National Parliamentarian (Vol. 82, No. 1)

NP

Volume 82, No. 1 | Fall 2020

National Parliamentarian

One for the History Books A Primer for Presiding Officers, Part 1 . . . . . . . . . . . page 5 New Code of Professional Responsibility . . . . . .

page 22

Call for Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

page 34

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

National Parliamentarian

Volume 82, No. 1 | Fall 2020

Contents From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message One for the History Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEATURES A Primer for Presiding Officers, Part 1 – Control of In-Person and Electronic Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Carl Nohr, PRP All Rules Are Connected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP The Unwanted Parliamentarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 John R. Berg, PRP DEPARTMENTS Test Yourself Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Letter by Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 David Mezzera, PRP NAP Connections Meet the New Code of Professional Responsibility . . . . . 22 Kay Allison Crews, PRP

Legal Advisor Melanye Johnson, RP

Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Inspiring Youth Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Collin Kaster

Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh

Social Media Guidelines/Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 C.J. Cavin, PRP HOSA Student Parli Pro Team Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Barbara Bonsignore, PRP

NAP’s Vision: To provide parliamentary leadership to the world Cover: Making History with Zoom and RONR (12th ed.)

President Darlene Allen and Vice President Wanda Sims join the Robert family and authors for the on-line launch of the 12th edition.

Call for NAP Bylaws Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Steven J. Britton, PRP Candidates Wanted for the 2021-2023 Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Promoting Robert’s Rules of Order by a School . . . . . . . . . 36 Young Yu, translated by Lin Zhang New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 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. 2 . . . . . . November 1, 2020 (Winter 2021) Volume 82, No. 3 . . . . . . . . February 1, 2021 (Spring 2021) Volume 82, No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2021 (Summer 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

As you read through this issue of National Parliamentarian, take particular note of the “Connections” section, where you can learn more about what NAP, through committees, groups, and individuals, is able to do.

Don’t miss Kay Crews’ article about the process that was used to revise the code of professional responsibility for parliamentarians. Be sure to read the outcome of that work.

C.J. Cavin outlines services available to NAP individuals and groups, and gives some communications committee tips about using social media.

Next, turn to Collin Kaster’s perspective on how to inspire young leaders, then to Barbara Bonsignore’s report of a winning parli pro team.

As you read Young Yu’s article about China’s successful study program, imagine what you can do in your own area to promote the study of parliamentary procedure.

We have so many avenues available to us to inspire, promote, and educate future NAP members!

TennieBee Hall 2

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

President’s Message

One for the History Books The French poet, Victor Hugo, once stated, “What is history? An echo of the past in the future; a reflex from the future on the past.”

The NAP Virtual Training Conference 2020 can now be referred to in the past tense, and is a part of NAP history.

The annals of time will record the efforts put forth by the staff, committees, partners, and volunteers to make the virtual conference a successful event. Before we turn the page, let us take a brief trip down memory lane to acknowledge, appreciate, and reflect.

Some day in the future we may look back upon the event and wonder why such a big deal was made before proceeding to host a virtual event. The board of directors decided to move the training conference from San Antonio, Texas, to an event that had no borders or limitations of time and space. The thorough research of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee and headquarters staff presented options that confirmed the possibility of a virtual conference. The Communications Committee and headquarters staff helped to get the word out.

The Professional Development Committee, Leadership Conference coordinators, and Webinar and Meeting Support Committee leaped into action to provide an alternate experience for those members who would be participating in events occurring before the official start of the training conference. The baton was passed to the NTC coordinators and workshop coordinators to usher in the meetings, plenary sessions, and workshops. The handoff was picture perfect.

One of the highlights of the training conference was the plenary session that perhaps only a parliamentarian would love: the retirement of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition.

Mr. Martyn Redgrave, president of the Robert’s Rules Association, conducted the retirement of the 11th edition and the release of the new edition. Mr. Redgrave is a direct lineal descendant of General Henry M. Robert, the original author of Robert’s Rules. NAP has enjoyed a long relationship with the Robert’s Rules Association, and was given the privilege of being among the first to receive copies of the new edition before it was released to the public. www.parliamentarians.org

3

Other highlights of the training conference included the authorship team’s presentation, with NAP members following along, of the significant changes between the 11th and 12th editions; quality parliamentary workshops; and game night, playing Lotería.

The weekend ended with the Professional Standards Committee’s review of the newly adopted Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians, which was jointly prepared by the American Institute of Parliamentarians™ and the National Association of Parliamentarians®. The coordinators of the 2021 National Biennial Convention (Atlanta, Georgia) and the coordinators of the 2022 NAP Training Conference (Albuquerque, New Mexico) invited members to attend those events.

None of this would have been possible without the support of committees, teams, and individuals working together for a successful training conference. A statement by Phil Jackson, legendary former NBA player and coach, accurately sums it up.

“The strength of the team lies within the individual. And the strength of the individual lies within the team.” We have history from the past to fuel the momentum to produce successful events and activities for the future.

Be Safe, Darlene T. Allen, PRP 2019–2021 NAP President

Follow Us On https://twitter.com/ napparlypro https://fb.com/ parliamentarians/

4

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

A P r i m e r f o r P r e s i d i n g Off i c e r s , P a r t 1

Control of In-Person and Electronic Meetings

By Carl Nohr, PRP

What does “control of a meeting” mean?

To control something means having the power to influence behavior, and exercising it. Presiding officers have this power, and must exercise it on behalf of the organization—never in their own interest. A good presiding officer recognizes that the ultimate authority rests with the members of an assembly. The duty of the chair to control a meeting is not an opportunity to impose their will, but rather an opportunity to serve the needs of the members. Rules of order are based on mainlining the rights of individual members while respecting the right of the majority to decide.

The role of the presiding officer is to manage effective majority decision making, while ensuring that all members are treated fairly by adherence to the rules of order.

Why control a meeting?

Organizations are created to accomplish objectives. To do so, rules

and the ability to enforce them are needed. Good control of a meeting using rules is essential for the business of the assembly to be conducted in a fair and efficient manner.

The presiding officer sets the tone in a meeting. In addition to being competent, confident, and collegial, an effective chair will convey an attitude of service to the members.

This recognizes the parliamentary principle that while the assembly has elected or appointed the presiding officer, nearly all his or her rulings may be appealed from, returning the final decision to the assembly.1 Wise

This article reviews informal control of meetings and electronic meetings.

Part 2 will appear in National Parliamentarian, Vol. 82, No. 2, Winter 2021, and address formal control of meetings by presiding officers.

1 RONR (11th ed.), p. 255, l. 26 – p. 256. l. 3 www.parliamentarians.org

5

chairs will remind members of their right to challenge the chair’s rulings.

Informal control methods are useful There are many informal ways to control a meeting. They include solving potential controversies before a meeting using informal advice, coaching of members, and conflict resolution methods. Both the presiding officer and members may use such methods.

During a meeting, the use of appropriate impersonal humor can often improve control of the meeting. The author has found a self-deprecating tone to be most useful. Sarcasm must be absolutely avoided. The presiding officer should use appropriate verbal and body language to reinforce the dignity and authority of the chair. In some instances, by exercising patience and diplomacy, a perceived offense can be a learning opportunity, and a chance to retain members and develop positive relationships.

The principle of escalation is important in meeting control when dealing with offenses against the rules.

Escalation is based on severity of the offence, and in some cases repetition.

If a member persists in offending, despite warnings and being called to 2 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 16-25 3 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 26-28 4 RONR (11th ed.), p. 648, ll. 17-22 5 RONR (11th ed.), p. 95, ll. 31-34 6

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

order, the chair may “name” the offender.2 The chair shall cause the offense to be recorded with the name of the offender. The chair does not have the authority to impose a penalty, but the assembly may do so.3 Even non-members of the organization are subject to discipline A rule without a consequence attached to transgression thereof is meaningless, hence the need for discipline. Discipline in meetings is different for non-members and members.

Members have the right to attend meetings, but non-members do not.

The first disciplinary action that can therefore be taken to address a disorderly non-member is to remove them from the meeting. The chair may decide to do so, subject to an appeal from a member that the decision of the chair be overturned.4 Alternatively, a motion may be made to go into executive session,5 thus excluding all non-members from being present.

Members are subject to more discipline Transgressions and discipline are divided into two broad categories: in meetings, and outside meetings. In

meetings, the offense is visible to all members present, and penalty can therefore be decided contemporaneously. Offenses that occur outside of meetings require an allegation of offense, in other words a charge, and then a trial to determine the facts and assign penalty. This is a specialized area of parliamentary law outside the scope of this article; the reader is referred to §63 of RONR (11th ed.) for further information regarding investigation and trial.6 Rules regarding member behavior at meetings, and the consequences of breaking such rules, may be found in several locations in governing documents. Such information may be in bylaws, a parliamentary authority, standing rules, or embedded in one or more codes adopted by the organization, for example a code of conduct or a code of ethics or professionalism. Even without explicit rules, behavior that is injurious to the organization can be subject to discipline.7 In addition to rules of order, a “code of conduct” is useful as an additional document governing the behavior of officers and members.

Such a code may contain a list of the duties and responsibilities of members,

conflict of interest guidelines, and the process to report, evaluate, and determine a decision on possible transgressions of the code. Listing of the member’s rights to a fair process can be included, as well as the various potential solutions available to the organization and the member to resolve the concern, like mediated or informal dispute resolution. Specific policies of the organization, for example on the receipt of gifts, political activity, and confidentiality rules, may be stated in the code.

Finally, the process for evaluation of possible offenses, and the potential penalties may be stated.

A code of ethics and/or professionalism may also be adopted by an organization. A code of ethics is often more aspirational in nature, while a code of professionalism can be more explicit about exactly what behaviors the organization requires of its members. Such a code must be carefully reviewed to ensure that the statements in it are clear and subject to as little interpretation as possible. The statements should also be actionable; that is, that they should be able to be proven or not, and be logically attached to a penalty. The NAP Code of Ethics8 contains both

6 RONR (11th ed.), pp. 654-669 7 RONR (11th ed.), p. 644, ll. 5-7 8 Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians, jointly adopted by The National Association of Parliamentarians® and The American Institute of Parliamentarians™.

Initially adopted 2001, revised and renamed 2020. See pages 25-28 of this issue of National Parliamentarian. www.parliamentarians.org

7

aspirational and actionable elements.

A transgression against the latter would trigger a review of the members’ behavior.

Control in electronic meetings is the same as in-person meetings While some of the tools vary, the principles and actions needed to control electronic meetings are identical with in-person meetings.

To use informal mechanisms, a presiding officer should develop relationships and learn how to be influential electronically. The wise chair will work to develop excellent electronic communication skills, and how to maintain a confident and calm style online.

For more formal control, the principle of a measured level of control for the good of the meeting while not being stricter in the application of rules than necessary, applies to electronic meetings.

Electronic tools duplicate or enhance the tools available to the presiding officer at an in-person meeting.

The adoption of specific rules for discipline in electronic meetings

should be considered, especially if trouble is anticipated.

Attendance at the meeting can easily be controlled using invitations, passwords, and waiting rooms.

The chair of an electronic meeting can mute a member’s microphone, as well as censure them verbally or in writing. While the chair of an electronic meeting can remove a member, he does not have this authority unless demanded by the members as a penalty.9 The meeting may be recorded if needed later in evidence. If this is done, attendees should be notified that the meeting is being recorded.

Members may play a role in formal control of electronic meetings just as they may at in-person meetings.

A member may interrupt the current speaker with a signal previously agreed upon to indicate a wish to interrupt. The member may then, for example, state their point of order, calling another member to order. The chair then follows the same process as outlined above for in-person meetings.

9 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 26-28

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.

8

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

All Rules Are Connected

By Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

The beauty of Robert’s rules is that all of the rules make sense. There are no arbitrary or capricious rules anywhere, just as there are no independent or isolated rules. Every rule impacts many other rules, and every rule is impacted by many other rules. This web of rules creates a solid substructure.

When one learns one parliamentary attribute in one part of the book, one finds that knowledge of that attribute facilitates the understanding of other concepts in other parts of the book. The connection is clearly evident among the rules even if some connections might be somewhat subtle.

For instance, what is the unique or uncommon parliamentary attribute within each of the following examples of rules from Robert’s rules?

Answers can be found on page 10.

First Example: 1. Lay on the Table 2. Reconsider the Vote 3. Recount a Vote Second Example: 1. Amend an Agenda 2. Amend the Minutes Third Example: 1. Polls 2. Nominations Fourth Example: 1. Required Notice 2. Object to the Consideration of a Question Fifth Example: 1. Write-in Vote 2. Remove from the President the Authority to Preside Sixth Example: 1. Consent Calendar 2. Convention Standing Rules

Lorenzo R. Cuesta is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian.

He has served as a parliamentarian for boards, conventions, and annual meetings in and beyond California for more than 20 years.

He is a frequent contributor to the National Parliamentarian and an annual workshop presenter at the NAP convention and conference. (http://www.roberts-rules.com, parliam@roberts-rules.com) www.parliamentarians.org

9

All Rules Are Connected Continued from page 9

Answers: First Example: The motions “Lay on the Table” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 214.] and “Reconsider” (p. 321) die at the close of the subsequent session, unless action is taken before that time. A majority vote may order a “Recount” after the voting results are announced. But, the power to order a “Recount” (p. 419) also expires after the close of the next session if no motion is made by that time.

Second Example: After the adoption of the Agenda or the Minutes, both “Amend the Agenda” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 373.] and “Amend the Minutes” (p. 475) require a 2/3 vote to adopt. But both motions are among the ten motions that one could adopt with the lesser threshold of “Majority of the Entire Membership.”

Third Example: Motions related to “Polls” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 284.] and “Nominations” (p. 287) share a unique voting threshold not common in other rules. It takes a majority of the votes cast to open either, but a higher 2/3 vote to close either. A higher threshold is common among motions that seek to deny members certain rights.

Fourth Example: The right to interrupt a pending motion to give “Notice” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 123.] is similar to the right to interrupt a speaker in order to make the motion, “Object to Consideration of a Question” (p. 270). Though many interrupting motions exist in Robert’s rules, only these two situations allow a member, without the need of a second, to interrupt a speaker even if the speaker has been assigned the floor—just as long as the speaker has not begun to speak.

Fifth Example: The right to a “Write-in Vote” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 431.] and the authority to deny the president the right to preside (p. 652), regardless of what the society’s bylaws state, are both identifiable as in the “Nature of Rules of Order” (p. 17). As a consequence, these two rules, even if written into the society’s bylaws, may be suspended.

Sixth Example: A lone member of the assembly has the power to demand that certain items on the “Consent Calendar” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 361.] or in the “Convention Standing Rules” (p. 619) be considered separately from their respective documents. The lone member’s demand does not require a second nor a vote. This demand does not even allow for any debate or any amendments to be executed. There are at least eight demands described in Robert’s rules.

Robert’s rules, by its multilevel structure and sensible framework, facilitates understanding and learning of even the most complex parliamentary concepts.

As I have illustrated above, even separate motions are connected by sharing some parliamentary attribute that makes one feel so familiar and comfortable with distinct concepts.

10

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

The Unwanted Parliamentarian

By John R. Berg, PRP

Unsolicited advice has an interesting characteristic: The wise don’t need it, and the fools won’t heed it.

A parliamentarian occasionally feels unwanted when a foolish chair thinks they are too wise to benefit from a parliamentarian. It is also said that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Exactly when is a parliamentarian needed? The 1951 6th Edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Revised contains the following on the inside back cover, which is omitted in later editions: “The parliamentarian should not be an elected officer. …

The president may be the best parliamentarian of the organization. It is absurd and embarrassing to elect an advisory officer, when that advisor may know less about the subject than the officer he is supposed to advise.”

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.) (RONR) does not specifically state that the

parliamentarian should not be elected, but simply states that the parliamentarian should be appointed.

Rather than advising against a parliamentarian less qualified than the presiding officer, it simply recognizes that a parliamentarian may not be needed at all meetings. (p. 465, ll. 17-21, 30-33).

Some organizations, by rule or custom, require a parliamentarian at all their meetings. This may be unnecessary for a small local organization when the business is not complex, as stated above. Because of the cost of hiring an outside parliamentarian, a member often serves as the parliamentarian in such situations. This practice prohibits the member parliamentarian from participating in debate. It could also be used to silence a member who may be perceived as a threat or hindrance to the intents of the presiding officer because of the parliamentarian’s www.parliamentarians.org

11

expertise in parliamentary procedure.

See also the author’s “Member or Outside Parliamentarian?” in the Winter 2018 National Parliamentarian (Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 12-14).

Even an experienced presiding officer may wish to have an appointed parliamentarian to assist in keeping the meeting running smoothly. This is common in the NAP with its convention, associations, and units.

Having a second set of eyes and ears can help the presiding officer avoid missing important issues. Within the NAP there is a plethora of parliamentarians who will serve at no cost to the organization.

There are no firm rules for when a parliamentarian is needed. The qualifications of the presiding officer, the size of the meeting, and the complexity of the business are all factors to consider.

The focus of this article is the presiding officer who does not want a parliamentarian, or does not want an unbiased parliamentarian. Note that the organization may select a parliamentarian not of the presiding officer’s choosing, or one who does not have the confidence of the presiding officer. RONR advises against this (p. 465, ll. 30-33).

Some presiding officers may misunderstand the role of the parliamentarian and not realize that the chair retains the right to make rulings and that the parliamentarian’s rule is purely advisory. RONR 12

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

(11th ed.), p. 465, ll. 13-16. Even if the parliamentarian is a voting member of the body, the parliamentarian has no right to raise a point of order when the chair is in error.

Occasionally a Professional Registered Parliamentarian or other member of the NAP or the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP) will be perceived as intimidating by a less experienced presiding officer.

When attending a meeting other than in the capacity of a parliamentarian, it is better for an “off duty” parliamentarian to keep the copy of RONR hidden rather than brandishing it.

One PRP, serving as parliamentarian for a 21-year old presiding officer at a large convention reassured the chair by stating, “I’m just here to make you look good and keep you out of trouble.”

A presiding officer at a convention who was not accustomed to having the services of a professional parliamentarian suggested that the parliamentarian sit on the front row to be available, if needed. The parliamentarian’s response was, “You may not want everyone to hear my advice in case you don’t want to follow it.” The parliamentarian was then seated next to the chair at that and subsequent conventions.

Some unscrupulous presiding officers may prefer to have a parliamentarian who will support the chair in dominating the meeting

by having the parliamentarian back up the rulings of the chair. The parliamentarian should rarely address the assembly and should only be called upon to do so if the issue is so complex that the chair needs assistance is explaining the ruling of the chair to the assembly. RONR (11th ed.), p. 466, ll. 30-32.

Occasionally a member who disagrees with the ruling of the chair will ask for an opinion from the parliamentarian. This is inappropriate since the chair may have disregarded the advice of the parliamentarian in making the ruling. It is also out of order to criticize the ruling of the chair without appealing the ruling.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 256, ll. 4-5.

It would be proper for the chair to rule that the parliamentarian need not address the assembly, but this ruling could be overturned by the body on appeal, particularly if the organization is paying for the services of the parliamentarian.

If a member of the NAP or the AIP, the parliamentarian is required to be impartial and unbiased in the advice given. The Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians* jointly adopted by those organizations, states under Standard 4.3: “A parliamentarian shall ... Advise the client on the proper application of the accepted

rules of parliamentary procedure notwithstanding the client’s personal desires in the matter” (emphasis added). Thus, the parliamentarian is not an advocate for the chair.

Often an individual who is not a member of the NAP or AIP, and not subject to their Code, will function as a parliamentarian. That person may have a different relationship to the chair, and function as an advocate for the chair. This will become evident when the chair continually calls upon the parliamentarian to back up the chair’s rulings.

Other unscrupulous presiding officers simply do not want a parliamentarian who will not support the actions of the chair. They fear that the parliamentarian will expose biased rulings. They want to get from point A to point B and don’t want anyone to get in their way.

When the presiding officer does not consult with the parliamentarian on important issues in advance, the parliamentarian may feel as frustrated as a U.S. Secret Service agent trying to protect a president who deviates from plans and protocols or walks out into crowds.

“During a meeting, the work of the parliamentarian should be limited to giving advice to the chair and, when requested, to any other

* The Code of Ethics was initially adopted in 2001 and revised in 2015. [It was revised and renamed, The Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians in 2020. See pages 25-28 of this NP, or www.parliamentarians.org/documents/ for the new Code.] www.parliamentarians.org

13

member. It is also the duty of the parliamentarian—as inconspicuously as possible—to call the attention of the chair to any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or may otherwise do harm.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 466, ll. 12-17.

“In advising the chair, the parliamentarian should not wait until asked for advice—that may be too late. An experienced parliamentarian will often see a problem developing and be able to head it off with a few words to the chair.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 466, ll. 28-30.

See also the author’s “The Reticent Parliamentarian” in the Spring 2019 National Parliamentarian (Vol. 80, No. 3, pp. 12-14).

There is always the danger when the parliamentarian reminds the chair of an error, such as the chair entering into the debate, that the chair will simply tell the parliamentarian to shut up. The parliamentarian may rightfully decline another engagement with that presiding officer. RONR (11th ed.), p. 467, ll. 4-7.

When the chair fails to heed

the advice of the parliamentarian and chaos ensues at the meeting, the members tend to blame the parliamentarian, not realizing that the parliamentarian only serves in an advisory role. It is the members’ duty to raise points of order and appeal the decision of the chair when appropriate.

Since parliamentarians should also be qualified to serve as temporary presiding officers, it is difficult to resist the temptation to tell the chair, “Just hand me the gavel and let me do this right.” Perhaps that should be left to the topic of “The Unwanted Chair.”

Professionals such as dentists can become discouraged and depressed when their clients dread visiting them and often feel worse leaving the office than when entering it. Likewise, parliamentarians need to avoid becoming discouraged and depressed when they feel unwanted, ignored, or unappreciated at times. Bear in mind the NAP’s Vision, “To provide parliamentary leadership to the world,” and look forward to those instances when success can be appreciated.

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

In 2019 he was elected to the board of directors of the South Kitsap School District in Washington State.

14

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

&

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.

Adjourn vs. New Business

Q

Question 10: At a recent meeting of our club, the presiding officer felt that he had had enough of the meeting, and after addressing two items of new business which he had placed on the agenda, stated that he “would now entertain a motion to adjourn.” He (possibly deliberately) did not ask if there was any other new business, Startled, as said motion came so quickly from the audience, I leapt to my feet and stated emphatically: “Point of Order!” When asked what was my point of order, I stated that the chairman did not properly ask if there was any other new business as called for in the agenda. Fortunately, my plea was ruled as well taken, and we were able to continue with new business as we should have. I know that a motion to adjourn takes precedence but what else was I supposed to do?

Answer: RONR (12th ed.) 41:27 states: 6. New Business. After unfinished business and general orders have been disposed of, the chair asks, “Is there any new business?”

Members can then introduce new items of business, or can move to take from the table any matter that is on the table (17, 34), in the order in which they are able to obtain the floor when no question is pending, as explained in 3 and 4. So long as members are reasonably prompt in claiming the floor, the chair cannot prevent the making of legitimate motions or deprive members of the right to introduce legitimate business, by hurrying through the proceedings.

You are correct that the presiding officer likely should have called for other new business. The presiding officer requested a motion to www.parliamentarians.org

15

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

adjourn, which was made quickly from the audience, but you were “reasonably prompt” in attempting to claim the floor to make a motion, and the presiding officer was correct to rule your Point of Order well-taken and allow other new business.

However, if the agenda was adopted by the club at the meeting, it may limit members’ ability to bring up items not specified on the agenda.

From your statement though it sounds as if there was an agenda item for other new business, so even if the agenda was adopted, the presiding officer should have asked if there was any other new business. For more information about an agenda, and the effect of its adoption, please see RONR (12th ed.) 41:60-62.

State Bylaws Complying with National

Q

Question 11: I belong to a non-profit organization that is tri-level (local, state & national) in structure. The state bylaws indicate that nothing in them can conflict with the national bylaws.

National bylaws provide that an individual must be a member for two years and must have held an elective office at the local level for one term (two years) in order to be eligible for nomination to a state elective office. To be eligible for the office of president or vice-president, the individual must have been a member for six years and previously held a local level elective office for one term and served at least one term in a state elective office. These same restrictions are contained in the state bylaws.

The membership base is elderly. Many of these members have already served the organization and do not wish to do it again. A few members are willing to serve, but do not meet the qualifications listed above.

However, several of them have served in various elected offices at the local and state level in other organizations, so they are experienced in these various positions on local and state boards.

Robert’s Rules is the organization’s parliamentary authority. Is there any way to get around this problem so these experienced younger members can serve on the state level? We know that bylaws cannot be waived.

We could amend the state bylaws to solve this problem by reducing the restrictions to serve, but if we did so, would that be in conflict

16

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

with the national bylaws? In organizations such as described, do state bylaws always have to contain the same requirements as the national bylaws?

Could this matter be brought before the assembly for a decision on amending the bylaws? If so, it stands to reason that the assembly’s decision would have to be made before holding the election.

Answer: You are correct that the bylaws of all levels must be followed. You are also correct that if a bylaw amendment affecting candidate eligibility is adopted before an election, the new provision will apply.

You have a particular concern about the degree in which constituent bylaws “not conflict” with those of the higher level of the organization.

This is an area of great confusion. Subordinate units are required to follow “clearly requisite points” in the bylaws of the parent organization.

RONR, (12th ed.) 56:7. There is no requirement in the parliamentary authority that all levels have the same provisions in every area. Be sure to read all levels of your organization’s governing documents carefully to find areas mandated from the parent organization. In particular, note if the parent bylaws impose eligibility requirements on state officers.

Robert’s Rules observes that if a unit is subject to a parent organization, the bylaws of the higher organization should be studied for provisions which are binding on the subordinate unit. In addition, The bylaws of a subordinate unit need to conform to those of a superior body only on clearly requisite points. For example, if the superior body limits the size of its subordinate units to 200 members, the bylaws should contain this limit or one that is lower. But the subordinate unit should not adopt provisions from the other document that have no local application, and the bylaws of the superior body should not require it to do so.

RONR (12th ed.) 56:7, emphasis added.

Unfortunately, “clearly requisite points” is not defined. What is clear is that subordinate bylaws do not have to mirror or copy every provision of the parent organization’s bylaws. In the end, your members will interpret their own bylaws. [See RONR (12th ed.) 56:68 for some Principles of Interpretation.]

There are numerous examples of matters not “clearly requisite points” and thus not mandatory on a subordinate unit. A parent organization www.parliamentarians.org

17

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

will often have a requirement that a convention be held at a certain time of year, with the mid-level organization having a requirement to hold a convention at a different time of year, and with the local unit having no requirement for a convention at all. It is common for the parent organization to authorize certain officers or committees, with the subordinate organizations having bylaws that authorize more or less officers and committees. The size of the board is often different, as well.

Such provisions are different but are not conflicts. By contrast, a local unit could not change a requirement that a member be 16 years old, or that dues must be turned over to the parent organization.

Clearly, the parent organization can provide rules for eligibility for office at the top level, and lower levels cannot amend this. In rare cases, the parent bylaws might specifically mandate eligibility requirements for officers at lower levels, in which case that provision would have to be observed. In your case, you wish to amend the state bylaws to provide for tailored rules for STATE officers.

In summary, absent mandates in the parent organization’s governing documents, and subject to interpretation by the state members, the proposed amendment to state bylaws does not appear to conflict with the parent bylaws.

Committee Agenda

Q

Question 12: During a committee meeting of an organization, does the agenda have to be approved? If no agenda is approved, are the decisions made by the committee valid?

Answer: You did not specify in your inquiry what parliamentary authority your group uses. Therefore, in answering this question, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition (RONR) has been utilized.

An agenda is a series of special or general orders, or a mixture of both.

The agenda may be used as a guideline if not adopted by the group at the beginning of the meeting. Unless the rules of your organization or the committee instructions require a committee to adopt an agenda, it is not required. Therefore, not adopting an agenda would not invalidate committee decisions.

If the committee is required to adopt an agenda, and doesn’t, the lack of an approved agenda would not affect the validity of the decisions

18

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

made by the committee, if no Point of Order is raised at the meeting prior to adjournment. A Point of Order is a motion used to call attention to a breach of the rules, but “it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs” RONR (12th ed.) 23:5. See RONR (12th ed.), Section 23 for more information regarding a Point of Order.

If the committee is required to adopt an agenda, and doesn’t, and a Point of Order is raised at the meeting, then the committee could adopt the agenda at that time.

Whether an agenda was formally adopted or not, you indicate that there was an agenda item for other new business. For this reason, the presiding officer should have asked if there was any other new business. For more information about an agenda, and the effect of its adoption, please see RONR (12th ed.) Section 41:58-70.

Opening Ritual

Q

Question 13: Over the past several years, I have attended conventions of various organizations. In these meetings, the president calls the meeting to order with wording such as: “With the power vested in me by the ______ organization, as President, I hereby declare this meeting in session.”

This wording seems to be quite archaic much like using “respectfully submitted,” before a secretary signs the minutes. Does the presiding officer have to use wording such as this or can they rap the gavel once and call the meeting to order?

Answer: Consult your organizational documents carefully. Some organizations (particularly fraternal and lineage organizations) have an opening ritual with this or similar language. Even in the absence of a ritual, such formal phrasing in this opening may be the custom of an organization.

See RONR (12th ed.) 2:25.

The language you quote is not required by Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. A convention is organized by adoption of the reports of the credentials committee, standing rules committee, and program committee.

RONR (12th ed.) 59: 11. The language RONR utilizes for calling a meeting to order is, “The meeting will come to order,” or “The meeting will be in order.” RONR (12th ed.) 3:15. If desired, it is possible that the language you quote can precede or follow the parliamentary language. www.parliamentarians.org

19

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

Opening ceremonies and formal rituals are approved by the parliamentary authority and are useful in providing continuity in the members experiences and establishing that the meeting has indeed begun.

A separate formal opening of an inspirational nature can be held, if desired, before the convention is formally organized. RONR (12th ed.)

59:12. Other than a formal opening remark, the presiding officer speaks of himself only in the third person and should not use the personal pronoun “I.” RONR (12th ed.) 3:13.

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

Correction

Note: An error was brought to the attention of the editor with regard to the article, “Reconsider and Rescind: What Are the Actions Needed?” in the Summer 2020 issue (Vol. 81, No 4) of the National Parliamentarian. On page 10, in the discussion of Reconsider in standing and special committees, the authors state, “The maker of the motion must have voted on the prevailing side.”

RONR (11th ed.), p. 315, ll. 31-34, states, “In standing and special committees, the motion to Reconsider can be made by any member who did not vote on the losing side—including one who did not vote at all.” It is not necessary that the maker voted on the prevailing side; only that he or she did not vote on the losing side.

20

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

Test Yourself

Letter by Letter

By David Mezzera, PRP

What does PARLIAMENTARIAN stand for? What does a PARLIAMENTARIAN do? With my penchant for parliamentary word games, I was challenged by a colleague to answer those questions in a unique way: trying to compose a sentence or two with each word beginning with the letters spelling PARLIAMENTARIAN. I took the challenge and here’s what I came up with:

Practice Appropriate RONR Language In All Meetings, Especially Now. Twelfth All-important RONR Is A Necessity!

Now that you’ve received your own copy of the 12th edition of RONR, can you complete a Big Ben and Leaning Tower of Pisa challenge? That is to say, do you have the “time” and “inclination” to try something different? See if you now can come up with an appropriate sentence or two using the first letters of PARLIAMENTARIAN as indicated above—or maybe try completing the challenge with the word(s) PARLIAMENTARY or ROBERT’S RULES. Any takers?

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

www.parliamentarians.org

21

NAP Connections

M eet the N ew C ode of

Professional Responsibility

By Kay Allison Crews, PRP

It started, as many good things do, at a parliamentary workshop.

At the American Institute of Parliamentarians™ (AIP) 2019 East Coast Practicum, the topic was “Contentious Meetings.” During discussions there, concerns about the Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians were a frequent topic for those serving in non-traditional parliamentary roles.

Many of the members present had worked as professional presiding officers, floor parliamentarians, or even as parliamentary strategists. Such work was not fully covered under the language of the Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians. A further concern was the weaponization of the code. In such circumstances, individuals who were not the client had filed ethical charges against the organization’s parliamentarian in an effort to weaken a presiding officer or to remove a source of parliamentary knowledge from an organization.

Development of the New Code AIP and the National Association of Parliamentarians® (NAP) had first adopted the Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians in 2001. The code has remained largely unchanged since then, with only a few edits in 2015 to deal with concerns about restraint 22

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

of trade issues. The code had failed to evolve to meet the changing scope of many professional parliamentary practices.

AIP Ethics Committee Chairman Sarah Merkle, JD, CPP-T, PRP, took the new concerns to heart. In January of 2020, she invited the members of AIP’s Ethics Committee, NAP’s Professional Standards Committee, both organizations’ presidents, and members Jim Slaughter, JD, CPP-T, PRP, and me to participate in a conference call to discuss concerns and possible additions to the joint code of ethics.

At that meeting, the presidents of the two organizations agreed to appoint a special joint committee to review and propose amendments to the code of ethics. AIP President Al Gage, CPP, PRP, appointed Jesse Binnall, JD, CPP-T, PRP; Barry Glazer, MD, CPP-T; and me to serve on the joint committee. NAP President Darlene Allen, PRP, appointed Robin Browder, JD, RP; Weldon Merritt, CPP, PRP; and Jason Morgan, JD, PRP, as representatives for NAP. Each of the organizational presidents also served as members of the committee.

The committee elected me chairman at the first meeting. The group adopted the name “AIP/NAP Joint

NAP Connections

Code of Ethics Review Committee.”

We determined unanimously that each organization’s process of reviewing code violations would be outside the scope of our work, and that process would instead remain with the committees who are responsible for that work.

We began reviewing the existing code in March, with all meetings held electronically. The committee noted, as chief concerns, places where the existing code did not address the varying roles of parliamentarians, where it made malpractice an ethical violation, and where the code was either overly broad or overly narrow.

The diversity of the committee itself allowed insight into how other professions dealt with their own codes of professional responsibility, including those codes for attorneys, physicians, realtors, and others.

While drafting what became the revised code, members of the committee felt that it was important to share their thoughts on issues related to certain standards— specifically, items that the AIP Ethics Committee or NAP Professional Standards could consider in determining whether a complaint might not rise to the level of being a violation. To that end, the committee adopted “Joint Committee Notes” which expressed the committee’s views on certain of the standards.

These notes, like the code, do not differ between the organizations.

They are not adopted by either organization, but they are intended

to be used as guidelines to the appropriate committee when considering complaints filed regarding violations of a particular standard.

Adopting the Revision of the Code Adopting anything by two different organizations is always a challenging process. NAP allows the code to be amended by its Board of Directors, but AIP could only amend the code of ethics at its Annual Session. In order to ensure that the revised code had the greatest opportunity for passage, it was presented first to the NAP Board at a special meeting held for this purpose in June. Then in July, the NAP Board was offered an opportunity to suggest changes it would like for AIP to consider. The only suggestion offered by the NAP Board was to rewrite one sentence in the introduction.

The AIP Board was given an opportunity to review the document at its Pre-Annual Session Board Meeting on July 30. The AIP Board recommended changing the title of the document from “Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians” to “Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians.” The AIP Board noted that ethics generally guide decision-making, while professional responsibility guides actions. Since it is the actions of parliamentarians that are the subject of the violations, the name change was suggested.

The joint committee adopted that change, along with the sentence change in the introduction proposed www.parliamentarians.org

23

NAP Connections

by a member of the NAP Board, and presented those changes at the AIP Annual Session July 31-August 2, 2020. Those changes were adopted by unanimous consent. An amendment from the floor was also adopted.

Following those amendments, the joint code of Professional Responsibility was adopted by the AIP Annual Session with the following relevant proviso: “That the Revised Code not be in effect until adopted by the National Association of Parliamentarians….”

The NAP Board adopted the amended code at its meeting on August 26, and the code of Professional Responsibility was effective at that time. The final version of the code with the interleaved joint committee notes, is attached to the end of this article. It is important to note that only the numbered provisions and the introduction are adopted by the respective bodies.

So what are the takeaways from this process? First you should read and know the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This code applies to all parliamentarians who are members of either the National Association of Parliamentarians or the American Institute of Parliamentarians, whether they hold a credential from either organization or not.

Second, go to a parliamentary workshop! Either attend one online or go to one that’s held in person if you can. You might get to be part of the next exciting project through one of these organizations.

Changes in the New Code 1. Generally takes a protective attitude to the profession, balancing fairness to individual parliamentarians with public expectations of professionalism.

2. Adds a requirement to the introduction that members are expected to abide by additional organizational standards, such as rules of accreditation.

3. Changes the titles of various sections to recognize the change of the document title.

4. In several standards, includes the requirement that an infraction be done “knowingly or recklessly” in order to constitute a violation.

5. Removes “to a client” in the standard related to misrepresentation.

6. Revises standards related to serving clients to provide for the varying roles which parliamentarians may assume.

Kay Allison Crews, PRP, CPP, is past president of American Institute of Parliamentarians.

24

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

NAP Connections

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS Jointly Adopted by THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PARLIAMENTARIANS® and American Institute of Parliamentarians™ Initially Adopted 2001, Revised and Renamed 2020

The National Association of Parliamentarians® and the American Institute of Parliamentarians™ join together in approving and supporting this Joint Code of Professional Responsibility on behalf of the entire parliamentary profession.

Members of both organizations recognize the supreme importance of respect for equal justice, the pursuit of truth, and the nurture of democratic principles.

We regard as essential to these goals the protection of freedom of speech and the guarantee of equal opportunity through the use of parliamentary law. As guardians of parliamentary procedure, we play a vital role in the preservation of a democratic society. A consequent obligation is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct. As such, we adopt this code to guide us in the minimum standard of conduct for our members. Members may be expected to abide by additional organizational standards, such as rules of accreditation. The standards presented here establish the minimum actions which we each expect of ourselves, and of each other; the consciences of all parliamentarians must guide the extent to which their own actions should rise above these rules that bind us all.

1. Aspirational Standards for Parliamentarians* A parliamentarian should: 1.1 Assist in upgrading and improving the profession.

1.2 Assist in maintaining the integrity and competence of the profession.

1.3 Maintain high professional standards and keep abreast of the latest research in the field.

1.4 Promote a spirit of cooperation, professionally responsible practice, and fair dealing with colleagues.

1.5 Conduct oneself so as to reflect credit on the profession and inspire the confidence, respect, and trust of clients and the public.

1.6 Encourage non-discriminatory standards in all aspects of parliamentary practice. * Section 1 articulates the “ideals” toward which all parliamentarians should aspire.

They are not intended to be subject to discipline.

2. Professionally Responsible Standards within the Profession A parliamentarian shall: 2.1 Refrain from misrepresentation or other conduct that may reflect adversely on the profession. www.parliamentarians.org

25

NAP Connections

2.2 Refrain from knowingly or recklessly making untrue comments about the work, knowledge, fitness, or other qualifying aspect of another parliamentarian.

Joint Committee Note: [2.2 a] Recklessly means behavior that is so careless that it is considered an extreme departure from the care a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.

(Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary).

2.3 Immediately report to the committee overseeing enforcement of this code any known violation of this code of professional responsibility that represents a material threat to the perceived integrity of the profession.

When requested, the parliamentarian shall provide testimony to the appropriate committee, and shall assist the committee in the fulfillment of its charge.

2.4 Refrain from violating or attempting to violate any standard contained herein through the acts of another.

Joint Committee Note: [2.4 a] An isolated act by a third-party alone will be insufficient to show a violation without further evidence.

3. Professionally Responsible Standards Related to Obtaining Appointments A parliamentarian shall: 3.1 Not knowingly or recklessly misrepresent parliamentary credentials, education, or experience.

Joint Committee Note: [3.1 a]: Misrepresentation includes not only making false claims, such as claiming to be a Registered Parliamentarian or a Certified Parliamentarian without holding the appropriate credential, but also making misleading claims such as holding out to be a “Credentialed Parliamentarian” without having secured and maintained a widely accepted parliamentary credential.

3.2 Refrain from giving anything of more than nominal value to anyone for recommending the parliamentarian’s services, except for the reasonable cost of advertising, the usual charges of a referral service, or payment for the purchase of a parliamentary practice.

3.3 Decline any appointment that the parliamentarian knows or should know the parliamentarian is not competent to handle.

Joint Committee Note: [3.3 a]: Working with a more experienced parliamentarian or appropriate professional who can cure apparent deficiencies in the knowledge and skills of the parliamentarian is likely to be a defense to a claim under this sub-section.

26

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

NAP Connections

3.4 Decline any appointment in which the parliamentarian is likely to be unduly restricted in the exercise of independent professional judgment.

4. Professionally Responsible Standards in Relation to Clients A parliamentarian shall: 4.1 Prepare adequately and act with reasonable diligence and promptness in providing service to a client in accordance with any agreement with the client.

4.2 Advise the client on the proper application of the accepted rules of parliamentary procedure.

Joint Committee Note: [4.2 a]: Parliamentarians are advisors. As such, a client’s isolated exercise of improper parliamentary procedure shall not be presumed, without additional evidence, to represent the client having acted on improper advice from the parliamentarian.

4.3 Not accept gratuities or favors that might appear to warp professional opinions.

4.4 Keep in confidence any information obtained in the course of professional service, absent informed consent from the client, except to the extent the parliamentarian reasonably believes the release of such information is reasonably necessary to prevent or report criminal or fraudulent activity, to secure professional advice about compliance with the Code of Professional Responsibility, to establish a claim or defense, including in a matter before the appropriate committee, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the parliamentarian’s service to the client, or to comply with law or a court order.

4.5 Maintain a position of objectivity and impartiality, and avoid participating in substantive debate, to the extent required by the role in which the parliamentarian provides service.

Joint Committee Note: [4.5 a]: The scope of this sub-section depends on what role the parliamentarian serves. For example, appropriate conduct for a parliamentarian serving as a professional presiding officer, as a floor parliamentarian, or as an advocate for a specific position or group of members can vary widely.

4.6 Make reasonable efforts to call to the attention of the client significant deviations from the rules that may be harmful to the rights of members of the assembly, as is required by the role of the parliamentarian.

www.parliamentarians.org

27

NAP Connections

4.7 Not withdraw from employment without reasonable justification without first taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable detriment to the client.

Joint Committee Note: [4.7 a]: Whether withdrawal is reasonably justified can depend on whether withdrawal is required by ethical or legal obligations, for example because the client may be engaging in criminal or fraudulent activity or is misstating the positions of the parliamentarian to the detriment of the parliamentarian or the profession. Reasonable justification may also include factors such as the client being unable to provide promised compensation, service to the client unforeseeably exceeding the parliamentarian’s competence, or whether an unforeseeable circumstance has prevented the fulfillment of an agreement with the client.

Joint Committee Note: [4.7 b]: Whether steps taken are reasonable depends on factors such as how much time the client was given, whether the client was provided with client materials exclusively in the possession of the parliamentarian, and whether a referral to another parliamentarian or parliamentary referral service was provided.

Amendment notes: Revision adopted by American Institute of Parliamentarians Annual Session August 1, 2020 Revision adopted by the National Association of Parliamentarians Board of Directors August 26, 2020 v.1 Typographical Error Corrected 8/30/2020: Section 4.4, corrected “ethics committee” to read “appropriate committee” v.2 Typographical Errors Corrected 9/8/2020 (boldface): footer [“Joint Committee Notes” were agreed to by the committee whose members comprised members of NAP and AIP, and are guides to interpretation and action by the respective parliamentary organizations, but are not adopted by them. Only numbered paragraphs and the introduction are adopted.] and Joint Committee Notes placed in italics to further differentiate them from the adopted standards.

The section titles used in this Code are for reference purposes only and are not intended to be used or relied upon in interpreting or enforcing the Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians. Reference to the “appropriate committee” refer to the Professional Standards Committee of NAP and the Ethics Committee of AIP. “Joint Committee Notes” were agreed to by the committee whose members comprised members of NAP and AIP, and are guides to interpretation and action by the respective parliamentary organizations, but are not adopted by them. Only numbered paragraphs and the introduction are adopted.

28

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

NAP Connections

Inspiring Youth Parliamentarians

By Collin Kaster

My name is Collin Kaster, the current Executive Council Postsecondary/ Collegiate Vice President for HOSAFuture Health Professionals. HOSA, an international student-led organization with 250,000 members, helps prepare future health professionals to become leaders in the global health community through career technical education, peer collaboration, and health industry experience. Understanding parliamentary procedure is an integral part of that mission. It provides its members with the backbone of mutual respect and equal opportunity that ensures a diverse and inclusive learning environment.

As we continue to advance into the future and to grow as an international organization, it has never been more imperative for us to remember these roots.

HOSA’s student members range from middle school to postsecondary/ collegiate. At a time in our lives where growth and self-discovery are at their peaks, it is not easy to get us excited about a set of rules. Parliamentary procedure is not known as a young man’s game, but that is because most are not aware of the rich history, the applicable knowledge, and the invaluable community that one gains through exposure to Robert’s Rules of Order.

I was fortunate to have the unique opportunity to attend the 2019 Biennial NAP conference, where I attained enlightenment on all of these aspects.

After engaging with interactive workshops facilitated by accomplished parliamentarians, networking with other student leaders of organizations governed by Robert’s rules, and participating in a professional, full speed business session, I left this

Career and Technical Student Organizations State and National Officers with Thomas Balch, coauthor of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition).

conference with a new toolkit for inspiring young leaders.

The secret weapon you will find in my toolkit is collaboration. The NAP mentors fostered an atmosphere whereby all student interns were encouraged to engage during the business sessions and to ask questions they felt pertinent. NAP tapped a passion that I did not know I had.

Networking with professional and student parliamentarians gave me the chance to draw lasting connections between the leadership values that I already hold dearly and values that inspired Robert’s rules. Instead of being merely a set of agreed-upon rules, the process gradually became a tool for critical thinking, an opportunity to enforce equality, and a uniting force that connects everyone in the meeting.

The National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) provided an invaluable revelation for my understanding of the significance and importance of having a parliamentary process in place. It offered an expansive network that will be forever useful. I plan to share what I learned with other young leaders and continue to stay engaged with such a meaningful purpose. www.parliamentarians.org

29

NAP Connections

Social Media Guidelines/Strategy

By C.J. Cavin, PRP

2020 has not been the year that many of us pictured. For a substantial amount of time, many of us have experienced quarantine. I don’t know about you, but I know I have spent more time on social media than usual. I have enjoyed connecting with old friends and engaging with organizations. This experience has been unique and challenging for many. Some of us are turning to social media to fill the time.

This period of unusual isolation is an ideal time to discuss how social media plays a role in our daily lives and in our association. NAP has a strong and growing presence on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Our philosophy has been to use platforms that are engaging our members and potential members.

The primary focus of our outlets is to promote NAP and the many activities and resources that we have available.

I often get asked about the difference between our website and our social media channels. The NAP website (www.parliamentarians.org) is our home base. Nearly everything we promote on social media is linked back to something on the website.

30

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

NAP’s goals for the association’s social media A. Instill pride, encourage fun and fellowship, and engage members and nonmembers in a meaningful and interactive way.

B. Provide information and idea sharing about NAP projects, educational programs, member recruitment/retention, and leadership development in a convenient and useful manner.

C. Reward and recognize leaders and units/members who support NAP’s mission.

D. Facilitate relationships between NAP members, divisions, leadership, and headquarters staff.

E. Attract potential members, donors, and sponsors.

F. Drive traffic to the NAP website.

G. Reach out to youth and adult leaders who need the assistance NAP provides.

H. Build a community for those interested in parliamentary practice and study.

I. Establish personal contact with social media audiences and elicit feedback. (NAPOPP 11.3.03)

NAP Connections

We use these accounts to highlight the work that associations and units are doing around the world. Our members are doing some incredible work to advance educational opportunities in parliamentary procedure. The NAP Communications Committee encourages all units and associations to submit their stories.

There are a few ways to get your story on NAP’s social media. The first is to email socialmedia@nap2.org with the relevant information. Be sure to include photos. Social media algorithms tend to show content if it has a photo or video with it, and NAP strives to include photos in as many posts as possible.

You can also tag NAP on Facebook and Twitter. If you type “@Parliamentarians” on Facebook or “@NAPParlyPro” on Twitter, it will tag our pages and makes it easy for us to share with the wider parliamentarian audience. The next time you elect officers, host an educational workshop, or are doing something in your community, tag us and let us know!

Going forward, NAP will also include a byline for those that have submitted content for our channels.

We think it is important not only to highlight those that are making a difference for our association, but

those that are also ensuring the good news is being spread. For example, if the Oklahoma City Unit of Parliamentarians wanted to highlight our upcoming virtual educational content, we could ask to have it promoted on Facebook. The post would include the submitted information, hopefully a photo, and a byline that the information was submitted by one of our unit officers.

I would also encourage units and associations that have or are considering setting up social media channels to know your target audience. There are a lot of social media channels, and more popping up every day. Know where your members and potential members are.

Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn have been a good way to keep in contact with NAP’s members, and our communications strategy is tailored accordingly.

What strategies do you use for your units and associations? Send me an email with your tips, tricks, and most importantly, your updates. NAP would love to highlight the work you are doing!

You can email me at socialmedia@nap2.org.

C.J. Cavin, PRP, is a licensed Oklahoma attorney and professional parliamentarian.

He serves as the Parliamentarian for the Oklahoma House of Representatives and has served on the Communications Committee for the last two administrations. www.parliamentarians.org

31

NAP Connections

HOSA Student Parli Pro Team Success

By Barbara Bonsignore, PRP

Novi, MI, High School Parli Pro Team June 2020 Back Row: (L to R) Vasudha Nimmagadda (Secretary), Vikshita Pallerla, Riya Bhivare (President), Meghana Lanka Front Row: (L to R) Kaushik Chinnam, Jacob Huang, Varun Nimmagadda (Treasurer), Ashwin Balaji

The Health Occupations Student Association (HOSA) 43rd Annual International Leadership Conference June 24-27, 2020, became the Virtual ILC 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. While that necessary decision curtailed some of the in-person enjoyment of the event for the participants, it was an incentive for the Novi High School Parli Pro Team from Michigan to excel in the preparation and execution of their parliamentary procedure skills.

The purpose of the competition is to develop leadership skills in HOSA members by using parliamentary procedure to conduct a simulated business meeting. Because the event is based on team competition, members learn the importance of cooperation and working together through competitive performance.

The secret topic for the teams to use in building their business meetings was posted on May 4. All teams prepared a response to the secret topic and recorded a video of themselves giving the presentation for judges.

32

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

The videos were uploaded by the first of June. Teams were also required to upload a copy of their meeting minutes. In addition, all teams took a parliamentary procedure test of 50 questions in 30 minutes. The scores on the video presentations were added to the test scores for final placement. The parli pro team from Novi High School took first place in the international competition.

Congratulations students!

Forty-eight states in the U.S. participate in HOSA, as well as American Samoa, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Canada, China, and Mexico are the foreign countries that typically send teams to the competition.

NAP members are encouraged to contact their local NAP youth group partner organizations to offer to serve as consultants and judges.

It is a good way to connect with young people who are enthusiastic about the practical applications of parliamentary procedure in their social and scholastic interactions.

NAP Connections

Call for NAP Bylaws Amendments Pursuant to Article XVI, Section 1A2 of the NAP Bylaws, anyone (that is, other than the NAP Bylaws Committee) wishing to propose amendments to the NAP Bylaws must submit the proposed amendments to the bylaws committee no later than February 1 of the convention year (February 1, 2021, for amendments to be considered at the 2021 convention). As provided in Article XVI, Section 1A1, proposed amendments may be submitted by the bylaws committee, the NAP Board of Directors, a standing or special committee, a district conference, two associations or their boards of directors, three units, or at least ten NAP members-at-large.

When submitting amendments, please use proper RONR terminology and format, and include all applicable conforming amendments, the rationale, and identification of the submitter(s).

This will be the only notice for bylaw amendments published in the NP. Steven J. Britton, PRP NAP Bylaws Committee Chairman

Proposed amendments may be submitted any of three ways:

Preferably by using the online form on NAP’s website (www.parliamentarians.org/ documents/proposedamendment);

By email to the Bylaws Committee Chairman at bylaws@nap2.org; or

By postal mail at the following address: Steve Britton, Chairman NAP Bylaws Committee P.O. Box 554 Montrose, MI 48457

www.parliamentarians.org

33

NAP Connections

Candidates Wanted for the

2021-2023 Board of Directors The 2021-2023 NAP Board of Directors will be elected during the 2021 convention in Atlanta. All nominations are essentially self-nominations.

The requirements for declaring your candidacy are stated in the campaign policy found in the NAP Operational Policies and Procedures Manual, which is available on the NAP website in the Documents section. Candidates must submit a consent-to-serve form to NAP HQ; this form is also available at www.parliamentarians.org/documents, or by contacting HQ. Candidates who have declared their candidacy prior to convention may submit their information, including a high-resolution photo and statement, for publication in the Spring 2021 issue of National ParliamentarianÂŽ magazine. Since members have limited opportunity to learn about the candidates before the election, it is strongly recommended for all those running to submit this information for publication.

Statements are limited to 200 words and must be submitted to TennieBee Hall, npeditor@nap2.org,

by February 1, 2021.

34

NAP Connections

7.1

NAP Officer Campaign Policy

7.1.01 NAP’s Campaign Policy shall be:

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

B. Provided to any member upon request.

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

7.1.02 Under the NAP Campaign Policy, a candidate is defined as a member who has declared his or her candidacy for an office listed in Article V.1 or Article X.1 of the NAP Bylaws by submitting a signed NAP Consent Form to Serve to headquarters prior to publication in the National Parliamentarian® or to the secretary within 30 minutes of closing of nominations.

7.1.03 All election campaigns shall be conducted with professionalism as the fundamental guideline. This includes, but is not limited to, the following principles which apply to all members as well as districts, associations, and units:

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

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

7.1.04 Guidelines for distribution of candidate information:

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

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

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

(See NAP Standing Rule 7.)

www.parliamentarians.org

35

NAP Connections

Promoting Robert’s Rules of Order by a

School

Many people in China are promoting Robert’s Rules of Order.

They do so as companies, personal studios, groups, associations, or as individuals. The School of Robert’s Rules of Order (SRRO) is one of these organizations.

The SRRO is a private organization, not registered with the government. It was established in the city of Chengdu, China. Its purpose is introducing and promoting Robert’s Rules of Order to the community. It was founded by a group of enthusiasts who volunteer their spare time to promote Robert’s Rules of Order. The school was started in 2017 by Yong Yu, Lifeng He, Huaping Li, and Chunyan Zhang.

Ms. Chunyan Zhang is the current chairman of the school.

In the Beginning In January 2017, several enthusiasts in Chengdu, China introduced Robert’s Rules of Order to their fellow netizens* of the city at parks or teahouses. Through practicing in the six-step presentation, many friends had shown a keen interest in the study of meeting procedures.

In March 2017, these enthusiasts decided to establish a school to introduce and promote Robert’s Rules of Order to the community, free of charge.

In August 2017, the WeChat public account of the SRRO was officially launched. In February 2018, Mr. Fei He, RP, from the Chinese Association of Parliamentarians (CAP) became the director of the Examination and Academic Committee of the School to support the SRRO. In April 2018, the sponsors of the school held a meeting and passed the bylaws of the SRRO. According to the bylaws, the SRRO sets up a board of directors and three committees: The Examinations and Academic Committee, the Volunteer and Promotion Committee, and the Legal and Audit Committee. The bylaws also include provisions for the membership, the general assembly, and the director meetings.

In May 2018, the SRRO completed the first official election.

The first chairman was Mr. Yong Yu, the secretary was Mr. Lifeng He. It also confirmed the chairmen of the committees, completed the invitation of SRRO members, and added director Mr. Fan Yang.

In the same month, the duty of each team member was clarified. One person is responsible for the public relations and the recruitment of interested people. Three groups organize enthusiasts to study and practice. At the same time, director Fei

* A user of the internet, especially a habitual or avid one.—Ed. 36

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

By Yong Yu As translated by Ms. Lin Zhang

NAP Connections

He, RP, chairman Wanchun Sun, RP, and secretary Hui Xie from CAP have joined us and provide guidance.

The SRRO formed five member groups over the time. They are the Planning Class, the Lecturer Group, the Freedom Class, the WeChat public account, and the Seeding Base. These groups work independently and support each other. They operate within the boundary of the national laws and in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order.

In September 2018, the first general meeting of the SRRO was held; In October 2019, the second general meeting of SRRO was held.

Form of Learning The SRRO initially used on-site mock meetings to learn (i.e., holding mock meetings while looking up rules in books and having discussions).

Online mock meetings were used later because they are less costly, more convenient, and have no geographical constraint. This gradually became the main way to carry out the learning activities in the SRRO. Students usually can master the basic skills of hosting meetings after eight to ten mock meetings. When a class counselor believes that a student has achieved a certain level of the skills in presiding over meetings, he or she will recommend the primary level test of meeting host by the SRRO. Promotional Methods We initially used the opportunity of social gatherings to promote the SRRO by introducing Robert’s Rules of Order and meeting rules to friends, then immediately starting a mock meeting. The mock meetings intentionally created some digressing

topics, questioning motivation, personal attacks, and other meeting obstacles to make participants solve the obstacles, hence stimulating their interest in further exercises. With the help of netizens spreading the word, more and more people participated in the activities, and some of them became students of the SRRO. The volunteer promotion committee later produced an on-line questionnaire introducing the characteristics of the three study groups of the SRRO to netizens. The SRRO found some interested people to be invited to join the study, based on the responses.

In addition to the above methods, the SRRO also utilizes promotional articles to attract interested people.

They are primarily blogs by the SRRO students sharing their experiences of learning and using Robert’s Rules of Order. These blogs are published with the WeChat public account, leading more people to understand Robert’s Rules of Order, and to participate in its study.

The Results of Promotion As of March 2020, seventy-five students have passed the Primary Level Test of the SRRO, seventeen of whom became members of the NAP. Three of them have been certified as RP by the National Association of Parliamentarians.

The graduates of the SRRO are from twenty-five provinces in China, accounting for 74% of the country’s thirty four provinces, with the most (eleven) in Hebei Province, followed by eight in Sichuan Province, six in Henan Province, five in Zhejiang Province and Beijing, each, four in Hubei, Guangdong, and Shandong www.parliamentarians.org

37

NAP Connections

Provinces each, three in Hunan, Jiangsu and Jiangxi Provinces each, and the rest in other provinces.

The graduates’ academic credentials include doctorate, master’s, bachelor’s, secondary school, and primary school education. This diversity reflects that the subject of how to deliberate is based on human nature, its basic knowledge is not difficult to comprehend, and one does not need higher education.

Among the occupations of the seventy-five graduates are doctoral adviser, lawyer, architect, freelancer, journalist, teacher, business owner, taxi driver, truck driver, factory worker, salesperson, business executive, and event planner. Their careers are different, but they are all attracted by Robert’s Rules of Order. This shows that its contents are highly public and practical, reflecting the refined collective wisdom of hundreds of years of the deliberators.† According to the twenty-five responses of the student survey, the oldest is fifty-six years old and the youngest is twenty-nine. Twenty-one people are older than thirty-five (84%), and 16% are younger than thirty-five. This profile may indicate that people older than thirty-five bear more social responsibilities, and have more tasks of communication and coordination. As a deliberation tool, Robert’s Rules of Order essentially solves the problems in these tasks, so people over thirty-five need it more than others.

During the process of promoting Robert’s Rules of Order, we learned that many netizens did not show up,

or stick to the stage of the “junior host” test, however, they utilized whatever knowledge they obtained from our promotion and study activities to help some aspects of their lives such as community building, company operations, family life, and so on. It is worth noting as an example, one member of the SRRO began using Robert’s Rules of Order to deal with some matters in her family. Her daughter was four years old then.

We saw the child again at an event recently. The six-year-old girl could communicate with adults calmly and confidently, and express herself clearly.

Reflection on Promoting Robert’s Rules of Order A person is bound to enter society after growing from a juvenile to an adult in a family. It is very beneficial to individuals, families, and the society, if the concept of equality and rights, and the ways and means of the achieving them, can become a part of instinct through meeting exercises with Robert’s Rules of Order.

It is very encouraging and a great pleasure to hear positive feedback from adults who had no knowledge of Robert’s Rules of Order before, but have benefited from learning it.

The SRRO offers free learning; the volunteers are rewarded with the joy and sense of fulfilment. Therefore, the SRRO can keep attracting people to join it for learning and practicing Robert’s Rules of Order together.

Life can be changed. Change can start with learning Robert’s Rules of Order!

† 335 years from 1275 when British civilian representatives entered the National Assembly to 1610 when the rules of order appeared, 601 years to the publication of the first edition of Robert’s Rules of Order in 1876, 745 years to the 12th edition of Robert Rules of Order in 2020.

38

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Diane Addante (IL)

Jennifer Freund (AB)

Elizabeth Hooks (NY)

Olive Taylor (NY)

Courtney Bracey (MD)

Gwendolyn Jarvis (OH)

Michael Vernon (NY)

Janice Bush (MI)

Emily Gongon-del Toro (PR)

Kenneth Reed (AZ)

Hong Kun Wang (PR)

Tricia Callender (NY)

Alicia Grinage (TX)

MarvaLisa Scott (PA)

Karen Williams (NY)

Beverly Fields (DC)

Tommie Hill (NY)

Pleshette Shelton (NY)

Regina Williams (NY)

Silent Gavels* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Laura “Ella” Carlson (TX)

Robert McGlotten (MD)

Phyllis Silvestri (NV)

Edwina Fanner (TX)

Virgie Lee Shaw (FL)

Joan Wagner (MI)

James Williams (OH)

New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Crystal Akens (CA)

Beth Carlson (MN)

Diane DeVries (CA)

Margarette Galloway (TX)

Tanya Anderson (TX)

Dylan Cepeda (NY)

Aletra Dillard (OH)

Matthew Glazer (CA)

Jacqueline AndersonVaughn (TX)

Doretha Christian (TX)

Shirell Dixon (NY)

Malik Goodson (NY)

Catherine Clifton (TX)

Sonica Dixon (NY)

Christine Gordon (NY)

James Coccola (BC)

An Chih Do (TX)

Sandra Grandchamps (NY)

Omar Atiq (AR)

Floria Colbert-Rodgers (PA)

Roda Douglas-Simmons (NY)

Charmaine Green (PA)

Ivy Bacote (NY)

Alice Cooper (LA)

LaSheka Drew (LA)

Constance Barron Wilson (TX)

Kathleen Cooper (TX)

Aisha Dunning (OH)

Valerie Cottingham (AL)

Mary Edwards-Andrews (NJ)

Pamellia Anthony (TX) Shaneesa Ashford (GA)

Fletcher Bland (MI) Duane Boone (VA)

Brittany Creary (TX)

Kiffa Brathwaite (NY)

Wanda Cromartie-Jones (PA)

Todd Ellis (MI)

Katrina Brave (NY)

Shalanda Cross (TX)

Muriel Brinston (MS)

Lisa Evans (TX)

Sherine Cummings (NY)

Kenya Brown (PA)

Steve Evans (TX)

LaRita Dalton (GA)

Marlena Brown (NJ)

Carisma Fields (TX)

Latasha Daniels (DE)

Marquita Brown (PA)

Barbara Davis (FL)

Terrika Foster-Brasby (CT)

Michelle Burchette (OK) Tara Caldwell (PA) Kelly Campbell (TX) Edmund Carley (IL)

Sharon Day (NJ) Donna Delfyett-White (NY) Tamara Deloatch-Warren (GA)

Charisse Harris (NY) Rhonda Harrison (PA) Summer-Rae Haston (PA) Evelyn Henry (MS) Thelma Herbert (NY)

Elonda Ervin (IN)

Althea Hicks (NY) Hannah Hill (CO) Tommie Hill (NY) Aubreana Holder (MD) Elizabeth Hooks (NY)

Donna Freeling-Blackburn (TX) Dawn Funches Allen (TX) Janis Gallagher (NC)

Valerie Guenther (TX)

Sharonda Huffman (MD) Daniel Ige (WA) Shirley Ison-Newsome (TX)

* For the period June 3, 2020 through September 16, 2020 www.parliamentarians.org

39

NAP Connections

New Members*

continued

Edward Jackson (NJ)

Ja-mese McGee (IL)

Francheska Smith (NY)

Marian Willard (TX)

Angela Jacobs-Butler (TX)

Janelle McLain (PA)

Rae Smith (GA)

Kassandra Williams (OH)

Dominique James (PA)

Jason Mitchell (PA)

Shirley Smith (NC)

Orson Williams (NY)

Nyesha James (DE)

Vickie Mitchell (TX)

Tia Spells (PA)

Ronniqua Willie (PA)

Elbert (Jay) Jarvis (CA)

Kelli Muse Kirkland (NY)

Adrienne Spivey (NY)

Lawrence Workman (NC)

Christopher Johnson (ID)

Ashley Naumann (TX)

Cora Stanley (TX)

Susie Wright (OH)

Kristel Johnson (NY)

Kristen Nelson (OK)

Charles Stephenson (UT)

Yuxin Wu (PR)

Linda Johnson (MD)

John Nichols (AL)

Faye Yelardy (NY)

William Johnson (TN)

Kimberly Nix (NC)

Jessica Stevens-Tuttle (NC)

Ashanti Jones (PA)

Victoria Noble (TX)

Yvonne Jones (OH)

Anilsa Nunez (NY)

Charlene Jones Moore (PA)

Judy Obinwa (TX)

Robert Kaul (NV) Devitt Kennard (TX)

Natalie Ojunga-Andrew (MA)

Gwendolyn Kimble (TX)

Kelly O’Malley (VA)

Valerie Tagoe (TX)

Kimberly Kizito (NC)

Joe Orzal (CA)

Nicole Taylor (TX)

Peter Klapes (MA)

Maureen Oyiriaru (TX)

Erik Tejada (NY)

Garrett Knisley (TN)

Maya Paggett (MD)

Linda Tezeno (TX)

Freda Koomson (NY)

Sonya Palmer (TX)

Rhea Thomas (PA)

Naomi Kotter (NY)

Myra Parker (TN)

Anoopa Todd (MI)

Tonda Ladson (NY)

Karen Parson (TX)

Kimberly Tolerson (MD)

Eileen Lambert (NY)

Jack Perenick (MA)

Lisa Tomkies (LA)

Laurence Lansford (TX)

Shaler Pierce (TX)

Ben Torres (TN)

Michele Lassiter-Ewell (TX)

Casey Preston (TX)

Dana Townsend (PA)

Sharrell Price (PA)

Michelle Tucker (CO)

Maya Latimer (NY)

Lesley Quattlebaum (MD)

Sandra Tullock (NY)

Shadonna Lee (TN)

Howard Redmond (TX)

Zerlina Ushery (PA)

Josiah Leonard (VA)

Mack Reinwand (TX)

Nancy Lewis (OR)

Carla Reynolds-Grogan (TX)

Robert VanderSchaaff (CO)

Conny Hsin Cheng Lin (BC)

Carla Stewart (IL) Helen Stovall (VA) Jennifer Strayer (WY) Marylen Sturdivant (MS) Christa Svensson (OR)

Paulette Waite (GA)

Christine Royce (PA)

Monique Walker (GA)

Jean Lin (WA)

Ketwana Schoos (PA)

Corbin Walls (OK)

Suling Lucas (FL)

Jeffrey Scott (DC)

Mandy Walters (WA)

Vanessa Madkins (NY)

Stacy Senskey (OH)

Charles Ward (AK)

Donine Martin (MD)

Christopher Shamburg (NJ)

Seana Watts (NY)

Melissa Martin (TX) Sean Mattimoe (HI)

Pleshette Shelton (NY)

Shelly Weeks-Townsend (PA)

Lori Matyskiel (FL)

Charles Shuler (NY)

David White (NY)

Thank you instructors!

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Jackie Compton Bunch, RP Kay Crews, PRP Kevin Connelly, PRP Tamara Harris Adam Hathaway, PRP Reba Hollingsworth Alaina Jackson Frances Jackson, PRP Ashley Lin Ramona Marsalis-Hill, PRP Edwin Miles, RP Laura Miles Donna Mitchell, PRP Leah Nolan Julie Pioch, PRP Rob Robinson, PRP Beverly Tatham, PRP Tanya Lue Tsing, RP Deborah Underwood, RP Willie Watson, PRP Fashika Willis, PRP

* For the period June 3, 2020 through September 16, 2020 40

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2020

Call to meeting

43rd NAP Biennial Convention September 9-12, 2021 Renaissance Atlanta Waverly Hotel • Atlanta, GA • Exciting expert-led educational sessions • Experience parliamentary procedure in action • Exciting, informative workshops!

• Welcoming southern hospitality

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