There will be five classroom experiences scheduled each day, with programming during every meal. All are included in your registration.

Friday will kick off with breakfast and the NAP annual meeting. Perhaps the most anticipated event will be Friday afternoon, aptly called “An Afternoon with the Authorship Team.”

Enjoy lunch, then settle in to hear the details regarding the changes in this newest edition of RONR. Saturday’s breakfast will feature a presentation from our Youth Committee, and will include youth-related activities at NTC and beyond. Saturday afternoon, join us in celebrating our 90th anniversary.

Sunday morning, get a glimpse of the future of NAP and the 2021 Biennial Convention.

Attend all the offerings and earn 12 CEUs toward your credential renewal. www.parliamentarians.org 21

C o n f e r e nc e N A P T r a in in g 20 20 August 26-30, s Texa San Antonio,

Schedule At A Glance Schedule is subject to change. * Additional Fee

Wednesday, August 26, 2020 8:30 a.m.-6:30 p.m. – Professional Qualifying Course (PQC)* 8:30 a.m.-6:30 p.m. – Professional Renewal Course (PRC)* 4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. – NAP Leadership Conference*

Thursday, August 27, 2020 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. – NAP Board of Directors Meeting 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. – NAP Leadership Conference* 8:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. – Professional Qualifying Course (PQC)* 8:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. – Professional Renewal Course (PRC)* 11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. – RONR Pickup (pre-purchases only) 1:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. – Membership and RP Exams 2:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. – NAP Bookstore Open 2:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. – Registration Open 4:45p.m.-5:45 p.m. – First Timers’ Orientation 6:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. – NAP Fiesta at La Villita*

Friday, August 28, 2020 7:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m. – Breakfast / NAP Annual Meeting 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. – Registration Open 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. – NAP Bookstore Open 10:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m. – Educational Workshops 12:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. – Lunch/Introducing RONR 12th Edition 4:45 p.m.-10:00 p.m. – NAPEF River Cruise and Dinner at the Pearl*

22 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

Cancellation Policy Requests for refund of conference fees must be received in writing .

by NAP Headquarters no later than August 15, 2020.

A $75 cancellation fee will apply.

No refunds will be issued for . no-shows or cancellations . received after August 15, 2020.

A $30 handling fee will be . assessed for all returned checks.

Saturday, August 29, 2020 7:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m. – Breakfast with Our Youth 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. – Registration Open 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. – NAP Bookstore Open 9:00 a.m.-10:15 a.m. – Educational Workshops 9:00 a.m.-11:45 a.m. – PDC Trainer Refresher (invitation only) 10:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m. – Educational Workshops 12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m. – Lunch/Celebrating 90 Years 1:45 p.m.-3:00 p.m. – Educational Workshops 3:15 p.m.-4:30 p.m. – Educational Workshops 4:45 p.m.-6:00 p.m. – NAPEF Annual Meeting

Sunday, August 30, 2020 7:30 a.m.-8:15 a.m. – Interfaith and Inspirational Service 7:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m. – Breakfast/Atlanta Preview 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. – NAP Bookstore Open 10:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m. – Educational Workshops

Visit our website www.napconference.org for the most up-to-date schedule.

www.parliamentarians.org 23

C o n f e r e nc e N A P T r a in in g 20 20 August 26-30, s Texa San Antonio,

Where to Stay and How to Get There Hilton Palacio del Rio 200 S. Alamo St. • San Antonio, TX 78205 The historic Hilton Palacio del Rio is the site of this year’s conference. It is located right on the San Antonio River Walk.

You will be just steps from the best shopping and dining San Antonio has to offer. In addition, the riverboat cruises load right outside! The Palacio offers several dining options including a café, a sports bar featuring South Texas cuisine, and an Irish pub.

• Room rates start at $149 (plus taxes) for single and . double occupancy.

• Reserve online at www.napconference.org/2020hotel or by phone at 210.270.0751.

• Be sure to say you are with the National Association of Parliamentarians 2020 Training Conference to receive the discounted rates!

• Rates are effective Thursday, August 20, through .

Wednesday, September 2. The hotel reservation deadline is Saturday, July 25, 2020.

San Antonio International Airport is 8 miles from the Hilton Palacio del Rio. Visit www.napconference.org for information regarding transportation to and from the airport.

For those driving, valet parking Would you believe is available onsite for an every room extra fee; the hotel does not has a balcony?! offer self-parking.

24 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

How to Register

Registration and Activity Fees Conference registration fees include buffet breakfast and lunch on Friday and Saturday, buffet breakfast on Sunday, and access to speaker handouts on the free GuideBook application.

Registering for the 2020 NAP Training Conference is easy.

Choose one of these convenient, secure options: • Register online at www.napconference.org • Register by mail or fax using the enclosed registration form • Register by calling 816.833.3892 Whichever method you use, be sure to register early and save!

PRIMARY REGISTRATION EARLY BIRD REGULAR ON-SITE

FEES (BY JUNE 15) (JUNE 15–AUG 15) (AFTER AUG 15)

Full Conference

One-Day*

Member Non-Mbr Student Member Non-Mbr Student Member Non-Mbr Student

$430 $245

$470 $270

$215 $125

$450 $270

$495 $320

$225 $140

$470 $290

$520 $345

$240 $150

ADDITIONAL FEES Printed Workshop Materials Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20 NAP Fiesta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50 NAPEF River Cruise and Dinner at the Pearl (through June 15) . . . . . $150 (after June 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $175

GUEST MEALS/ACTIVITIES NAP Fiesta • Thursday, August 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $86 Opening Breakfast • Friday, August 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$50 Lunch with Authorship Team Members • Friday, August 28 . . . . . . . . . $65 NAPEF River Cruise and Dinner at the Pearl (through June 15) . . . . . $150 (after June 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $175 Breakfast and Youth Program • Saturday, August 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50 Lunch and 90th Anniversary Celebration • Saturday, August 29 . . . . . $65 Closing Breakfast • Sunday, August 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50 See Cancellation Policy on page 23. www.parliamentarians.org 25

Celebrate

NAP Fiesta

Get ready to party!

Thursday, August 27, 2020 | 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Celebrate the release of RONR 12th edition with: All-You-Can-Eat Tex-Mex Open Bar of Margaritas, Beer, Wine Ballet Folklorico Dancers Authentic Mariachi Band Rock & Roll Band

—PLUS—

Members of th authorship te e a will be there m to autograph y our copy of RONR 12 th edition!

Purchase your ticket when registering for the .

2020 NAP Training Conference at www.napconference.org/register

26 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

Test Yourself

A to Z

Challenge

By David Mezzera, PRP

The name of the city of Azusa in Southern California is derived from the native tribal word Asuksagna meaning “canyon.” In the Alta California era of the 19th century, Mexican settlers called what is now the San Gabriel Valley, the “azusa” as it was in a canyon created by the San Gabriel River. In the 1920s, to pitch a land development in the burgeoning town of Azusa located in the valley, the local Chamber of Commerce promoted the slogan “Azusa stands for everything from A to Z in the USA.” And now we have a parliamentary challenge based on “Everything in RONR from A to Z.” Can you think of parliamentary terms in RONR that contain each of the 26 letters of the alphabet? For example, AMENDMENT contains 6 of the 26 letters (A, M, E, N, D, and T). Now all you would need to do is find the other 20 letters in additional words found in RONR to complete the challenge from A to Z. Obviously, many letters will be repeated in subsequent words chosen. Your task is to find words wherein all the 26 different letters may be found. Of course, you could find 26 different words, each containing one of the letters, but the challenge of this test is to complete the task with ten or fewer words.

So, make a list of the letters A to Z. Then write the numbers 1 through 10 and start your list. As you brainstorm words containing the letters, cross-off those letters as they are encountered. Using 10 or fewer words that contain the 26 letters will earn you a grade of A. See page 37 for a sample list wherein all 26 letters are found.

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

www.parliamentarians.org 27

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.

The abbreviations used in these questions and answers are explained in National Parliamentarian Vol. 81, No. 2, Winter 2020, p. 24.

Questions should be emailed to npquestions@nap2.org.

Q

Question 4: Please help settle this dispute. Our organization was amending our bylaws. There was a proposed primary amendment to strike out a series of words. A member moved a secondary amendment to strike out one of the words that was being proposed to be struck out in the primary amendment. The secondary amendment to strike out was adopted. What should have happened to the word that was struck in the secondary amendment? The presiding officer said that the word was struck permanently; I contend that the word that was struck during the secondary amendment remains in the main motion. Who was correct? Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition (RONR) is our parliamentary authority.

Answer: You were correct. When a primary amendment seeks to strike out words and a secondary amendment is offered which seeks to strike out a word or words being struck in the primary amendment, if the secondary amendment is adopted, the words that were struck out from the proposed strike out remain. Simply put, a strike out of a strike out means the word(s) remain in the main motion.

The reference is RONR p. 146, ll. 30-35 “It is important to note that: The motion to amend by striking out certain words can be amended only by striking out words from the primary amendment.

The effect of such a secondary amendment is that words struck out of the primary amendment will remain in the main motion regardless of whether the primary amendment is adopted or rejected.”

28 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers

Q

continued

Question 5: We have a member who raises frequent Points of Order.

In arguing her points, she will read lengthy sections from our bylaws or from Robert’s Rules. This member says it is her right to quote from our rules at any time. On the other hand, I have heard that members can’t read from a paper unless they have permission from the assembly.

Will this provision let us stop her droning on?

Answer: Your question demonstrates a good reason to always go to the source, your governing documents, to include the parliamentary authority, rather than to rely on member opinions of the rules.

It is true that when a paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every member to have it read once, and then again prior to voting, if there has been debate or amendment. RONR, p. 299. However, there is no automatic right to read from the bylaws or Robert’s Rules.

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised contains detailed provisions (RONR, pp. 298-299) dealing with a request to read papers. The key provision is that if any member objects, the member has no right to read from a book or paper. Usually a member seeks to read from a paper during debate on a motion, and it is customary to permit this if the privilege is not abused.

Often a member will ask for unanimous consent to read but it is also acceptable to formally move that the reading be allowed. This means that if other members wish to prevent the reading, they must express an objection, after which the matter will be voted on, with a majority vote required to permit the reading. If members object, they should maintain a respectful demeanor.

Handling a matter of this nature requires skill, tact, and confidence. The chair must rule on the Point of Order promptly and accurately. Knowledge of parliamentary law is essential, but it must always be remembered that “no rules can take the place of tact and common sense on the part of the chairman.” RONR, p. 449. If this member raises a Point of Order that is clearly valid and proceeds into reading long portions of material, the presiding officer can tactfully interject and state, “Point Well Taken.” After this ruling, there is no need to continue reading, and the Chair should direct the assembly back to the agenda.

In an extreme case, where the Point of Order has been ruled not well taken previously but the member seeks to re-urge the Point or if the portion of the paper or book is not germane, the Chair can politely stop the member, reiterate that the Point of Order is not well taken, then inform the assembly of the right to appeal the ruling of the chair. www.parliamentarians.org 29

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers

Q

continued

Question 6: At our last board meeting, a board member stated that she was resigning.

She left the room, and nothing further was said on the subject at that meeting. The member later sent written communication to the entire membership indicating that she had resigned at the meeting. The president has now consulted with a credentialed parliamentarian and plans to have the board vote at the next meeting to accept the resignation. However, the member is now informing others that she really didn’t mean to resign and is still on the board. What should we do?

Answer: This unfortunate situation results from lack of clear intention. A more experienced presiding officer would have inquired if the member was seeking to resign. If the answer was yes, the chair should have taken a vote at that time on accepting the resignation.

A resignation is not effective until accepted. RONR, p. 291. Ideally, the member would have made the motion to resign and the members would have voted to accept the resignation at the same meeting. The minutes should reflect this action.

When a member makes a statement indicating a wish to resign, the chair can assume a motion to accept the resignation, which is a request to be excused from a duty.

RONR, p. 291. The motion to be excused from duty does not require a second except, as is the case here, the maker is formally making the request. RONR, p. 290. As with all motions, before the motion has been stated by the chair, the mover may withdraw it without obtaining consent. RONR, p. 295.

The resignation in this case was not accepted and the steps to process this motion were not made. For this reason, if the member who wished to resign fails to appear or is silent, the chair may proceed to a vote at the next meeting on accepting the resignation. The minutes will reflect this action and the member may be informed of the decision to accept the resignation.

In the more likely case that this member appears at the meeting, a more complicated situation is present. If the member states that she wishes to withdraw her request (motion) to resign, she may do so. This motion has not been stated by the chair and the member may withdraw it on her own without obtaining permission from the body.

Questions & Answers Research Team

Alison Wallis, PRP Q&A Research Editor

Ann Homer, PRP Assistant Q&A Research Editor

30 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

Rachel Glanstein, PRP Parliamentary .

Consultant

Timothy Wynn, PRP Parliamentarian

NAP Connections

A First-Timer’s Experience at the NAP Convention

By Thomas Holmes

As a first timer at the NAP Biennial Convention, I was unsure what to expect. Since NAP is an association of parliamentarians, I already anticipated that the business meeting would be very lively. I was right in my assumption. Aside from technical difficulties, I enjoyed the meeting. I attended the Electronic Association “Meet and Greet.” It was a great experience to meet there, in person, those whom I only had met online. I also had a great time at the Young Professionals in Parliamentary Procedure (YP3) social event. We discussed parliamentary procedure over some hamburgers, then toured the shops around Las Vegas.

The educational programs at the convention were very informative.

I attended a mock disciplinary trial and thought it was a great way to understand how it would be carried out, following the procedures in

Robert’s Rules of Order. I also attended the advanced presiding session which helped me to understand the logistical aspects of chairing, making sure that the motions are all correctly recorded, and that the chair keeps track of which motion is currently under consideration. The presiding session also showed the pressure on someone who is chairing to make the correct decisions, and to prevent the members from getting confused. One example was making sure to say, “Is there any debate?” instead of “Are you ready for the question?” Some members may not understand the latter.

I am currently studying to take the RP exam and I will be using the things that I learned at the NAP Convention to assist me in doing that. I also appreciated the ability to purchase the convention book so that I could take all the slides and materials home to review them. I hope to continue to get involved in NAP, which has provided me many leadership opportunities.

Thomas Holmes has been an NAP student member since 2017. He currently serves as secretary for both the Electronic Association of Parliamentarians and the New England Association. .

He is the current president of the eNAP Unit and a member of the YP3 Unit. He looks forward to taking the RP exam in the future. www.parliamentarians.org 31

NAP Connections

From the .

Communications .

Committee

By Adam Hathaway, PRP

Fellow Practitioners of Democracy, First, I would like to thank President Allen for appointing me Chair of the National Association of Parliamentarians Communications Committee (NAPCC). Second, I am also deeply grateful to the president for appointing an amazing team with which to work. They are CJ Cavin, PRP; Debra Henry, PRP; Wanda Nelson, PRP; and David Whitaker, PRP. Third, the NAPCC works closely with the dedicated NAP office staff who are invaluable in their work to promote communication and marketing, both internally and externally.

I thank all the above for their service in the past and for the exciting work to come.

According to the National Association of Parliamentarians Bylaws, Article IX, Section 1.C., the Communications Committee is a Standing Committee that shall: 1. investigate and recommend methods of acquainting the general public with the functions and services of NAP; 2. investigate and recommend methods and systems for increasing the communication and marketing functions of NAP; 3. enlist cooperation of local members for publicity relative to NAP, district, and association meetings; 4. prepare and administer marketing plans for NAP services and educational materials; and 5. be responsible for NAP public relations and marketing.

More information on the NAPCC’s duties and responsibilities can be found in the NAP Operational Policies and Procedures Manual (NAPOPP) at https://www.parliamentarians.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NAPOPP-11-12-19.pdf 32 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

NAP Connections

A major focus for the NAPCC this biennium is to provide liaisons to assist in the coordination of communication and marketing initiatives for NAP committees, projects, and events. To this end, member CJ Cavin, PRP, created an on-line fillable form to request a liaison. Please visit https://www.parliamentarians.org/communications-request-form/ to submit your request.

When engaged in planning, please consider that every event and every program have an internal and external application.

• Strong internal communication ensures that all NAP members are fully informed of the who, what, where, how, and why of everything being done to promote our own educational, professional, and membership growth. In order to realize the NAP Vision statement: To provide parliamentary leadership to the world, we must all be on the same page and move forward in the same direction.

• Innovative external communication requires that every appropriate audience is engaged and made aware of the value of democratic governance through effective use of parliamentary procedure; i.e., how we as an association dedicated to these ideals can guide leaders to better meeting management, to greater community involvement, and to embracing the realization of the NAP global vision to provide parliamentary leadership to the world.

Through excellence in communication . and marketing, we will succeed.

Adam Hathaway, PRP, is the Chair of the NAP Communications Committee and a member of the NAP Board of Directors.

He holds a master’s degree in Public Administration and a bachelor’s degree in Communication, with a concentration in Organizational Communication. He serves as parliamentarian for several organizations, and on a national leadership training team. www.parliamentarians.org 33

NAP Connections

From Mission to Engagement Promoting Parliamentary Procedure Through Educating the World

By Valoree Althoff, PRP

The NAP Mission Statement states that NAP is a society dedicated to educating leaders throughout the world in effective meeting management through the use of parliamentary procedure.

When I served on the 2017-2019 NAP Professional Development Committee, I saw the results of a survey that indicated that NAP credentialed members mainly utilize their credential to educate other organizations on parliamentary procedure. A small number of NAP members have completed the NAP Train-the-Trainer course. To assist those who have not attended this course and the parliamentary education it provides, I am sharing in this article some highlights of what I learned, and some tips that I have used in the past.

To present to an audience, you first need an audience. I have been actively contacting youth organizations, networking through community and state organizations, and teaching the public through our local community college. Your audience may be different. The NAP has many national partnerships through which you can network through your association and local units to create a foundation for parliamentary growth.

Adults and youth learn differently, 34 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

therefore teaching styles must be adapted for the group being taught.

With the audience established, the next task is selection of the topic. If you do not have a specific topic in mind, a brief overview of parliamentary procedure may spark interests.

Consider teaching a basic course using Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief. Determine whether the attendees are considering taking the 40- or 100-question membership exam.

One recommendation for all NAP members is to apply the NAP Body of Knowledge (BOK). The BOK is divided into three focus categories: member, leader, and parliamentarian consultant.

The BOK suggests topics for each of these levels of parliamentary experience.

Examples of domain topics for a member include the standard order of business, how to obtain recognition, and the six steps in processing a motion. Leader domain topics may include the precedence of motions, how to approve/correct minutes, and how to handle a point of order or appeal. Consultants may consider domain topics such as governing documents and writing scripts for special motions and amendment of bylaws. The BOK identifies many categories that focus training for different levels of parliamentary knowledge.

NAP Connections

With your audience and topic identified, begin creating your course.

You may be excited and ready to jump into selecting a slide template, but not so fast. Preparation is key. Create an outline of the content you wish to present so that nothing is overlooked, and the course can flow well. Consider different educational techniques and how to include these different techniques. The most effective educators do not just stand in front of the room and lecture. Your effectiveness will be enhanced if you, like them, use stories, personal experiences, examples, images, scripts, games, etc., to engage the audience.

Text on the slides should not be verbatim statements of your oral presentation. Be mindful of the 7x7 rule: No more than seven words and seven lines per slide. Depending on the room size and number of attendees, it may be impossible for people to read smaller, wordy print from a distance. It is alright to separate the content into multiple slides. Some presenters will include a (“cont.”) on the title slide to make the viewer aware that the content of the topic is continuing. If the attendees can read the entire slide deck and know the entire presentation, then what benefit is your presence, reading the slides?

Slides should give enough information for the presenter to know

where he or she is in the presentation.

Oftentimes, bullet points are enough.

Try to avoid complete sentences and unnecessary words. If you have given the presentation on enough previous occasions, perhaps you can reduce the word content of the slides.

Should you utilize your slides as handouts, you may wish to give enough content to allow the audience to look back at them later and recollect what you discussed. If attendees are writing franticly to make notes of your content, they may not be really listening and learning.

Perhaps you can create and speak from your own outline that follows the slides.

Now that the content is nearly complete, consider how you can add to your presentation. Have you added any visual stimulation between slides such as transition effects, photos, or clipart? I have seen these used in different ways. Ideally, they should reinforce the content of the slide.

I have also seen images used as breaks in a handout or slide to give the brain a break from heavy visual content. Other ideas include the use of quizzes, games, or a question and answer period at the end of each section. Overall, the best way to analyze your course is to ask yourself, “Would I be engaged in my own presentation?”

Valoree Althoff, PRP, CP, is NAP District 6 Director, and New Mexico State Association of Parliamentarians President for 2015-2021. Valoree serves on the board of the American Institute of Parliamentarians. She was president of the New Mexico Dental Hygienists’ Association for the 2011-2012 term and is again in that position for the 2019-2020 term.

She enjoys serving her parliamentary clients and traveling. www.parliamentarians.org 35

NAP Connections

California Channel Islands Parliamentarians

Golden Anniversary 1969-2019

By Sally F. LaMacchia, RP

Congratulations to the California Channel Islands Parliamentarians on its Golden Anniversary as a Chartered Unit. The unit, long known as CA Zeta Chi, changed its name in February 2019 in order to better reflect its location and eliminate pronunciation problems. I am delighted to share this news with all NAP members and friends.

Zeta Chi’s Charter Party was held on August 21, 1969, in the Mural Room of the Admiral’s Table restaurant in Ventura, California. The unit was founded by Wynn Morley Laws, at that time Executive Director of the American Cancer Society of Ventura County and outgoing President of the Coast District Business and Professional Women’s Club. There were 24 charter members in 1969. The unit name was assigned to it by the California State Association of Parliamentarians (CSAP). Current unit President Sandra Sanders is a Charter Member of the unit.

In the early years, unit meetings were held in private homes and in meeting rooms of local banks like Security Pacific, Mutual Savings and Loan, and Sumitomo Bank. In 1978, 36 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

unit dues were four dollars for regular members, and five dollars for students.

There was a balance of $58.85 in the bank.

It is remarkable that for 50 years and counting, this unit has faithfully carried out NAP’s mission to bring parliamentary procedure to the world.

I have been a member of the Channel Islands Unit of NAP since 2011, joining first as a provisional in 2010. I could not have hand-picked a better unit for my first membership experience, and as it happens, an enduring one.

A December 16, 2019, luncheon to celebrate the unit’s Golden Anniversary was held at the Four Points Sheraton Hotel in scenic Ventura Harbor. Honored guests included CSAP President James Stewart, PRP, and CSAP Southern Area Director and Installing Officer, Shirley Vanderbeck, PRP. Achieving Golden Anniversary status has much to do with the dedication of Charter Member and incoming Unit President Sandra Sanders. Knowledgeable, determined, and with an eye to detail, Sandy, with assistance from core members, also helped the unit to avoid dissolution

NAP Connections

in 2018 by streamlining its operations and better adapting itself to the needs of its current and future members.

A history of the unit was compiled and a bound copy for CSAP archives was presented to president Stewart by incoming Unit President Sandra Sanders. Any interested person may order a bound copy of the unit history by contacting Sally LaMacchia, RP, by text or phone (805-704-4744) or by email to sally@losfl.com. Eighteen dollars covers the costs of production and shipping. A no-cost electronic copy is also available by request.

Parliamentary procedure promotes fair, pragmatic problem-solving by members of a deliberative assembly.

This helps to ensure the assembly’s longevity, and the continuing use and appreciation of parliamentary procedure in our daily struggle to consider the question, “Where do we go from here?”

As our unit embarks upon its next 50 years, our hope is that we will not just survive, but will thrive.

Long live California Channel Islands Parliamentarians, and congratulations!

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 Services.

Test Yourself

Answer Key A possible list for the A to Z Challenge from page 27

Obviously, every person’s list will use different words so there is no one, single correct list. The best we could do uses 7 words that complete the challenge. How many did it take you? Remember, 10 or fewer earns an A for the day (and maybe A stands for Acclamation— which is a parliamentary congratulations for a job well done!).

For this list, the key letters (comprising all 26) are underlined. ex-officio quarterly

organization blanks majority

whereas privileged

www.parliamentarians.org 37

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Byron Baxter (OH)

Hattie Harris (SC)

Charles Mencke (TX)

Emilia Sanchez (WA)

Roberta Berry (MD)

Channelle James (NC)

Terri Moore (VA)

Gloria Jean Shinkawa (TX)

Larry Blackmon (NY)

Lavon Jones (SC)

June Mustiful (IL)

Mary Short (TX)

Noma Bruton (CA)

Victoria Juste (NY)

April Parra (NV)

Jamal Taylor (LA)

Darlene Davis (VA)

Wanda Louis (VA)

Tonya Rufus (NJ)

James Thomas, Jr. (TX)

Monica Fontenot- .

Poindexter (TX)

Gordon MacPherson (NJ)

Nancy Ryan (TX)

Lisa Vaughan (IN)

Marjorie McCauley (FL)

Rufus Sadler (NY)

Charlotte Walker (SC)

Silent Gavels* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Charles Hefton (AZ)

Peter Power (NS)

Peggy Walker (AL)

A. Royall Whitaker (MD)

Carmen Pennington (NM)

John Stackpole (MD)

Pollie Washington (NC)

Vincent Williams (GA)

New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Joshua Abraham (GA)

Justin Blagg (AR)

Josalyn Bryant (MD)

Kristin Adams (MD)

Rebecca Blemur (NEAP)

Patricia Burke (MD)

Jo Hannah Faith Chua (CA)

Rachelle Adams (MD)

Vanessa Blychanton (NJ)

Sheila Burke (MD)

Arlinda Clark (MD)

Mary Ademola (NY)

LaVerne Bobo (TN)

Ronieka Burns (NY)

Kieana Clark (NY)

Sheryl Allen (PA)

Martha Butler (DE)

Charmiane Claxton (TN)

Donna Anderson (NY)

Sharron Boddy-Adedipe (PA)

Anitra Butler-Ngugi (MD)

Faryal Clouden (MD)

Shawn Anthony (PA)

Ryushique Bonner (NY)

Yolanda Calderon (NY)

Shadia Combs (PA)

Salaine Atkins-Little (NJ)

Bridget Bostic (NEAP)

Donna Caldwell (NJ)

Cristine Coney (MD)

Shawna Atkinson (TX)

Tammy Bowman (EL)

Jovan Cameron (NJ)

Sheril Cooley (NEAP)

Richard Atwell (MI)

Tracey Brand-Sanders (PA)

Susan Cameron (NY)

Cheryl Corbin (TX)

Margaret Bacile (TX)

Tina Brannon (PA)

Teraleen Campbell (MD)

Barbara Cousar (PA)

Tracey Baker (PA)

Taylor Brantley (NJ)

Jennifer Carfagno (FL)

Clarice Cox (PA)

Reid Barden (VA)

Anne Bridgette (AL)

Shirley Caro (NY)

Erin Cribbs (MD)

Nancy Bartholomew (WY)

Patricia Britton (NY)

Kristina Carter (TN)

Jazmyn Curry (PA)

Jean Battaglia (NJ)

Malika Broadus (PA)

Shirley Castonguay (FL)

Patricia Dahl (NJ)

Ethelind Baylor (PA)

Brenda Brooks (GA)

Shavon Chambers (NJ)

Lorenzo Dangler (NJ)

Kevin Beaulieu (ON)

Anna Brown (NC)

Cynthia Chandler (PA)

Theresa Dangler (NJ)

Waltraut Becker (NJ)

David Brown (NJ)

Tauhid Chappell (PA)

Sonja Davenport (PA)

April Beggerow (OH)

Kimberley Brown (PA)

Cindy Charles (NJ)

Jenean Davis (TN)

Monica Bertran (NY)

Lashawn Brown (MD)

Felicia Charles (NEAP)

Kristen Davis (PA)

Cheryl Bingham (TN)

Sandra Brown (VA)

Felecia Chatman (NY)

Nikita Davis (NY)

Darryl Blackwell (PA)

Robin Bruce (CO)

Hugo Chavez Briones (GA)

Renee Davis (MD)

Tara Chestnut (PA)

* For the period December 17, 2019 through March 13, 2020 38 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

NAP Connections

New Members*

(continued)

Denise Davis-Smith (NJ)

Ayris Granby (NY)

Chanta Jackson (NJ)

Annamaria Matsui (AB)

Stacy Denton (NJ)

Carol Grant (NY)

Andrea James (PA)

Davonne Matthews (NY)

Devonette Desmond (NEAP)

Davida Grant (PA)

Janice Johnson (DE)

Kimberly Matthews (PA)

Denise Gray (NY)

Kathy Johnson (PA)

Diann McChesney (NEAP)

Heather Diehl (TX)

Vatina Gray (OH)

LaShawn Johnson (TX)

Monika Dillard (MD)

Jorelle Green (NJ)

Michelle Johnson (MD)

LaTricea McClendonHunt (NEAP)

Romanda Dillon (Europe)

Ivy Green-Blue (DE)

Rochelle Johnson (PA)

Tracy Dobson-Bishop (NJ)

Jacqueline Greene (PA)

Ruth Johnson (NJ)

Angela Doggett (NJ)

E. Tonya Greenwood (NJ)

Shalese Johnson (NJ)

CasSandra Dorsey (MD)

Annie Griffin (MS)

Tamara Johnson (NY)

Patrice Dowling (PA)

Monet Griffin (DE)

Zinnia Johnson (NJ)

Alisa Drayton (NEAP)

Daniel Grimm (AZ)

Sherry Johnson Hicks (MD)

Barrett Dudley (AR)

Renee Hagler (AL)

Oredola Edwards (NY)

Yolanda Hall (TN)

Yvette Johnson-Parker (NY)

Ann Hammond (TX)

J. Robin Jones (PA)

Sophie Mejia (WA)

Brenda Hankins (VA)

Katrina Jones (MD)

Mitiz Merriweather (TN) Leigh Metcalf (AZ)

Natalie Exum-Peters (NJ)

Roslyn Hannibal-Booker (MD)

Mark Kelland (MI) Ja’Netta Kennedy (PA)

Andrew Meyer (IL)

Irene Ezirike (NJ)

Keely Hansen (TX)

Mark Kissel (ON)

Gerald Michel (LA)

Corrissa Faber (NY)

Jasmine Hardy (VA)

Bosede Laoye (NJ)

Kristal Miller (NJ)

Allegra Fadeyi (TN)

Ernestine Harris (PA)

Pamela Larrabee (AZ)

Rachel Miller-Bleich (VA)

Kimberlyn Faulkner (MD)

Sharon Harris (TX)

Celestine LaVan (SC)

Pamela Jean Mina (IL)

Pamela Felder (NJ)

Nicole Hart (MD)

Kiana Lawhorn (NJ)

Richard Month (PA)

Vivien Finn (NJ)

Sherri Hayes (MD)

Deirdre Laws (NJ)

Geneva Moody (NJ)

Geraldine FitzpatrickDoria (PA)

LaShonda Henderson (FL)

Gary Leach (CA)

Dana Moore (PA)

Rosita Henley-Purnell (NJ)

Clevette Lee (MD)

DeVoyce Morris (MS)

Sharyn Flanagan (PA)

Lorraine Henry (PA)

Tatiana Levone (MD)

Regina Morrow (TN)

Ralph Fleming (VA)

Christine Herron (TX)

Afia Lewis (PA)

Vernesa Mosley (NY)

Maryn Formley (PA)

Aisha Hilliard (MD)

Deanna Lewis (PA)

Thelma Mott (TN)

Deloris Franklin (IL)

Kelley Hodge (PA)

Juanita Lewis (NJ)

Barbara Mullen (NEAP)

Rose Franklin (MS)

Jona Hodges (SC)

Shuhua Li (ROC)

Deborah Mulvey (CO)

Rafielle Freeman (GA)

Patricia Holliday (MD)

Ashley Lin (WA)

Robert Murphy (NEAP)

Dannielle Frierson (PA)

Sheila Howard (PA)

Erika Lively (NJ)

Jennifer Myers (NJ)

Dana Gideon (AL)

Maribeth Hugelmeyer (NJ)

Gayle Lyke (MD)

Jan Myhre (AB)

Dyanne Glass (PA)

Ashley Hunter (NY)

Waleska Macklin (NEAP)

Melissa Newton (MD)

Ryen Glynn (WA)

Corenthia Hurley (MD)

Lisa Nixon (MD)

Alledine Goines (NJ)

Margaret Inkster (AB)

Chandel Marion-Brown (NY)

Adrienne Goldsboro (NJ)

Tangular Irby (NEAP)

Zoe Marriott-Hart (NY)

Sheilia O’Bannon (TN)

Nyoka Gracey (NY)

Ehimwanma Iyamu (TX)

Jakimva Martin (GA)

Shari Olarte (VA)

Dorothea Graddy (AL)

Adrianne Jackson (NJ)

Jasmine Mason (PA)

Ellie Orbison (WI)

Beverly Elam (TN) Sheila Ervin (TN) Sabine Eustache (PA)

Barbara McCloskey (NJ) Chasity McDonald (NJ) Jumaane McEnnis (PA) Trudi McKenley (NY) Brenda McKinley (MD) Doreen McMillan (AB) Shaneisha McMillan (MD) George McNeal (MD)

Leah Nolan (TX)

* For the period December 17, 2019 through March 13, 2020 www.parliamentarians.org 39

NAP Connections

New Members*

(continued)

Lavonia Page (PA)

Alberta Scott (PA)

Paulette Thomas (NJ)

Diane Wilson (PA)

Na’Sha Palmer (NJ)

Bobby Scott (TX)

Akilah Thompkins (NJ)

Leigh Wilson (PA)

Justin Pappano (ON)

MarvaLisa Scott (PA)

Caitlin Thompson (NC)

Sharnise Wingate (NY)

Karen Parham (MD)

Natalie Scott (NEAP)

Bola Tilghman (GA)

Andrea Wright (NY)

Christie Paul (NY)

Rhoda Scruggs-Jordan (TN)

Andrea Todman (NJ) Linda Tremblay (MB)

Tasha Youngblood Brown (PA)

Michael Trowse (FL)

Monica Younger (PA)

Venus Pearson-Hunter (NJ) Deirdra Peterson (NJ) Danielle Pettigrew (PA) Janay Phillips-Wilson (NY) Kimyatta Pitts (NJ) Shakirah Plumb (NJ) Brenda Poe (TX) Mary Ann Prater (SC) George Pratt (FL) Laura Prine (TX)

Deena Sellers (NY) Rebekah Severe (NY) YahMoorah ShakoorHooker (PA)

Trina Turner (DE) Marne Usher (NEAP)

Roberta Shannon (NJ)

Bertram Vandenberg (TX)

Jill Shelton (TX)

Michelle Van-Ess Grant (NY)

Tyesha Shields (NY) Lisa Simpson-Smith (MD) Koretta Skelton (MD)

Titilayo Van-Lare (NJ) Francine Vasquez (DE) Ireisha Vaughn (MD)

Cynthia Pryor-Atkins (NJ)

Lynnelle Skerritt-Thomas (NJ)

Jay Quigley (FL)

Glenda Smiley (NJ)

Kathy Walcott (NY)

Jennifer Ransom (CA)

Jasmine Smith (NJ)

Chantelle Walker (NY)

James Rasmussen (OH)

Justin Smith (FL)

Helene Ward (CO)

Ellen Reaves (PA)

Lisa Smith (AL)

Curtis Watts (OK)

Wanda Redmond (MI)

Maya Smith (TX)

Christopher Weldon (IN)

Irene Richardson (NJ)

Titessa Smith (NJ)

Debora West (NJ)

Lydia Richardson (NJ)

India Smith Reed (PA)

Howard West (NJ)

Chase Roberts (PA)

Yashika Smith-Bowles (NJ)

Nickki Weyant (PA)

Linda Robinson (NJ)

Elicia Spearman (NEAP)

Kimberly Whitaker (MD)

Maxine Robinson (NJ)

Dawn Spicer (NJ)

Ernestine White (VA)

Nadirah Robinson (NJ)

Lynae Spratley (DE)

Jasmine White (DC)

Ashley Rollins (KY)

Antoinette Stephens (MD)

Rebekah White (SD)

Kimberley Ross (NJ)

Michelle Steven (NY)

Leah Wiggins (AL)

Tanetha Ross-Johnson (PA)

Claudette Stone (PA)

Ashley Wilder (FL)

Nidara Rourk (NJ)

Veronica Stubbs (NJ)

Christina Williams (NY)

Nicole Rouse (PA)

Monique Wakefield (NJ)

Khobaib Zafar (WA)

Thank you instructors!

A special thank you to . the instructors of the . aforementioned new members: Bevery Tatham, PRP Cynthia Mayo, PRP Margie Booker, PRP Dacia Robertson, RP Daniel Jackson, PRP Debra McAllister Deen Meloro, RP Donna Mitchell, RP Dorothy White, RP Fashika Willis, PRP Jewel Johnson Jones, PRP Joe Neglia, PRP Joyce Gleason, PRP Kay Crews, PRP Kevin Connelly, PRP Lucy Anderson, PRP Mary Bahde, PRP-R Pat Knoll, PRP

Jacob Stucken (AB) Gwendolyn Rowe-Lanham . Alicia Stukes (MD) (NEAP) Bryce Sullivan (TN) Kimberly Rush (PA) Jeanne Survell (NEAP) Angelica Russell (NJ) Ericka Tate-Souvenir Jennifer Santiago (PA) (MD) Elaine Satchell (VA) Danita Taylor (MD)

LaVera Williams (VA)

Karma Williams-Davis (NJ)

Theljewa Garrett, PRP

Una Satchell Jenkins (NJ)

Jamal Taylor (LA) Kecia Taylor (NJ)

Janelle Williams-Opoku (NJ)

Wanda Sims, PRP

Pamela Sauls (NEAP)

Lillet Williams (MD) Mary Williams (MS) Trena Williams (TN) Pearline Williams-Brown (TX)

Peter Senopoulos, RP Ramona Marsalis Hill, PRP Rob Robinson, PRP Rosalie Stroman, PRP Tamara Harris, PRP

Zhimin Zhong, RP

* For the period December 17, 2019 through March 13, 2020 40 National Parliamentarian • Spring 2020

NAPEF’s River Cruise Explore. Relax.

Connect. and Dinner Revel in San Antonio’s rich history and connect to the city’s culture, at the Pearl architecture, and timeless charm Friday, August 28, 2020 4:45 p.m.-10:00 p.m.

while navigating the winding .

San Antonio River. Your destination: . the beautiful Hotel Emma in the historic Pearl Brewery. There you will enjoy a delicious 3-course meal as you relax in the company . of old and new friends.

Support parliamentary education grants at the same time. .

(Proceeds help fund .

NAPEF educational grants.)

Purchase your ticket when registering for the NTC. .

Seating is limited, so register early.

Tickets: $150 (includes a $65 donation to NAPEF); $175 after June 15.

www.napconference.org/register www.parliamentarians.org 41

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