National Parliamentarian (Vol. 81, No. 4)

NP

Volume 81, No. 4 | Summer 2020

National Parliamentarian

Embracing the Unknown Virtual Deliberative Participation . . . . . . . . . . .

page 4

Statutes Governing Decision-Making Outside of In-Person Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . .

page 15

2020 NAP Training Conference – Going Virtual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

page 26

Parliamentary Resources at Your Fingertips There is only one place to turn for your parliamentary resources: NAP. Browse our online store for • Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and In Brief – we offer spiral-bound versions not available anywhere else!

• Parliamentary reference cards • Basic information handouts • Script samples • Leadership primers for officers • Credentialing study guides • Teaching resources • And so much more

Check us out today at

www.parliamentarians.org

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. 4 | Summer 2020

Contents From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message Embracing the Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEATURES Virtual Deliberative Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Adrian Stratton, RP Reconsider and Rescind: What Are the Actions Needed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Cynthia R. Mayo, PRP and Margie R. Booker, PRP When a 2/3 Vote Is Required but a Majority Vote Adopts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP Statutes Governing Decision-Making Outside of In-Person Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Jim Slaughter, PRP A Treatise of Parliamentary Law: A Call for a Paradigm Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Kimo Gandall, PRP Are There Any Abstentions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Carl Nohr, PRP Special Section NAP Training Conference The 2020 NAP Training Conference is Going Virtual! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 DEPARTMENTS Test Yourself Snow White and The… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 David Mezzera, PRP Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 NAP Connections Update from the NAP Commission on Credentialing . . . . 34 NAP Youth Committee: Keepers of the Democratic Process – Next Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 An FFA Wining Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 The SEP – An NAP Special Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Webinar and Meeting Support Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 New Professional Registered Parliamentarian . . . . . . . . . . 40 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 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 82, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2020 (Fall 2020) Volume 82, No. 2 . . . . . . November 1, 2020 (Winter 2021) Volume 82, No. 3 . . . . . . . . February 1, 2021 (Spring 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

In the last few months NAP has taken on a strong leadership role to help organizations conduct business remotely. Electronic meeting resources have been provided for members and non-members through webinars, on-line seminars, and the written word. In this issue of National Parliamentarian, some of our authors are carrying out that theme. Don’t miss Adrian Stratton’s article about methods of virtual interaction, and Jim Slaughter’s explanation of statutes related to electronic meetings.

In addition to our educational hypotheses of RONR (11th ed.) material, this issue we have a projection of the parliamentary law needs for the future by student PRP, Kimo Gandall.

Be sure also to read the articles describing the hard work being done on our behalf by NAP committees.

TennieBee Hall 2

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

President’s Message

Embracing the Unknown Michael Jordan is quoted as saying, “I can’t speak for the future, I have no crystal ball.” We began 2020 with fanfare and high expectations. We were buoyed by using catchphrases that conveyed a message of being laser-focused, and thoughts of Barbara Walters.

Times have changed. There has been a seismic shift in life as we know it.

In addition to being knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure and terminology, we have become familiar with the practice of social distancing, self-quarantine, and wearing of PPE. The latter concepts are embraced globally and directly affect our ability to safely monitor the membership and registered parliamentarian exams.

Organizations have been jolted from their comfort zones to deal with a new, virtual reality. NAP felt the jolt also. As you probably already know, the NAP Board of Directors voted to hold this year’s NTC virtually. Quality virtual sessions will be presented. See pages 26-27 for more information.

In the meantime, our members are learning to steer themselves through what it takes to host and manage virtual meetings. Virtual meetings and video chats are filling the void for those not able to meet in-person. The NAP Board arranged presentations over several months to assist members in navigating the uncharted territory. The webinars addressed the burning questions around what to do when governing documents do not authorize virtual meetings. The various webinars were presented

by Adam Hathaway, PRP, panelists Thomas “Burke” Balch, PRP, Weldon Merritt, PRP, and Timothy Wynn, PRP, Dave Whitaker, PRP, Larry Taylor, PRP, Donald I. Garrett, PRP, and Brandon H. Walters, PRP. Latisha Corley, Evan Lemoine, PRP, and Wanda Sims, PRP, also presented as a panel to assist unit and association treasurers in their duties and responsibilities.

The Robert’s Rules Association released Sample Rules for Electronic Meetings ahead of the release of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition. The link can be found on the NAP website www.parliamentarians.org.

There is information available from various sources to help choose a virtual meeting platform, create rules to conduct electronic meetings to include gaining recognition to the floor, motions, voting, and other aspects of conducting a productive meeting. It is only a click away.

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards,” as stated

by Søren Kierkegaard, aptly sums up where we find ourselves today. When looking back, we should think of this experience not in terms of a departure from normalcy but rather adjustments to our best practices. The bar has been raised and we should rise, too.

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

3

Virtual Deliberative Participation

By Adrian Stratton, RP

Virtual group interactions are a relatively new convenience that have expanded the possibilities of connectivity. Never before has it been possible to simultaneously interact with groups of people in distant places with such ease. Disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has forced organizations across the world to reconsider options of operating when gathering together in person is not a possibility. As society has maintained physical separation and social distance, utilization of available software to conduct business has increased. Virtual meetings for assemblies should be embraced, and governance must adapt for balance between the freedom of organizations and the fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

For decades, parliamentary authorities have discussed the concept of electronic meetings and how rules of order apply. A virtual meeting takes place when one or more members participate in deliberations without face-to-face interaction with the other attendees. It has become typical for boards and committees to interact virtually. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition provides critical guidance on this inclusiveness of 4

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

assemblies, but rightfully leaves the decisions of how to each organization, based on their unique circumstance.

Regarding active virtual deliberative participation, a clear distinction should be made between a regular meeting and an informal gathering used to update memberships.

Gatherings where the expectation is that most members will act in a passive capacity would not apply to a virtual meeting concept where all members have equal rights.

To fully understand the concept of virtual deliberative participation, required governance, and the impact to an assembly, presiding officers, parliamentarians, and members must recognize the unique ways in which virtual interactions can be held.

Virtual participation can broadly be thought of in one of three ways: complete virtual participation, partial virtual participation, and mixed virtual participation. To illustrate each, consider an assembly of 23 members who wish to participate in a properly noticed regular meeting but are physically separated in multiple localities. The bylaws of the assembly authorize virtual regular meetings.

Complete virtual participation: a gathering where all members join

the meeting from separate individual locations, without any groups. The connections would equal the number of members who are each using the same technology to participate from separate individual devices for each attendee. There is no in person, faceto-face interaction between two or more members for the duration of the meeting. In this meeting, an assembly of 23 would require 23 separate connections across 23 separate devices.

All participants would have equal technology access to the meeting.

Partial virtual participation: a gathering where all members join the meeting from separate group locations.

The connections would equal the number of groups with each group sharing the same technology through a common device to participate with the other individuals or groups. There is at least one in person, face-to-face group participating in this type of meeting simultaneously with at least one other individual or group. This meeting would require at least two separate connections across two devices that would allow all 23 members to interact. All groups would have equal technology access to the meeting.

Mixed virtual participation: a gathering where all members (or groups) join the meeting from separate individual or group locations.

The connections would equal the number of non-group members (plus the number of groups) with at least two attendees (or group of attendees) using a communicative technology different from some or all the other

participants. There are, at a minimum, two different communicative technologies in simultaneous use and the number of devices in use would equal the number of non-group attendees (plus groups). For example, a meeting of 23 members that supports and allows attendees to participate by video and voice as well as voice only (no video) would be considered as mixed virtual participation. All members may not have equal technology access to the meeting.

Technology has developed to accommodate fair virtual deliberative participation. In each of the scenarios described, the fundamental principles of parliamentary law could be protected if proper rules of order are observed, decorum is followed, and the technology works properly. The chair would preside, and members could make, debate, amend, and vote on motions. The deliberative characteristic1 that a group “meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants‌â€? can be achieved in a virtual meeting.2 For good reasons such as security, secrecy, familiarity, and fellowship, it is practical for most assemblies to meet in person, face-to-face. But in times of distress and in consideration of future organizational preferences, organizations will need to seriously consider virtual meetings.

Virtual meetings enable the full assembly to act in times of crisis. Most organizations would be wise to keep www.parliamentarians.org

5

in person, face-to-face meetings as the norm and not the exception. However, for organizations that would like for the entire voting membership to have the opportunity to meet in times of crisis, virtual meetings are an effective method. Technology that previously did not exist now creates the possibility of an entire assembly coming together to conduct business during an emergency when a meeting is scheduled but it is simply not practical, or possible, to meet face-to-face.

Organizations may desire to operate virtually out of convenience and preference. Many barriers, such as cost, quality of software, and inconsistent internet speeds that have all contributed to the previous impracticability of virtual group interactions have been largely removed. Additional technological advancements will develop, and the way assemblies engage, inclusive of conferences and conventions, will also have to be reimagined. The notion of membership and participation connected by bonds beyond geographical limitations is possible with appropriate rules of order and technology. Virtual participation will enable existing and new types of organizations to conduct business without physical boundaries.

Embracing virtual meetings would undoubtedly do more good than harm, but wide adoption is not without risks that demand consideration.

Authorization and the necessary adoption and implementation of actions are unique activities. Valid 6

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

opposition to virtual meetings goes beyond simple resistance to change but begins to explore questions central to the fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

Over-reliance on virtual meetings could diminish the fairness of parliamentary law, leading to an erosion of rights. Decorum sensitivity and established rules of order correctly applied would still protect the rights of attendees. However, the “weaponization� of technology will be an issue that presiding officers and members must consider and protect against. In the case of mixed virtual participation, risks are possible when all attendees cannot see and hear each other. Dropped participant connectivity could impact quorums, for instance, and deliberate group positioning with regard to partial virtual participation could create recognition issues in debate. Fairness in recognition and debate would need to be monitored by the assembly just as it is in person, face-to-face. Bylaws and standing rules will need to reflect additional governance to protect the assembly.

Unclear guidelines threaten the fabric of parliamentary procedure.

Guidelines that are not firmly established and well thought out could be exploited by deceitful participants who understand technology better than other participants. Protection of the rights of every member must be safeguarded,3 and the controller of the selected meeting technology must not be allowed to abuse such authority.

Established rules protecting against an abusive presiding officer would likely need to be expanded to ensure that the rights of members are not limited. If mixed virtual participation is allowed, the impact to debate and voting would need to be clear as to limit, and to discourage abuse of such freedom.

Canon wrote that the “…goals of every member in a meeting should be to understand the issues, to debate freely those issues when debate is appropriate, to express their views clearly, and to make certain that their votes are counted correctly.”4 In order for virtual meetings to be successful these goals and others will surely need to be addressed in organization bylaws and standing rules, and in updated parliamentary authorities with virtual meetings in consideration. As a professional body, the parliamentary community should continue to encourage the adoption of methods that provide flexibility for organizations with appropriate protections. By carefully considering the limitations of virtual meetings, organizations can better prepare for known issues, and rely on the existing parliamentary framework to manage unexpected developments.

Deliberative assemblies will need to confront a growing demand for

the authorization and use of virtual participation. For the purposes of transacting business, the intent remains; the freedom to choose the method of participation to achieve the intent will be the difference. As technology improves, clear rules of order to fully embrace the opportunity will be needed to protect the rights of membership and participation.

Parliamentarians should continue to educate themselves about virtual possibilities and limitations. The role of technology in parliamentary interactions and how organizations think about coming together must continue to evolve to reflect this reality.

Notes 1. Henry M. III Robert, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition (New York: PublicAffairs, 2011), p. 98, ll. 11-19 2. Henry M. III Robert, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition (New York: PublicAffairs, 2011), p. 1, ll. 12-14, italic emphasis by the author 3. American Institute of Parliamentarians, American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (New York: McGraw Hill Company, 2012), p. 109 4. Hugh Cannon, Cannon’s Concise Guide to Rules of Order (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), p. 51

Adrian Stratton, MBA, RP, is a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians, Parliamentarians of Brooklyn New York, Inc. unit, and the American Institute of Parliamentarians. Mr. Stratton is a Partner at GAACC management consulting.

www.parliamentarians.org

7

Reconsider and Rescind:

What Are the Actions Needed?

?

By Cynthia R. Mayo, PRP and Margie R. Booker, PRP

Organizations sometimes make decisions too hastily, there is a lack of research based on the wishes of a few influential members, or new information becomes available that impacts the decision. Once the organization realizes that the action would not be in the best interests of the organization, some will ask, “How can we change this action?”

There are several ways the action can be changed, provided the action has not been started and/or completed.

Several parliamentary processes can be adopted: Rescind, Reconsider, or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

How can this be done?

Reconsider Reconsider is a technique that can be used within a limited time period and without notice to bring back for further consideration a motion which has already been voted on. Its purpose is to reconsider a decision that may have been hasty, ill-advised, or the action was incorrect. New information may have also been obtained that causes a need to reconsider. This motion has key characteristics that are useful and provide protection against abuse and other incorrect procedures.

Unique Characteristics

• Can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side. That is, if a member voted “yes” if the 8

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

motion was adopted, or “no” if the motion was lost, the member can move to reconsider the motion.

• Can be made subject to time limits, which means that in an ordinary meeting of an organization, or a one-day convention, the motion to reconsider can be made on the same day the vote to be reconsidered was taken. If a convention or session lasts more than one day, reconsider can be moved only on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the session in which a business meeting is held. The time limits do not apply to standing or special committees.

• The motion can be made and seconded when it is not time for it to come before the assembly for debate or vote. This means it can be taken up later, even after it would be too late to move it in the first place. “If it is made when it cannot be taken up, the chair does not state the question, but asks the secretary to record the motion as made and seconded. This suspends any action growing out of the vote it is proposed to reconsider.

While a motion to reconsider the vote on the main motion has this status, a member can bring the motion before the assembly at any time when its consideration is in order.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 317.

Standard Descriptive Characteristics

The characteristics of Reconsider include the following: • Making the motion to reconsider takes precedence over any motion whatsoever and yields to nothing; • Reconsider has only the same rank as that of the motion to be reconsidered, although it has the right-of-way in precedence to any new motion of equal rank until the motion has been stated by the chair as pending; • Reconsider can be applied to the vote on any motion except a motion which can be renewed. A negative vote on a motion at the time a reconsider motion is made would not be in order because it may conflict with a motion previously adopted, or one that may conflict with a motion which has been temporarily, but finally disposed of, which remains within the control of the assembly, or it may be in conflict with a pending motion if the motion was adopted; • The motion to reconsider is in order when another person has been assigned the floor, but has not started to speak; • It must be seconded when made; • It is debatable if it applies to a debatable motion; • It is not amendable; • It requires a majority vote, regardless of the vote necessary to adopt the motion to be reconsidered.

• It cannot be reconsidered if the vote is lost, however the vote to reconsider can be renewed by unanimous consent. But, no question can be

considered twice unless it is materially amended during its first consideration.

RONR (11th ed.), pp. 320-321.

Reconsider: Other Considerations

The impact of making a motion to reconsider means the suspension of all actions that it depends on. The action adopted cannot be started and completed, until the reconsider motion is dealt with.

If a motion has been previously rejected, it is not in order to reconsider it. An example of this is if a motion was made to use funds for a special project and the motion was lost, and a motion was made and passed to use that same money for another project, no motion can be made to reconsider it on the original project.

Taking Up the Motion to Reconsider at the Time It Is Made

If a motion is made to reconsider and is in order, the chair immediately states the questions as pending. The motion requires a second and is debatable if the motion proposed to be reconsidered is debatable. All members have the right to debate, even if a member exhausted his right to debate in the original consideration and the motion to reconsider is taken up the same day.

Calling Up the Motion to Reconsider

When a motion to reconsider is made and cannot be taken at that time, then it must be called up and acted upon during any regular or special called meeting for that purpose. Any member may call up reconsider, but usually the maker of the motion calls it up on the day the motion is made.

In cases where the session is to last beyond the day and there is no need for www.parliamentarians.org

9

immediate action, the member states, “Mr. President, I call up the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion.”

A second is not needed.

Duty of the Chair When Failure to Call Up The Motion May Do Harm

If a motion to reconsider is not called up and may do harm, the chair has the duty to point out the situation to the assembly, especially if the society meets within a quarterly time interval and the vote to reconsider has to do with something that can only be done before the next meeting. If the present meeting adjourns without taking up the motion to reconsider, it would be killed unless an adjourned meeting or special meeting were held to consider it.

Reconsideration of Subsidiary, Privileged, and Incidental Motions

Special instructions for the motion to reconsider must be followed depending on the main question and the rank of the question. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 327-328 for details. The process remains for subsidiary, incidental and secondary motions. The person making the motion must have voted on the prevailing side in the original vote.

Reconsideration in Standing and Special Committees

A motion to reconsider a vote proposed in a committee can be made and taken up at any time regardless of the time that has elapsed. The maker of the motion must have voted on the prevailing side. A two-thirds vote is required if members of the committee did not receive notification. A vote cannot be reconsidered in a Committee of the Whole. See Form and Example, RONR (11th ed.), p. 330.

10

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is an incidental main motion. This action brings business before the assembly by its introduction and when it is voted on, business ceases to be pending.

It refers to motions which have already been voted on, where the vote was an affirmative vote and proposes a specific change. The motion to reconsider can be applied to a vote that was either affirmative or negative within a limited time after the vote is taken and proposes no specific changes in a decision, but proposes that the original question be reopened.

On the other hand, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is a motion by which a previous action or order can be canceled. The effect of Rescind is to strike out an entire main motion, resolution, order, or rule that has been adopted. Amend Something Previously Adopted is a motion that can be used if it is desired to change only a portion of the motion or substitute a different version.

Standard Characteristics Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted

• Takes precedence over nothing and can only be moved when no other business is pending. Previous notice of intent can be given while another question is pending if it does not interrupt the speaker.

• Can be applied to any bylaw, rule, policy decision, or choice.

• Is out of order when another has the floor.

• Must be seconded.

• Is debatable.

• Is amendable by the process of primary and secondary motions.

• The vote required depends on the type of motion. In an assembly, except when applied to a constitution, bylaws, or special rules of order, it requires a two-thirds vote. Others require a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion has been given with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The same action is required for the assembly to rescind or amend an action taken by subordinate bodies, such as executive boards, empowered to act for the assembly.

• A negative vote can be reconsidered.

Further Rules

All members have the right to make a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

No amendment is in order that is beyond the scope of the notice.

In Summary Reconsider, and Rescind and Amend Something Previously

Adopted, are motions that can be used in the democratic process of conducting meetings. Specific characteristics are required in order to meet the criteria of parliamentary procedure. Some key issues include: Reconsider must be considered within certain time limits and it must be made by a member on the prevailing side.

A second is required, a majority vote is required, it is debatable, and it is not amendable.

On the other hand, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is a motion by which a previous action or order can be canceled.

The effect of Rescind is to strike out an entire main motion, resolution, order, or rule that has been adopted.

Amend Something Previously Adopted is a motion that can be used if it is desired to change only a portion of the motion or substitute a different version.

Works Cited Robert, Henry M., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition.

Eds. Sarah Corbin Robert, et. al., Philadelphia: DaCapo Press, 2011. pp. 320-321.

Cynthia R. Mayo, PhD, PRP, has been a member of NAP since 1990. She has conducted many workshops related to parliamentary procedure. She has also published articles in the National Parliamentarian. She is a past president of the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians (VSAP) and currently serves as the treasurer.

Margie R. Booker, PRP, has been a member of NAP since 2005. She has conducted workshops at the NAP Conventions and the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians. She is the immediate past president of the Virginia State Association of parliamentarians (VSAP). www.parliamentarians.org

11

When a 2/3 Vote Is Required but a Majority Vote Can Adopt

By Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP

One of the critical steps in handling a motion is convincing the client that the proper voting threshold was selected to decide the adoption or defeat of a motion.

First there is the confusing issue to some clients of the difference between the majority of the vote of the members vs. the majority of the entire membership. The majority of the vote of the members refers to greater than half (not 50% + 1) of the votes cast. The majority of the entire membership refers to greater than half (not 50% + 1) of the voting members on the membership roll.

Only the documents of governance will determine the proper threshold each time a vote is taken. Nevertheless, client distrust may result when a vote is handled one way in one case, but differently in another case.

Votes Cast For example, if a 20-member board with its 20 positions filled took a vote of 9 in favor, 8 against, and 3 abstaining or absent, the motion would typically be properly adopted.

12

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

The motion received a majority (i.e., 9 votes) of the 17 votes cast.

Entire Membership On the other hand, a vote of 9 in favor, 8 against, and 3 abstaining or absent would defeat the motion if the bylaws required a majority of the entire membership, because the motion did not receive a majority of the 20 possible votes. The motion required 11 affirmative votes of the 20 members’ vote for adoption.

A 2/3 vote requirement is not always simply 2/3 Besides these confusing cases of the majority vote (i.e., votes cast vs. members’ vote), there is the even more frustrating concept of the 2/3 vote threshold. Robert’s Rules of Order describes four potential thresholds for a required 2/3 vote, as listed below.

Certain specific motions fall under one of the four potential thresholds.

You will notice that three of these four potential 2/3 vote thresholds offer the typically ignored and mostly underutilized option of a majority of the entire membership.

Different 2/3 vote threshold requirement under Robert’s I. An ordinary 2/3 vote; II. A 2/3 vote with previous notice; OR a majority of the entire membership; III. A 2/3 vote; OR a majority of the entire membership; IV. A majority vote with previous notice; OR a 2/3 vote; OR a majority of the entire membership.

Here are examples of motions based on the four distinct 2/3 optional thresholds under Robert’s: I. Requirement of an ordinary 2/3 vote These are the more common situations such as Close Nominations; Close Suggestions for filling a blank, close polls; Limit or Extend Limits of Debate; make a special order; adopt an agenda with special orders; adopt parliamentary standing rules in a convention; Objection to the Consideration of a Question; Previous Question; Suspend the Rules; refuse to proceed to orders of the day, etc. These situations deal with motions that tend to take away rights or limit rights of the members.

II. Requirement of a 2/3 vote with previous notice required, OR a majority of the entire membership a. Adopt a parliamentary authority (if rule is absent in client’s documents of governance) b. Adopt/Amend/Rescind special rules of order c. Amend/Rescind an adopted constitution (if rule is absent in client’s documents of governance) d. Amend/Rescind adopted bylaws (if rule is absent in client’s documents of governance) III. Requirement of a 2/3 vote with no previous notice required, OR a majority of the entire membership a. Amend an adopted agenda b. Amend/Rescind a parliamentary standing rule in a convention IV. Requirement of a majority vote with previous notice, OR a 2/3 vote with no previous notice, OR a majority of the entire membership a. Amend/Rescind non-parliamentary standing rules in a convention b. Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted c. Depose from office if trial is not required d. Discharge a Committee www.parliamentarians.org

13

Conclusions • Too many motions that require a 2/3 vote for adoption are defeated because the client is not aware of the majority of the entire membership alternative. For example, a 15-member board seeking to adopt a motion may have difficulty reaching a 2/3 vote (i.e., 10 votes in the affirmative).

But under examples II, III, or IV above, the board needs only a majority of the entire membership (i.e., 8 votes in the affirmative, not 10).

• Often the requirement of a previous notice legally prevents a board from considering a motion that requires a previous notice.

Under examples II, and IV above, a previous notice is not required as long as a majority of the entire membership votes to adopt the motion.

• True, a majority of the entire membership is difficult to obtain in the meeting of an association that covers a wide geographical area because a majority of the entire membership will probably never be present. However, a majority of

the entire membership of a board or committee having less than 12 members will probably always have more than half of its members present. Most boards and committees have no more than 12 members making a majority of the entire membership a viable option for adopting the motions listed above in examples II, III, and IV without the requirement of a 2/3 vote, 2/3 vote with previous notice, or majority vote with previous notice.

There are too many variations in requirements to determine whether a motion is adopted or defeated based on votes cast vs. members’ vote. The variations of the 2/3 vote with or without a previous notice requirement is another source of confusion to the client. We have all observed that distrusting look on the face of a client when the threshold appears to be inconsistent.

We as parliamentarians need to reduce confusion and frustration caused by our technical language.

The client does not want a parliamentary lesson. The client simply wants a simple and direct parliamentary solution.

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

14

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

Statutes Governing Decision-Making Outside of In-Person Meetings

By Jim Slaughter, PRP

The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly brought into focus how essential meetings are.

Nonprofits, unions, places of worship, community associations, condos/homeowner associations (HOA’s), and governmental bodies have all struggled with making decisions when stay-at-home orders prevent in-person gatherings.

This article is not intended to duplicate recent National Parliamentarian (NP) articles on virtual meetings and electronic voting. Instead, it examines what statutory options may exist for making decisions outside of physical meetings.

An NP article on statutory approaches outside of parliamentary manuals may seem odd. However, the best parliamentarians work hand-in-hand with legal counsel, each relying upon the other’s expertise.

And parliamentarians should be asked to advise on the wording and practices described below. Also, as noted in my NP article, “Parliamentarians: Avoid the Practice of Law” (First Quarter 1995), parliamentarians need to be aware of and can point out relevant state statutes, even if they should not advise on them. “By doing so, you should earn the respect of your client as well as protect yourself from claims that you have exceeded your authority as a parliamentarian.”

RONR (11th ed.) § 9 p. 97 states that “Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting.”

While the manual notes that an electronic meeting with simultaneous aural communication can be a deliberative assembly, there are multiple references about such a process being “properly authorized in the bylaws.” What if the bylaws are silent about electronic meetings?

And if electronic meetings are not permitted, are there no other means by which members might make decisions? For incorporated nonprofits and some organizations, there are statutes that may provide help.

(Caveat: Whether the following options apply in a specific situation or whether language in the bylaws www.parliamentarians.org

15

may prohibit any action should be discussed with the organization’s legal counsel or an attorney in that jurisdiction who works with similar types of organizations.)

Boards Meeting Via Electronic Communications. There are numerous state statutes that allow boards to hold electronic meetings.

Most nonprofit corporation, HOA/ condo, and governmental body statutes provide that a director can participate in a board meeting by electronic communications as long as all members can simultaneously hear and speak to everyone else. Most often that means speakerphone, but other platforms, such as Zoom, could work.

As a result, boards can generally meet and transact business through a properly noticed meeting at which there is a quorum, either with board members physically present, or with some or all members present by speakerphone/online conference.

Language in governing documents may prohibit such meetings, and a host of technical issues arise for organizations where the general membership can attend board meetings. (Some HOA/condo statutes allow boards to meet by telephone or conferencing as long as all unit owners may participate in the conference directly or by meeting at a central location or conference connection.)

Action Without Meeting. Some statutes permit nonprofit boards to take action by written unanimous 16

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

consent of all members. Traditionally, this consent has taken the form of a document signed by all board members. Today, it’s possible that a scanned image, or even email, may be sufficient, depending on circumstances. The consent is then included in the minutes or corporate records. If an action taken between meetings is questionable, it may be best for the board to ratify the matter at its next meeting.

Membership Electronic Meetings. Few states have statutes authorizing electronic membership meetings, but that is likely to change following the COVID-19 pandemic. Some governors have issued state of emergency executive orders permitting virtual membership meetings, but most still require votes to be taken by written ballot following the meeting.

Action by Written Consent.

Many nonprofit statutes allow members to make decisions by written unanimous consent of all members. If such consents are electronic, further steps may be necessary to authorize the process.

Action by Written Ballot. A more common process for members to take action outside of a meeting is by “written ballot.” Many nonprofit statutes provide that actions may be taken without a meeting as long as steps are followed, such as delivery of a ballot to all members, allowing them to vote FOR or AGAINST the proposal. Such ballots can often be

done by electronic transmission, including email, as long as it can be determined that the transmission was authorized by the member. Usually, ballots returned must constitute a quorum, and be returned by a certain date. Elections can typically be held by this process, and some states require it. “Election services” companies exist that can assist in the process.

Specific Types of Actions. As to certain types of organizations, statutes may exist that allow specific actions to be taken without a meeting. For HOAs and condos, some states and the model Uniform Planned Community Act and Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (2008) provide that the declaration [sometimes called “Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs)” or “restrictions”] can be amended by “written agreement” of “at least sixty-seven percent of the votes in the association.” Similar language exists for terminating a planned community by “agreement.”

My preference would always be to hold in-person meetings on matters of importance. Announcing and holding a meeting can help avoid questions about notice, due process, etc. In addition, meetings allow for deliberation where proposals can be discussed, and minds changed.

Following debate, unacceptable proposals are sometimes modified to become more acceptable and pass. In contrast, most online and electronic voting simply permits an up-or-down, immediate reaction to the proposal.

That said, there will likely be at some point a different crisis or natural disaster that will require the association or its board to act outside of the standard, in-person meeting process. While in-person meetings are preferable, there are other options available. If circumstances exist that make a meeting impossible, parliamentarians should know what other options exist to transact business.

Conclusion My hope is that the health crisis that currently has our attention will soon be brought under control.

Jim Slaughter, PRP, is an attorney, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, and Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher. He served as first President of the American College of Parliamentary Lawyers. Jim is author of two books on meeting procedure, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Parliamentary Procedure Fast-Track and Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules, Fourth Edition.

More information is available at www.jimslaughter.com. www.parliamentarians.org

17

A Treatise of Parliamentary Law A Ca l l f o r a Parad i g m S h i ft

By Kimo Gandall, PRP

Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty.

— Henry M. Robert

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

— Judges 17:6

I believe there is a crisis among deliberative bodies: a crisis of custom, of norms, of the rules, and of their connection to good practice. That crisis is “the need for stability in parliamentary law.”1 Many are unclear on either the why or the when to apply parliamentary procedure. Such struggles outline the great Biblical conflict that influenced Robert, pitting strict pharisaic application of the rules to the intention and benefit of those rules.2 This article seeks to propose a paradigm shift to categorize the principles of parliamentary law as a means of understanding the great balancing act of rules and rights.

Before explaining the academic sense of this argument, its importance must be noted. As our world undergoes the COVID-19 crisis, extensive arguments have emerged as to the “nature of the deliberative assembly” in electronic settings, especially the requirement of “simultaneous aural communication” that is similar or the same as a ‘face-to-face’ meeting.3 Some contend we should just ignore the rules and favor ‘life,’ others argue we must still meet, and endanger the lives of others, and yet others insist we do neither. It is our job as parliamentarians to work towards providing a framework to remedy this crisis of philosophy, so that life as we know it can continue.

1 Robert, H. M. III (2002). “Henry Robert’s Goals Remain in Part Unfulfilled.” National Association of Parliamentarians: 73.

2 Joseph O’Brien, “Henry Martyn Robert: Writer of the Rules, An American Hero (2020),” p. 199.

3 RONR (11th ed.), p. 97, ll. 20-26.

18

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

What Is Parliamentary Law? Parliamentary law is the function of the totality of rules and customs that a deliberative assembly ought to operate by.4 This law has a telos, or an objective and intended ends, and such ends are to “ascertain and express [the assembly’s] deliberate sense or will on these questions.”5 In order to do so, the proper implementation of parliamentary law is subject to a balancing test, namely, to balance the rights of persons with the will of the majority.6 The rules attempt to institute certain categories required to clarify the implementation of these rights, for example, the right to debate, or less obviously, the prohibition on proxies which violates the nature of a deliberative assembly.7 Interpreting the meaning of this definition is thus simple: if an assembly consistently (absolutely) follows parliamentary law, it is acting to its telos (intended ends), and therefore good, even if the individual dissents.8 For our purposes here I will also differentiate two requirements in parliamentary law: the rules of something and the nature (customs) of something. The rules are the explicitly enumerated text; that is, an assembly’s bylaws, standing rules, special rules, parliamentary handmanual, etc.9 The custom of something is a function of the objectives of that thing and the uncoded means of that thing.10 As such, in order to accomplish an end, good customs of that thing are needed to ‘fill in the blanks’ where the rules do not fit.

Two Competing Worldviews to Remedy Parliamentary Law Ambiguities During the 2001 National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) convention, Robert III theorized the first remedy: to make a short, simple manual with the objective to make the rules easier to understand. This remedy, which we now call “In Brief,” is a result of this advocacy. The argument goes as follows: due to the very size and complexity of RONR, laymen do not know the rules. Laymen, not parliamentarians, are usually the ones to interpret the rules. Therefore, we ought to teach laymen the rules, either through training or, as Robert III argued, a shorter manual. This conclusion, however, only follows if we assume teaching the rules is sufficient to correctly implement the rules in conjunction with the law but the rules themselves prohibit a strict observance of the rules.11 Therefore, this remedy is incomplete.

4 Parliamentary Law: 3.

5 Ibid.

6 RONR (11th ed.), p. li.

7 RONR (11th ed.), pp. 428-9, ll. 34-5, 1-2.

8 Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica, P. 1, Q. 94, A. 2. We operate under the assumption that good can be tangibly defined—that is, self-evident, through natural law.

9 RONR (11th ed.), pp. 12-8.

10 RONR (11th ed.), p. 19, ll. 3-5.

11 RONR (11th ed.), p. 456, ll. 14-8; p. 250, ll. 11-3. www.parliamentarians.org

19

Worse yet, others take the complexity argument of RONR to mean we ought to accept smaller, more refined manuals, such as Rosenburg’s Rules of Order.

As Cuesta (2020) warns: We must not weaken the rules of order by yielding to a misguided set of rules that promises a simpler version but merely removes critical concepts.12 This perspective, therefore, either masks inconsistency or, as Cuesta cautioned, yields to misguided and often harmful acts.

The second remedy is the opposite of the first: instead of creating a shorter book, easier for the layman, these individuals seek to expand the rules to cover more circumstances. This was the historical approach taken by Major Henry Robert’s attempt to “end the controversy as to what was parliamentary law.” To do so, upon insistence by his wife, he expanded the parliamentary handmanual 50%.13 Despite these specifications, along with the association’s hundreds of pages of additional rules, we are still required to emphasize a rather ambiguous set of values (namely “leadership” and “discretion”14) that are critical to the adjudication of problems in an assembly.15 This conflict, whether one was to follow the rules or not, and by what principles to be guided, continues to haunt parliamentary debates to this day.16 To synthesize the debate for clarification on ‘parliamentary law’, Berg (2019) spells out a clear dichotomy leading to the confusion: on the one hand, extreme legal positivism leads to a violation of the ‘common sense’ clause echoed in RONR.17 In enforcing the rules, one ought to avoid raising points of order that are “purely technical characters.”18 The rules, moreover, specify that such a “technical character” emerges as a result of “no one’s rights [sic] being infringed…and no real harm is being done…”19 To the rules oriented paradigm, which seems to be the path preferred by most, we solve this conundrum by simply expanding the book. The following portrays the logical fallacy in either such argument: P1. That natural law, as an observable subcategory of eternal law, encompasses all of parliamentary law; 12 Cuesta (2020): 12.

13 O’Brien: 163.

14 RONR (11th ed.), pp. 250, 456 ll. 9-15; 13-5.

15 Joseph O’Brien (2020): 224.

16 Lorenzo Cuesta, “Anti-Motions, Para-Motions, and Tandem-Motions for Robert’s,” 80:1 National Parliamentarian (2018): 5-9.

17 RONR (11th ed.), p. 250, ll. 10-15.

18 RONR (11th ed.), p. 250, l. 13.

19 RONR (11th ed.), p. 250, ll. 13-15. See also: David Mezzera, “RONR vs. The Real World,” 80 National Parliamentarian 17-19 (2019); RONR (11th ed.) p. li.

20

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

P2. That any deliberative act not according to parliamentary law is fundamentally immoral; P3. That the parliamentary rules (RONR) can codify only most, but not all, of parliamentary law; P4. That the deliberative body acting solely according to parliamentary rules is insufficiently able to act according to parliamentary law; P5. That an assembly ought to follow parliamentary law; P6. In the status quo, that the assembly completely adhering to parliamentary law, is either through fully following the parliamentary rules or not (i.e. through discretion);20 P7. That parliamentary rules do not always correctly adhere to parliamentary law; P8. That not following parliamentary rules is sometimes correctly adhering to parliamentary law; P9. It therefore follows that the assembly, acting fully within the rules or not fully within the rules, acts immorally.

This set of formal logic can be summarized as follows: the law wants us to follow both nature and the rules, and therefore strictly following either will result in immoral/inconsistent action. But because of underdetermination of the law (P7, above), we can never properly interpret it.

While this view on the procedures seems only academic (if not fatalistic), I believe that Robert would agree with this author that there is a great fear of either extreme. Outlining his fear that Christians would give in either to the evil of mob rule (majority rule) or the seduction of autocracy (minority rule), Robert himself stated: “The most terrible tyranny is that of the mob…the slave of their own passion…the next worst form of government is where the law is entirely dependent upon the will of him who executes it…”21 Thus, to Robert and to the rules, a correct understanding of parliamentary law will not only balance the necessary evil of a governing majority, but also reconcile those utilitarian impulses with the moral necessity for justice and the rights of the minority.22 Filling the Gap: Natural Law’s Role in Solving Underdetermination A functional paradigm shift would need not change the rules, but base them under a tangible objective. This would include the following: 1. A short expansion of the “Principles Underlying Parliamentary Law.” Future articles will be needed to elaborate on this advocacy. Functionally, it would address the telos of parliamentary law; that is, to follow the general principle 20 RONR (11th ed.), pp. 250, 456 ll. 9-15; 13-5.

21 O’Brien (2020): 154.

22 RONR (11th ed.), p. li. www.parliamentarians.org

21

of, as Aquinas stated, “good is to be done, and evil to be avoided.” Future articles will need to specify the identified ends, but they will roughly fall into one of three categories: i. The determination of good under parliamentary law. This section would explain the values of parliamentary law that are a priori accepted. That is, for instance, that fairness and justice should be respected. ii. That which preserves the capability of good. This section would list and apply parliamentary rights to their application of good. The telos of rights is to allow free agents to do good; per the contrapositive, evil is the policy of preventing free agents from doing good. For instance, if members can’t vote or debate, they can’t pass policy to further the group’s interest. It is important to note these rights aren’t only for the individual, but for the group: for example, the right to end debate on a pending question so the group may reasonably govern to do good. iii. That which is subject to discretion. Most impactfully, this section would specify how, when, and under what conditions to apply discretion.

Discretion, under this section, is to specify the application of custom, norms, and other decisions.

2. A more lengthy adoption of an official “parliamentary law” book. This would involve selected contemporary examples, data, and cases for parliamentarians to refer to. This book would also extensively explain the philosophical principles underlying parliamentary law.

3. An addition to the ‘In Brief.’ A shortened, one-page inclusion into RONR In Brief explaining the values, telos, and the rights of members.

Concluding Remarks It is the solemn duty of scholars of the parliamentary tradition to march towards the ever-elusive embrace of consistency. In short, this article argues that we have a duty to ensure that the word of law adheres to the spirit of the law; otherwise, as Robert would have warned against, our rules become little better than the rigorism of the Pharisees:

“You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

— Matthew 15:3 Kimo Gandall, PRP, is an active member of the California State Association of Parliamentarians (CSAP) and studies at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) in the School of Social Sciences. Gandall’s work, focused on international institutions, attempts to identify empirical indicators and create models of parliamentary procedure’s effect on policy. He also serves in student government and various political organizations. He strongly advocates for a society founded on the rule of law.

Gandall acknowledges his friend Logan Knight, a law student at UCI, for research and editing assistance on this article.

22

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

Are There Any Abstentions?

By Carl Nohr, PRP

When a vote is called for, we expect to hear the following: “Those in favor of the motion, say Aye. Those opposed, say No.” The chair then declares which side has prevailed, whether the motion is adopted or not, the effect of adopting the motion, and then moves on by asking for further business.

In some meetings, an additional question is asked: “Are there any abstentions?”

What is an abstention? Why would a member do this? Should the chair ask for abstentions?

To “abstain” means not to vote at all… RONR (11th ed.), p. 45, l. 16.

RONR is clear that, “The chair should not call for abstentions in taking a vote, …a member who makes no response if “abstentions” are called for abstains just as much as one who responds to that effect.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 45, ll. 14-19. RONR also states that, “…the number of members who respond to such a call [for abstentions] is meaningless.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 45, ll. 15-16.

Sometimes it is recorded in the minutes that a vote was unanimous in the affirmative. This may be viewed as desirable to report a high level of

support. Because abstentions are not counted, they do not detract from achieving unanimous support.

Unanimity, however, does not necessarily mean strong universal support. One could imagine a situation with everyone in a meeting abstaining but one member—voting in the affirmative—resulting in a unanimous decision; hardly a high level of support!

It is also important to note that abstentions are not ordinarily counted in determining whether a majority, two thirds vote, or any other voting result occurred. For example, a majority vote is defined as more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote; this clearly leaves those who abstain out of the total vote count.

However, if an organization’s bylaws or special rules of order define voting requirements as the number of members of present, an abstention has the same effect as a negative vote.

Using the number of members present as the denominator in a voting requirement thus prevents a member from taking a neutral position by abstaining, forcing them to side with www.parliamentarians.org

23

the negative. This should be avoided by using the usual definition of majority, more than half of those present and voting.

So, with these concerns about abstentions, why do members sometimes abstain, and why would a chair ever ask for them?

The above notwithstanding, abstentions are permitted by RONR. “Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 407, ll. 12-15. RONR thus states that a member may choose to abstain. However, as described above, ordinarily the chair should not ask for a count of the number of members who make such a choice.

Sometimes asking for abstentions is part of the culture of the organization. The mantra “this is how we have always held votes” is common.

If the association uses RONR as their parliamentary authority, this custom can be eliminated by raising a point of order. [“If a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with.”]

RONR (11th ed.), p. 19, ll. 10-15.

A member of an assembly may choose to abstain because of a real 24

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

or potential conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest occurs when a member has a personal interest in the action the organization is contemplating that is not common to the other members. There are several options for members who find themselves in such a conflict. If presiding, they may relinquish the chair to another. They may decline to debate, decline to vote, or recuse themselves from the relevant part of the meeting altogether. As a final step, resignation may be necessary in extreme cases.

A member of an assembly may choose to abstain if they feel they have insufficient information or have not engaged in sufficient debate and consequently have not decided how to vote. While this should be a concern for all assemblies, it is particularly worrisome on a board of directors.

Making decisions is an important part of the fiduciary duty of a director, and failing to do so renders the director’s expected contribution to the board inadequate. If widespread among the directors, or frequently practiced by an individual director, this can result in board failure.

Ensuring the provision of information to board directors is often viewed as a responsibility of the organization’s staff. However, it is the director’s responsibility to determine that what has been provided is adequate to ask questions, and take a position expressed by a willingness to vote. The board chair must be

sensitive to inadequate circumstances for effective decision making. While the chair can check for this problem by asking for abstentions, a more proactive approach will yield better results and be more compliant with rules of order.

Members of a board may want their abstention noted in the minutes.

An individual may want it recorded that they did not vote on a matter of potential conflict of interest. They may also hope to protect themselves from sharing liability with their fellow directors in case some future legal circumstance arises from the board’s decision.

Whether recording an abstention is allowed would depend on the bylaws or special rules of order of the organization. There may also be applicable legislation, especially for public bodies. In RONR, abstentions are not asked for, and therefore cannot be recorded collectively or individually. Also, whether recording an abstention accomplishes the intended purpose would be subject to legal review; a board director wishing to have an abstention recorded may be advised to seek independent legal counsel.

In summary, there are reasons why a member may choose not to vote, and this choice is available to them.

However, it is a concern in rules of order, and for the proper functioning of an organization.

Should a chair ask for abstentions in a vote? No, but the chair should be observant and thoughtful if it is a prevalent or repetitive occurrence.

If it is frequent, the cause should be sought and remedies provided, so that all members of an organization will be informed, participate in debate, decide, and express that decision by voting Aye or No! Finally, with apologies to William Shakespeare, here is a slightly modified beginning to Hamlet’s soliloquy…

To vote, or not to vote, that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to abstain Avoiding the slings and arrows of decisions, Or to take arms against a sea of motions And by opposing end them.

Or by supporting give them life.

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. www.parliamentarians.org

25

The 2020 NAP Training Conference is Going Virtual!

Yes, these are indeed unprecedented times in which we are living. But they also present a great opportunity to learn new things and connect with others in new ways.

Take, for example, the 2020 NAP Training Conference (NTC), which was to be in San Antonio, Texas, August 28-30. Due to the increased COVID-19 infection rates, NAP’s Board of Directors decided at a June 28, 2020 special meeting to conduct the conference virtually.

26

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

Feedback from members was a key factor in the Board’s decision. NAP surveyed members from the end of May until June 3, 2020. The goal: to determine the likelihood members who had been planning to attend prior to the pandemic would attend given the conditions in early June.

(Since that time, infection rates have continued to increase, and new hot spots are emerging, two of which are San Antonio and Texas, in general).

Here’s what the 864 respondents said:

As of this writing, there are several details to work out, including the new registration fees and final programming schedule. Those details should be finalized by mid-July and members will be informed by email.

The delivery format will be different, but attendees can be assured they will still have access to some of the best presentations and speakers in parliamentary practice. This holds true for the Leadership Conference.

Conducted prior to the actual conference, this special event helps prepare current and prospective officers of our associations, units, and other organizations to be more effective, informed leaders.

RONR 12th Edition Launch An exciting feature of this year’s NTC is the exclusive, official introduction of the 12th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. That, too, will be held electronically. NAP President Darlene Allen and Robert’s Rules Association (RRA) President Martyn Redgrave, as well as members of the authorship team, will be on hand for the virtual festivities.

Thomas “Burke” Balch, PRP, Daniel Seabold, PRP, and Shmuel Gerber, PRP, will then present an in-depth review of the various changes made in the new edition.

Conference attendees are encouraged to pre-purchase the 12th edition and the new 3rd edition of RONR In Brief

by August 1, 2020. NAP will ship the books prior to the September 1 publication date. This is possible because of the strong relationship between RRA and NAP. You will hear it, see it, and learn it here first!

Join us from the comfort of your home, office, local library, or wherever you have dependable internet access, and celebrate NAP’s 90th anniversary year and the release of the 12th edition – virtually. You will be glad you did!

We look forward to seeing you in August.!

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

www.parliamentarians.org

27

Test Yourself

Snow White AND THE…

By David Mezzera, PRP

For the sake of this article, let us rename the title: “Henry Robert and the Seven Dwarf Motions!” Why diminutive or dwarf-like motions? Because, although found in RONR, there are seven motions that are peripheral, overshadowed, and less likely to be used, in contrast to so many other regularly-used motions.

Below, I present those seven (dwarfish) motions that may be a bit obscure. I bet you have rarely encountered some—or any?—of them in the “real world.” Your challenge is to brainstorm instances where you have actually encountered one or more of these motions. Or, you could use these for discussion during an educational lesson of your study unit.

How often have you encountered one of the following motions during an actual meeting? What do you know about each? What should you know about each? Below is a tidbit, a question, or a challenge for each, and the relevant reference in RONR (11th ed.), where you can learn more about the seven.

1

2

3

28

Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes. §35, p. 310, explains this process, which RONR says is used only on extremely rare occasions to express strong disapproval. Read about the need for a majority vote of the entire membership, and learn how the words so expunged are blotted or cut out of the minutes by the secretary. You may be surprised by what you find!

Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes. It is generally understood that this motion is of American origin. Rarely used at all, but when employed is unfortunately frequently used improperly to hold up action taken at a meeting.

For the proper use of this motion to prevent a temporary majority from railroading through an action opposed by an actual majority of the group, check out §37, pp. 332-335.

Informal Consideration. Some people (incorrectly) assume that this motion allows free-form discussion on some issue without a motion, and without any rules of debate. Not true! Check §52, pp. 540-541. Informal consideration only suspends the rule limiting the number of times a member may speak in debate on the main question and its amendments. The presiding officer remains in the chair, all votes are formal, and all other rules of debate are in force under this process.

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

Test Yourself

4

Discharge a Committee. §36, pp. 310-315, addresses this procedure. Did you know that a committee could actually discharge one of its own subcommittees?

Do you know when this motion requires a two-thirds vote to take something back from the hands of a committee, or when it only requires a majority vote?

Check out p. 312 specifically to find the answer and discover the circumstances justifying this motion.

5

Go into Executive Session. The why of having an executive session is fairly clear in RONR. Check out §9, pp. 95-96. But the explanation of how to go into executive session is not quite so extensive. See p. 95: “A motion to go into executive session is a question of privilege (19), and therefore is adopted by a majority vote.”

6

Objection to the Consideration of a Question. An undesirable main motion has been stated that might be embarrassing if you took a vote or even discussed it. An amendment has been offered to try to make the motion more desirable.

When the amendment is stated, could a member object to consideration of the main question? Find out why the answer is “no” by studying §26, pp. 267-270, and find out much more about how to process this motion and how it differs from a Point of Order.

7

Call for the Orders of the Day. §18, pp. 219-224, addresses this process. Taking up business in the prescribed order at the prescribed time is important for a managed meeting. If individuals or groups are intentionally (or unintentionally) delaying business, this is the proper demand to get back on track or to proceed correctly. This is another of those situations that requires a two-thirds vote in the negative to not proceed to the proper next business in order. A final challenge for you is to think of other motions that also require a negative vote to pass. (There might be two or three others!)

Back to the Snow White story: Can you remember the names of the Seven Dwarfs off the top of your head? [Pause here to complete your list] Did you notice that “Lazy” was not one of the names? That is significant since none of them was lazy in completing their tasks in the mines. (“Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to work we go.”) And so too, parliamentarians should never be lazy in their mining or digging into more and more knowledge about motions, if and when they appear during our meetings.

Might there be any other motions found or explained in RONR that you have never encountered? Let’s keep the conversation going on any relatively obscure motions above and beyond the seven listed above. (“Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to work we go.”)

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

www.parliamentarians.org

29

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.

Electronic Meeting Does Not Mean Email

Q

Question 7: Our organization uses Robert’s Rules, and our bylaws state that all business of the organization and of the board must be conducted during an appropriately called meeting, and the bylaws further state that both the board and the organization can meet electronically, with no additional details. I think this means we can conduct business by email; another member is arguing that we can’t, that this just means we can use teleconferences. Who is correct?

Answer: The member who stated that your organization cannot conduct business by email was correct. Under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition (RONR), the intent of allowing electronic meetings is to include the use of technology, such as teleconferencing or videoconferencing, to conduct meetings. Utilizing this type of technology to meet maintains the characteristics of a deliberative assembly, meaning that all members can simultaneously hear each other and participate in debate without being present in the same location. It does not intend to allow the use of email, whereby the members cannot simultaneously hear each other and participate. Unless specifically included in the organization’s bylaws, utilization of email to conduct your organization’s business would most likely be a violation of your bylaws.

RONR provides guidance on electronic meetings on pages 97 through 99. The specific citation addressing meeting by email resides at p. 98, ll. 11-19 as follows: “It is important to understand that, regardless of the technology used, the opportunity for simultaneous aural

30

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

communication is essential to the deliberative character of the meeting.

Therefore, a group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing (such as by postal mail, e-mail, “chat rooms,” or fax—which is not recommended—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. Any such effort may achieve a consultative character, but it is foreign to the deliberative process as understood under parliamentary law.”

Ballot Voting in Telephone Meeting

Q

Question 8: My chapter’s bylaws allow for electronic or telephonic meetings during an emergency, such as a pandemic. We wish to elect officers at our annual meeting—the current officers are all outspoken in their intention not to remain in office any longer than the original term.

Most of our members are not technologically advanced and cannot participate by means of the internet or smart phone. We wish to hold the meeting by a free conference call.

The nominating committee is proposing only one candidate for each office. Our bylaws expressly allow for election by acclamation if there is only one candidate; otherwise, our bylaws require a ballot vote. The bylaws also mandate that nominations from the floor are allowed.

In the event a nomination is made from the floor, many of us believe that we can vote for a candidate by announcing our vote. Our parliamentarian, however, insists that a ballot vote, which we are required to have in a contested election, must be secret.

Is there any legitimate way to both conduct a telephonic election and to maintain secrecy of member choices? One solution we are considering, if there are two or more candidates, is to have all members call an agreed-upon person, who will be honor-bound to (1) tally the votes correctly and (2) to maintain the secrecy of how members voted.

Answer: Voting by ballot is used when secrecy of the members’ votes is desired.

RONR, p. 412. Under typical circumstances, a ballot can consist simply of a piece of paper on which the voter indicates choice. RONR, p. 413.

Ballot voting is often required in voting for officers and, as you say, is mandated in your case. When the bylaws require a vote be taken by ballot, this provision cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent. www.parliamentarians.org

31

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

Clearly, the report of the nominating committee must be received, and the chair must call for further nominations from the floor. If there are any additional nominations, a ballot vote must be held. The purpose of a ballot vote is to maintain secrecy, and a voice or roll call vote would not be in order. You are trying to accomplish the required secrecy by appointing a trusted individual to collect what in effect are verbal ballots.

When possible, the best answer is to conduct the meeting by means of technology that will allow for secret polls or voting, which is possible on numerous computer platforms. There are also providers of vote-byphone services, such as https://www.simplyvoting.com/telephone-voting/.

A negative consideration is that the service is not free, however, positive concerns are that such a service is a professionally-conducted, neutral voting method. If such a service is used, careful attention must be paid to the protocols used when voting, and how the chair will announce the results of the vote.

If you still wish to proceed by having a designated person tally the individual votes, and to consider these to be ballot votes, be sure the members agree to following this procedure and to the choice of designated individual. Suggestions for the individual would include non-members, such as a respected member from another chapter, a minister, or a judge. The chapter’s chaplain, if this office exists, is also a sensible option if no non-member will agree to these conditions.

Cancel HoA Meeting

Q

Question 9: I serve on a condominium board. We sent notice of the annual owners’ meeting to be held on May 28, 2020. However, due to the pandemic, we were informed that we couldn’t hold a meeting with more than just a few people. Unfortunately, our bylaws do not allow for the owners’ meeting to be held electronically.

Our board wants to encourage owner attendance and not discourage it, and we want owners to volunteer for election to serve on the board, so we want to cancel the originally scheduled annual meeting and hold it later in the year. However, our bylaws state that the annual meeting must be held in May, and that notice must be mailed 30 days prior to the meeting date. How can we properly reschedule the annual meeting for later in the year?

32

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

Answer: If there are state or local laws relating to condominiums, legal counsel should also be consulted. If the bylaws and state or local laws do not allow owners’ meetings to be held electronically, then no electronic meeting can be held. A future bylaw amendment to allow electronic meetings could be considered in case this sort of emergency occurs again.

If the meeting in May is canceled, the bylaw provision requiring the annual meeting to be held in May will be violated.

One course of action that could satisfy the bylaw and parliamentary requirements, along with respecting any pandemic proclamation and social distancing requirements, is the following: (a) Notify owners that the board recommends adjourning the meeting to another date, time, and place (see Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, RONR (11th ed.), pp. 242-246), and that owners are discouraged from attending due to the pandemic. (b) Have the president, with the secretary (or another board member or a person willing to serve as the recording secretary), go to the meeting location and call the meeting to order at the proper time. (c) Adjourn the meeting, by unanimous consent, to meet at the date, time, and place chosen. (d) Although technically no notice is necessary of this adjourned meeting, unless the bylaws or laws state otherwise, that doesn’t preclude the board from sending a reminder notice later in the year to encourage attendance.

The above course of action could also help avoid challenges that might be raised if the meeting were just canceled or simply not held.

Questions & Answers Research Team

Alison Wallis, PRP Q&A Research Editor

Ann Homer, PRP Assistant Q&A Research Editor

Rachel Glanstein, PRP Parliamentary Consultant

Timothy Wynn, PRP Parliamentarian

www.parliamentarians.org

33

NAP Connections

U pdate fro m the

NAP Commission on Credentialing

The Commission on Credentialing has had to make some changes to its proposed rollout of the full new credentialing system because of the Covid-19 emergency. While the commission is anxious to have the new system fully operational, it is very aware that the health and safety of our members and candidates are of primary importance. Therefore: • While all of the in-person commission meetings that were scheduled for this spring have been canceled, the commission will be meeting very frequently on Adobe Connect so that finalizing the rest of the step two RP testing materials can be accomplished by this fall.

• The commission is very grateful to the NAP Educational Foundation for a grant to support the video recording of the step three assessments. The video was scheduled to be ready this June, but will now be delayed until the fall. The final creation of the scripts will continue as planned, but rehearsals for the actors, and actual video recording are dependent on circumstances. The expectation is that it will be possible by this fall.

• The Beta testing of the step one objective tests is continuing, and analysis of the data obtained will be used to refine these quizzes 34

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

during the online commission meetings.

• The training of non-commission step two and three evaluators has been delayed until fall since it will require more extensive training of evaluators than can reasonably be accomplished without in-person meetings. Until those evaluators are fully trained, current and former commissioners will conduct these evaluations themselves.

• The commission will continue to do inter-rater reliability testing on the step two assessments.

That is, an initial number of step two assignments and step three simulations will be evaluated separately by all commissioners, and their assessments will be compared independently. These assignments and their rubrics will continue to be revised and perfected based on these analyses in an effort to minimize variation in scoring among different evaluators.

• Systems are in place to continue to evaluate the current candidates or any new candidates after revisions based on inter-rater reliability analyses. The commission hopes that some of our current candidates will be able to use their mandated home time to prepare for these assessments.

NAP Connections

• While there are time limits currently in effect for each step, these limits can be extended for anyone having special needs, including the pandemic, for additional time.

The commission’s aspirational target is to have the full RP exam process up and running by December 31, 2020, and to start creating the new PRP credentialing process early in 2021. The commission recognizes that most of us are under a great deal

of stress and facing major concerns at this time, and it is our hope that these adjustments will allow the furtherance of our mission while recognizing the needs of all of our members.

There is a special email address where any NAP member who has additional questions about the new credentialing process can contact us. That address is commission@nap2.org.

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

35

NAP Connections

NAP Youth Commi ttee

Keepers of the Democratic Process – Next Chapter Youth is always trending with the Youth Committee (YC)! Igniting a passion for parliamentary procedure in young people is our mission.

According to the National Association of Parliamentarians Bylaws, Article IX, Section 1. H., the Youth Committee shall: 1. encourage participation by youth in the programs of the NAP; 2. develop methods of attracting and retaining youth in NAP; 3. promote partnerships and increased involvement in joint ventures with other youth organizations in support of their parliamentary and leadership development programs; and 4. work cooperatively with the NAP Educational Foundation to promote youth activities.

The National Association of Parliamentarians partners with various youth organizations that host regular competitions at local, state, and national events, and these competitions are an excellent tool for recruiting prospective young members to NAP. The committee works with the following youth organization partners: Business 36

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

Professionals of America (BPA), Future Business Leaders of America/ Phi Beta Lambda (FBLA/PBL), Family, Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA), Future Health Professional (HOSA), and SkillsUSA. Today’s youth represent the next chapter of “Keepers of the Democratic Process.” They are beginning the work of building new relationships— drawing members of NAP together within and across cities, states, and countries. One youth member wrote: “The teamwork that goes into parliamentary procedures has been the best part of what I enjoy the most.

Being surrounded by such a talented group of similarly motivated individuals has been tremendously empowering.

Even when things do not go our way, the mistakes we make as a team have helped me to be comfortable with my shortcomings as we work to grow and succeed.”

— Jonathan Giese, FBLA Washington State

The Next Chapter Campaign will launch in June 2020. The goal of the campaign is to increase the number of youth group affiliations,

NAP Connections

improve recruitment and retention, involve groups in the creation and implementation of programs and activities that highlight youth, and provide opportunities for groups and teams to share their expertise with other NAP members.

Youth is always trending with the YC! Let’s build a network of dedicated youth and adults, working as partners

to train the world in parliamentary procedure and effective meeting management.

The Youth Committee: Theljewa Garrett, PRP, Chair Kianna Bolante Sabine Eustache Ryen Glynn Roland Williams, PRP

An FFA Winning Team Courtesy of Parl-O-Gram, the Nebraska State Association Newsletter, Spring 2020

Chase County Parliamentary Procedure Team

Chase County High School’s FFA team won Nebraska’s first-ever parliamentary procedure championship during the 92nd National FFA Convention and Career Development Events in Indianapolis, Ind., Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 2019.

Based on her logic and ability to debate, and her answers to clarification questions, team member Jozie Schilke was named the nationals’ outstanding parliamentary procedure competitor. www.parliamentarians.org

37

NAP Connections

SEP – An NAP Special Committee The Style, Editing, and Proofreading (SEP) Special Committee was appointed to conduct a comprehensive review of documents to ensure uniformity in accordance with the National Association of Parliamentarians Writing Style and Standards Style Guide. The SEP committee’s job is to pay attention to details so a document that is good becomes great! The qualifications for a SEP committee member are to enjoy reading, work independently and in a team environment, possess the ability to be punctilious, and meet short-term deadlines.

A standardized form was developed for NAP Board reports. District directors, national officers, and national committees use the form to report the data elements of activities, focus on membership, outreach, and other information. The SEP committee reviews articles and eblasts before they are sent to NAP members. These may include, but are not limited to, letters, presentations, educational materials, articles, websites, and forms.

38

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

The SEP review process usually takes three to four days. Below are the steps: 1. An NAP entity submits a document for review to SEP chair.

2. The SEP chair sends the documents to the committee to review placement of NAP logo, grammar, hyperlinks, intent, order, punctuation, spelling, and understanding. The committee submits corrections to the SEP chair.

3. The SEP chair compiles the corrections made by the committee members and sends the recommended edits to the author for revision. The author sends the revised report to appropriate personnel within two days.

The National Parliamentarian has its own style, editing, and proofreading process.

The SEP Committee Members: Lynna Gene Cook, PRP, Chairman Diane Blount Traci B. Marquis. Esq., RP Sheryl C. Womble, PRP

NAP Connections

and Meeting Support Committee Ten years ago, if you had told an NAP member that online meetings with streaming video and real-time file sharing would be the “new standard,� that member would have thought you were exaggerating.

With the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, this is not only the new standard, but it has become the new normal for a great many workplaces, associations, and groups who would otherwise not be able to gather and conduct business for quite some time.

The Webinar and Meeting Support Committee wants you to know that we, along with your board of directors, are working diligently to continue bringing parliamentary education to you in a timely, reliable, consistent, and accessible manner. It is a work in progress, and we ask your continued patience and understanding.

Many associations and units use Zoom to host their meetings. The committee advises others to do the same if they desire to meet. Zoom is an electronic meeting platform that is easy to use, inexpensive, and

expandable through subscription, should you require additional seating.

Members of this committee, as well as some elected leaders, have graciously offered to share their accounts with NAP associations and units. The accounts offered can accommodate up to 100 people, allow for unlimited meeting time, handle items such as voting (through a polling system), allow sharing and collaborating of documents through screen share, and permit recording to a cloud-based or computer system for viewing at a later time.

The committee has instituted a ticket system from which NAP associations and units can submit a request to use the electronic platforms. Should you wish to utilize this service, simply enter https://nap.calmticket.com/open.php Continued on page 40 www.parliamentarians.org

39

NAP Connections

these very strange times. Together, we will continue to serve and work to bring programming to you as efficiently and effectively as we can.

Webinar and Meeting Support Committee Continued from page 39

into your browser window and follow the instructions. A member of the committee will reply to your request as soon as possible. The more lead time the committee has to assist you in setting up your meeting, the better.

Your feedback and concerns are always welcome. You may reach the Webinar and Meeting Support Committee at meetingsupport@nap2.org.

Committee members, district directors, NAP board members, or headquarter staff are available to assist. They can help direct you to resources as well.

We appreciate your patience as we navigate these new waters during

The Webinar and Meeting Support Committee: Tamara D. Harris, PRP, Chair Henry Lawton, PRP Lori Lukinuk, PRP Paul McClintock, PRP Leah Nolan, RP Carla Patrick Crystal Rock Aaron Taggert, PRP Nicole van Woudenberg, PRP Jeff Weston, PRP Dave Whitaker, PRP

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

Robert Bruce Hill, Jr. (PA)

Kimberly Newsome (GA)

Simone Belgrave (NY)

Chanta L. Jackson (NJ)

Adam Palmer (AB)

Daniel Chase Carroll (TX)

Sharon L. Williams Jackson (DC) Jeffrey Jacobs (FL)

Joseph S. Person (MI)

Deidre Bennett Flowers (NY) Joery E. Francois (NY)

Sharon Denise Kelly-Person (MI)

Dorothy L. Gordon (OH)

Raymond Lallo, Jr. (CO)

E. Tonya Greenwood (NJ)

Mr. William S. Lavezzi (OH)

Tanya M. Lue Tsing (NY)

Carolyn L. Hart (GA)

Edwin K. Miles (TX)

Sharon M. Wells (NY)

Linda Overstreet Harvey (GA)

David C. Morgan (TX)

Wealthia Harris White (TX)

Ceresh Perry (VA) Claudia Smith (NY)

New Professional Registered Parliamentarian* NP congratulates the following individual for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarian: Zachary West (NY)

Silent Gavels* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Sue Bruns (TX)

Edna de Larios (CA)

Barbara Stoddard (TX)

* For the period March 14, 2020 through June 5, 2020 40

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020

NAP Connections

New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Candice Alfonso (NJ) Angela Anderson (VA) Vikki Andrews (NC) Annie Augustin (NJ) Sheyonn Baker (VA) LaToya Bellamy (PA) Alexander Berry (CA) Mary Borgeson (WY) Crystal Boyce (NC) Denise Brown (NJ) Alvin Brown (VA) Sheree Brown (VA) Tomeka Bumbry (MD) Olivia Caldwell (NJ) Sonia Canzater (MD) Tanya Carter (NY) Tanya Cavalieri (PA) Glenda Clark (NC) Belinda Clifton (TX) Ira Coats (PA) Courtney Coffey (DC) Felice Corpening (NC) Felicia Crawford (NY) Georgette Curling (NJ) Monica Darden (VA) Tania Davis (MD) Chrystal Davis (NC) Jacqueline Davis (VA) Gloria De Meireles (MN) Cameron Decker (AZ) Joy Duncan (TX) Antionette Duncombe (NC) Gina Elliott (NJ) LaWanda Evans (NC) Adrienne Felton (MD) Jacqueline Fleming (NJ) Paula Ford-Falu (VA) Alethea Gibbs (VA) Winifred Gilmore (VA) Cheryl Goodridge (NY) Alexis Grasso (TX)

Beverly Grayman-Rich (NC) Daisy Greene (VA) Judy Hamilton (PA) Mary Hicks (VA) Cassandra Hines (VA) Laura Hinton (AL) Mardi Holliday (PA) Sadarie Holston (MD) Deborah Hopson (MD) Angela Hubbard (DC) Byron Hunter (VA) Lytwaive Hutchinson (VA) Trina Hyman (TN) Trina Idrovo (PA) Paula Jackson (TN) Venita Jamerson (NC) Amber Johnson (MN) Phyllis Jones (TN) Michal Joyner (AZ) Beverly Ledbetter (NE) Naraisha Legrand (NY) Andrea Lewis-Walker (NJ) Prenessa Lowery (NC) Barbara Lucas (MS) Karen Luckett (MS) Erin Luster (TN) Charlene Matthews (MD) Shalima McCants (NY) Jena McGrady (VA) Tony Moss (VA) Lezell Murphy (MD) Leslie Murray (VA) Deborah Muse-Carty (NJ) Carlene Neal (PA) Elise Ocean (NY) Amanda Outlaw (AL) Shaquana Pearson (NY) NaSheena Porter (NJ) Gail Randolph-Williams (PA) Phyllis Razeeq (VA) Kenneth Reed (AZ)

Daphne Remy Gomes (NE) Irma Richardson (NC) Chantel Roane (VA) Troy Robinson (PA) Satise Roddy (MN) Ursula Short (NC) Julie Silbernagel (WY) Tyler Silvestri (MI) Darla Sligh (VA) Toby Spencer (CA) Dawn Stanley (AL) Crystal Staples (MD) Nadine Stewart (NC) Zhaojun Tang (CH) Nicholas Tharney (NJ) Valerie Toyer (MD) Caleb Ugworji (VA) Kamala Uzzell (NC) Michael Vernon (NY) Dawnn Wallace (IL) Sherre Wesley (NY) Kian Williams (KS) Regina Williams (NY) Amber Wilson (NJ) Brenda Wynn (NC) Changlin Xu (CH)

Thank you instructors!

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Adam Hathaway, PRP Beverly Tatham, PRP Bonnie Murdah, PRP Cassandra Conover Hongkun Wan Kay Crews, PRP Margie Booker, PRP Patricia Reymann, PRP Ramona Marsalis-Hill, PRP Tanya Lue Tsing, RP

* For the period March 14, 2020 through June 5, 2020 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 42

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020