NAP Connections Meet the New Code of Professional Responsibility Kay Allison Crews, PRP

M EET THE N EW C ODE OF Professional Responsibility

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

By Kay Allison Crews, PRP

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

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

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.