National Parliamentarian (Vol. 82, No. 2)

NP

Volume 82, No. 2 | Winter 2021

National Parliamentarian

What a Difference a Year Makes Symbols of Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page . 4 The Birthplace of Robert’s Rules of Order. . . . page 12 Dueling Parliamentarians.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 18

Parliamentary Resources at Your Fingertips

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

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

Check us out today at

www.parliamentarians.org

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

National Parliamentarian

Volume 82, No. 2 | Winter 2021

Contents From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message What a Difference a Year Makes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEATURES Symbols of Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 James J. Connors, PRP Retroactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Cynthia J. Mills, PRP, and Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP The Birthplace of Robert’s Rules of Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Carl Nohr, PRP The Intrinsically, Irrelevant Negative Vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP Dueling Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 John R. Berg, PRP A Primer for Presiding Officers, Part 2 – Formal Control and Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Carl Nohr, PRP GORP! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 David Mezzera, PRP DEPARTMENTS Test Yourself Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 NAP Connections Zoom Study Group Graduates Four New RPs . . . . . . . . . . 32 Dorothy Gordon, RP Promoting Parliamentary Law Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Debra Henry, PRP NTC Through the Eyes of Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Kianna Bolante

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

Parliamentary Law Month Proclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . 38 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 www.parliamentarians.org 1

National Parliamentarian

®

Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 S. Main Street • Independence, MO 64050-3808 816.833.3892 • 888.627.2929 hq@nap2.org • www.parliamentarians.org

NP Submission Guidelines

National Parliamentarian generally publishes only original works that have not been published elsewhere. Articles will be edited to conform to The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.) and may be edited for content and length. Article text should be submitted in Microsoft Word or rich text format and transmitted via email. Illustrations, photographic prints and high-resolution photos are welcome. Materials submitted will not be returned unless special arrangements are made in advance with the editor.

Contributors must include a completed “Assignment and Transfer of Copyright” form with their submission, granting NAP the copyright or permission to publish.

Submission Deadlines

Volume 82, No. 3 . . . . . . . . February 1, 2021 (Spring 2021) Volume 82, No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2021 (Summer 2021) Volume 83, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2021 (Fall 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

We are energized when we experience the enthusiasm of newness. Whether it is when we observe organization leaders as they realize how groups can effectively meet and make decisions in a fair, consistent manner, or the young person who experiences democracy in action at an NAP meeting.

Equally invigorating are the “ah-ha” moments when we read about the history that influences the work of parliamentarians. This issue of National Parliamentarian includes two accounts in the development of making meetings efficient. In “Symbols of Authority,” James J. Connors, PRP, provides an interesting window into the history and meaning of commonly used symbols of authority. Carl Nohr, PRP, in “The Birthplace of Robert’s Rules of Order,” gives background on the restoration of the New Bedford, MA, church where General Robert realized the need for defining rules for conduct of meetings.

These two articles help put our progress in development into perspective.

We hope you enjoy them, along with the other fine articles.

2

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

President’s Message

What a Difference a Year Makes The promise of a new year and a fresh start allows us to believe that better days lie ahead. If conventional wisdom and the year 2020 taught us anything, it is to protect ourselves from the possibility that our actions and words contradict the current reality.

We await the return to normalcy, realizing that it might be unrecognizable when it arrives. We accept the truth of the adage, “Life goes on with fragile normalcy,” penned by author and novelist Sara Gruen. It does, and we must keep up. Educational opportunities await us.

As parliamentarians, we are familiar with learning the differences between old and new editions of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. At this time, as we learn the differences between the eleventh and twelfth editions, we simultaneously need to assist organizations in applying the rules to meetings held in an electronic environment.

Time does not stand still as we catch up with what is new in parliamentary procedure.

The National Association of Parliamentarians® Educational Resources Committee has worked diligently to update the content of the books and other parliamentary materials that we have come to rely on as we provide services to associations and organizations. Check out the NAP bookstore at www.parliamentarians.org. Reading books alone, however, will not provide proficiency in parliamentary procedure. Take the time to practice what you have learned.

There continue to be organizations that are at a standstill and have not met since March 2020. They may not be aware of the resources available and what can be done when their bylaws do not authorize electronic meetings. A parliamentarian may be able to provide the advice that moves them from being inactive to becoming active, again. Assistance also may be needed to create rules that allow for smooth transitions in procedures when members wish to be recognized, speak in debate, or vote in electronic meetings. Yes, parliamentarians can help with those matters.

As the new year progresses, parliamentarians will play a vital role in helping organizations tackle their meeting challenges head on. Educational opportunities will continue to be available through electronic means. Practice in, and demonstration of, what we have learned is the unspoken next step in the education cycle. Parliamentary proficiency is achieved through a range of activities and experiences, simple to complicated. This may become the new normal.

Stay safe and follow the virus mitigation instructions.

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

Symbols of Authority:

The Gavel, Mace, and Fasces

By James J. Connors, PRP

When you picture the use of parliamentary procedure in the average town council meeting, state legislature, or U.S. Congress, what do you see? I would suggest that most people envision a presiding officer standing at a lectern holding a gavel.

The gavel is probably the most widely recognized symbol of authority in meetings. However, it is by no means the only one. Three items have been associated with legislative authority throughout history: the gavel, the mace, and the fasces. But what is the history of these items and how are they used today?

Gavel Webster’s dictionary defines gavel as “the mallet of the presiding officer...”

Gavels have long been used by auctioneers, judges, elected officials, or presiding officers of organizations.

The gavel is a symbol of the prerogatives of the presiding officer.1

Gavels in their present form and purpose may have their origins in the Masonic lodges in 18th century England.2 The first gavels resembled a mason’s setting maul with a long handle and bulbous end with a flat bottom used to set stones in mortar.

However, the “true Masonic gavel” does not look like a regular gavel commonly used by judges or meetings chairs. The “common” or “true Masonic gavel” has a pointed gable shape on one end and a flat surface on the other end.3 The gavel is the symbol of power and authority. It is the duty of the officer wielding the gavel to use it wisely and with discretion that the affairs of the chapter may be conducted with dignity, decorum, and justice. The wise use of the gavel insures harmonious relationships among the members.4 The first gavel used in the U.S. Senate was quite different in shape. In The Mace and the Gavel: Symbols of

1 Lorraine Weatherly, “Protocol…It Makes a Difference,” National Parliamentarian 55, no. 3 (1994): 16-17.

2 George D. Glazer and Helen Glazer, “Gavel-to-Gavel: A Brief History of the Gavel in Decorative Arts,” (2007). http://georgeglazer.com/decarts/objects/gavels/aboutgavels.html 3 The Grand Lodge of Texas, “The Common Gavel.” http://themasonictrowel.com/Articles/ degrees/degree_1st_files/the_common_gavel_gltx.htm 4 Billye M. Peeples, “The Gavel,” http://thgephylaxis.org/phyllis/gavel.php 4

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

authority, and impartiality over the business of the assembly.

Original and Indian ivory gavels.

Government in America, Bedini wrote that, “Consisting of a simple block of solid ivory turned somewhat in the shape of a time glass, the Senate “gavel” functions more in the nature of a knocker to bring the body to attention.”5 The history of the Senate gavel is unclear. Legend has it that it was used by John Adams to call the Senate to order in 1789. However, it may have been Thomas Jefferson who first used the ivory gavel when he presided over the Senate. By the 1950s this gavel started to fall apart and had metal plates attached to both ends.

In 1954 the government of India presented Vice President Richard Nixon with a new ivory gavel.

Today, both the original and new hourglass shaped ivory gavels are kept in a locked wooden box held by the Sergeant-at arms.6 No matter if it is a local garden club president or the President of the United States Senate, chairmen still use the gavel as a symbol of leadership,

Mace Another historic symbol of authority is the mace. A mace is an ornamental staff, borne as a symbol of authority before a public official or legislative body. Maces have been used throughout history as a symbol of authority in cities, state legislatures, and parliaments. While the American Institute of Parliamentarians™ (AIP) has a gavel on its symbol, the National Association of Parliamentarians®, as everyone knows, uses a mace as its symbol.

Probably the most well-known mace in existence is the one used in the British House of Commons.

This symbol of authority of the Speaker was made in 1649 and is often seen on the center table in the House of Commons during deliberations. Controversy arose in 2018 during debate on Brexit (Britain leaving the European Union) when a conservative Member of Parliament (MP) approached the table, grabbed the mace, and proceeded to leave the chamber. He was quickly admonished by the Speaker and expelled from the chamber for the remainder of the day’s deliberations.7

5 Silvio A. Bedini, “The Mace and the Gavel: Symbols of Government in America,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 87, part 4 (1997).

6 United States Senate, “The Senate’s New Gavel.” http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/ history/minute/The_Senates_New_Gavel.htm 7 Alan Yuhas, “A member of Britain’s Parliament Seized the Ceremonial Mace, and Confusion Reigned.” New York Times, December 10, 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/ world/europe/ceremonial-mace-britain-parliament.html www.parliamentarians.org 5

One of the oldest maces in the United States is the Mace of Norfolk. The city of Norfolk has used the mace since before the United States even existed and Virginia was one of the 13 original Colonies.8 If you ever have the chance to watch the proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives, you will see the historic Mace standing to the right of the Speaker’s chair. The first mace was used by the House in 1789.

That original mace was destroyed when the British Mace of the city of Norfolk, VA. burned the Capitol on August 24, 1814. The current mace was first used in 1841.9 In addition to the mace, the Speaker of the House also uses a large gavel that is handed down whenever the majority party changes, and a new Speaker is installed.

Maces have been used by numerous bodies for centuries. Cities, states, countries, universities, and even marching band drum majors used maces as symbols of authority. The Canadian Senate, the Parliament of

the Province of Ontario, the city of Galway, Ireland, and the U.S. Marine Corps Band all use a mace as a symbol of their authority.

Fasces Probably the least well-known symbol of authority is the fasces. A fasces is a bundle of rods and among them an ax with projecting blade, borne before ancient Roman magistrates as a badge of authority. The bundle of rods is often depicted bound by leather thongs.

The staff of the U.S. House of Representatives’ mace is very similar to the bundle of rods used in a fasces.

The fasces was a symbol of power and the executive authority of Roman leaders.

While it may not be obvious to the average observer, the fasces is very prominent in U.S. government buildings and monuments. Within the U.S. House of Representatives’ chamber, two fasces are located on either side of the Speaker’s chair and immediately behind the mace. When visiting Washington, DC, take a good look at the Lincoln Memorial. Fasces adorn the steps leading up to the monument. The 13 rods represent the 13 original colonies. Just as the rods are stronger when bound together, the 13 colonies were stronger when joined together as the United States of America. Once inside the monument,

8 Mrs. Donald D. Funk, “Norfolk’s Historic Mace,” National Parliamentarian 21, no. 2 (1960): 10-12.

9 Zeake W. Johnson, “The Use of the Mace,” National Parliamentarian 18, no. 1 (1957): 3-4.

6

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

the observer will notice that both arms of Lincoln’s chair are actually fasces without the protruding ax head. On the side walls, both Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address are adorned with the fasces without the ax blade. Fasces are also included on the official seal of the U.S. Senate and on the George Washington statue by Jean-Antoine Houdon that is in the Virginia State Capitol.10 Unlike the gavel and the mace, fasces are not seen as often outside of the federal government in Washington, DC. This might be due to the fact that many people associate fasces with

fascism. Fasces is the root word for fascism, a political ideology marked by nationalism, totalitarianism, and most associated with the Nazi party in Germany during World War II. Conclusion The gavel, mace, and fasces are three very different and unique symbols of authority and leadership.

It is no surprise that they are often associated with power, strength, authority, and leadership. As parliamentarians it is important that we recognize these symbols, their history, and understand the meaning behind the symbol. NP

10 National Park Service, “Secret Symbol of the Lincoln Memorial,” https://www.nps.gov/nama/ blogs/secret-symbol-of-the-lincoln-memorial.htm James (Jim) J. Connors, PhD, PRP, has been a member of NAP since 1995. He has taught parliamentary procedure skills to youth and adults for over 35 years. He served as the Superintendent of the National FFA Parliamentary Procedure Leadership Development event for 15 years. He has worked with youth organizations across the country on their parliamentary procedure competitive events. He currently teaches a Developing Collegiate and Community Organizations class at the University of Idaho, and has served as a parliamentarian for numerous local, state, and national organizations. www.parliamentarians.org 7

Retroactivity

By C. J. Mills, PRP, and Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP

The current COVID-19 pandemic has created perhaps the ultimate problem for deliberative assemblies.

One of the basic characteristics of a deliberative assembly, as enumerated in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition (RONR 12th ed.), is that a group of people “…meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants.” RONR (12th ed.) 1:1. In meetings that fail to adhere to this criterion, business cannot be transacted. How can an organization conduct business without a meeting conducted according to RONR (12th ed.)?

It is possible for a meeting having the characteristics of a deliberative assembly to authorize some previous actions. There are two methods to accomplish this. The first method is by using the motion to ratify. The second method, which is a more powerful method by far, is to retroactively authorize the action in the bylaws. Both methods can ultimately authorize something after the fact.

Both, however, come with risks.

Ratify Ratify is an incidental main motion that functions exactly like any other main motion. It can be used to “…confirm or make valid an action 8

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly.”

RONR (12th ed.) 10:54. RONR then gives some examples of what the motion to ratify can do retroactively1.

Ratify can “make valid” action taken at an inquorate meeting (no quorum present). It can “make valid” action taken at a special meeting. It can “make valid” action taken “by officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or their authority (ibid.).” Note that, in these examples, the action has already been taken. In the case of most main motions, the motion is made, adopted by the assembly, and then the action it authorizes taken.

In the case of ratification, the action is taken without valid authorization by the assembly, and then the assembly authorizes it.

For example, assume that there is a main motion, “To contribute five hundred dollars to James Thornton’s campaign.” This motion is considered at a quorate meeting and adopted.

Only at that point would the money be contributed. If the motion were adopted at a meeting without a quorum, the money would be contributed, and at a future meeting where a quorum was present, the assembly would then authorize the payment. This would authorize the contribution.

RONR (12th ed.) also notes some things that cannot be approved by a motion to ratify. It can only be used to ratify something that the society could authorize in advance at a meeting. RONR (12th ed.) 10:55.

Ratify could not be used to make a meeting conducted by some electronic means valid, for example, when such meetings are not authorized, though it could make the action taken at the electronic meeting valid. Unless the society’s bylaws permit electronic meetings, an electronic meeting cannot be held. Thus, the society could not take a vote at a physical meeting to have an electronic meeting.

A society could not meet electronically to amend its bylaws to permit electronic meetings, since the society could not amend its bylaws in advance. This particular issue is one facing many groups today.

In presentations by Thomas “Burke” Balch and Steve Bolen2 at the 2020 NAP Training Conference, the prevailing advice was that both motions—the motion to ratify the action and then a motion to adopt the decisions—are required in dealing with this issue.

For example: The Association conducts an electronic meeting in October 2020.

This electronically conducted meeting is not authorized in the bylaws.

Decisions made at this meeting were: 1. The members amended the bylaws to authorize electronic meetings.

2. The members approved a new budget.

3. The members elected new officers by a voice vote, even though the bylaws require a ballot.

In June 2021, at an in-person meeting, the members may or may not ratify the actions taken at the unauthorized electronic meeting. If they do ratify the motions, they then must adopt these three decisions made at that meeting as if the motions were made for the first time.

The bylaw amendment authorizing electronic meetings could be adopted retroactively to September 2020.

The budget could be adopted, or amendments proposed. As for the election of officers, the members must vote again by ballot. It is possible the voting results will be different.

Retroactive Authorization There are some situations where the lack of a meeting may be a problem in itself. Certain activities may only be permitted at particular meetings. For example, the bylaws may contain a clause that the bylaws may only be amended at a specific meeting. The bylaws may have certain attendance requirements in order for a member to be elected to office. Some organizations may require members to attend a specific number of meetings in order to retain voting rights. Ratify is useless in these situations.

There is a method for dealing with these types of situations. The society may amend its bylaws so www.parliamentarians.org 9

the amendment’s effects will be retroactive. In that way the bylaws would be sufficient to approve any action that has been taken. In the case of the example, a bylaw could be adopted at the regular meeting of June 2021 stating, “Electronic meetings shall be permitted, provided that such meetings permit simultaneous aural communication between all participants.3 This amendment shall be effective as of September 1, 2020.”

A bylaw that has a retroactive effect in reality has one procedural effect.

It prevents a point of order from being successfully raised about the past action. Something specifically authorized in the bylaws cannot be subject to a successful point of order.

There are several methods for incorporating retroactive action into a bylaw.

1. Retroactive Authorization This is to authorize something permanently, but to authorize it from some past point. An example of this is: “Electronic meetings shall be permitted, provided that such meetings permit simultaneous aural communication between all participants. This amendment shall be effective as of March 1, 2020.”

The last clause, when the amendment takes effect, also can be handled as a proviso. For example, the proposed amendment would be worded: “Electronic meetings shall be permitted, provided that such 10

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

meetings permit simultaneous aural communication between all participants.”

The proviso, adopted along with the amendment, would read: “Proviso related to Electronic Meetings Amendment: ‘This amendment shall be effective as of September 1, 2020.’”

2. Establishing an End of Effect Date A second option is to have a bylaw with not only a retroactive effect, but an end of effect date. The wording here would be: “Electronic meetings shall be permitted, provided that such meetings permit simultaneous aural communication between all participants. This amendment shall be in force between September 1, 2020 and April 1, 2021.”

RONR (12th ed.) does envision situations where the effect of a motion will include a clause ending its effect.

RONR (12th ed.) 10:26n3.

This process of approving action after the fact, especially in a time when there is massive disruption in the ability for an assembly to conduct business normally, can be very useful.

It can also have serious drawbacks.

There is no guarantee that an assembly will approve action after the fact.

The members may not approve the action, even if agreed to outside of a meeting. A motion to ratify is fully debatable (RONR, (12th ed.), t26(76)); so is a bylaw amendment (t8 (12)). That debate can change members’ minds. The members, for

example, may have been strongly in favor of permitting electronic meetings, but did not agree with some action taken at an unauthorized meeting; those members could then defeat a bylaw amendment just so the action could not be made valid.

RONR (12th ed.) notes that, in the case of most4 actions taken in the absence of a quorum, the members taking the action are responsible for it, not the assembly as a whole. RONR (12th ed.) 40:9. In short, this may not be an appropriate remedy for a contentious society or for some very controversial action.

There may be questions about the legality of the retroactive effect of a bylaw. This would happen, however, only in cases where some statute or case law would apply to the organization. That is a legal question, not a procedural one.

Taking action retroactively is perhaps one of the few things that permit an assembly to conduct

business during the pandemic. It might mean that the business of the assembly will be approved, eventually.

Like anything else, especially in today’s world, it has risks. NP Endnotes 1 Ratify is used in other situations as well. See RONR (12th ed.) 10:54.

2 On 8/28/20 and 8/30/20, respectively.

3 This wording is based upon the wording found at RONR (12th ed.)

9:33.

4 Motions that may be legitimately adopted at an inquorate meeting are found at RONR (12th ed.) 40:7-8.

Work Cited Robert, Henry M., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition, Eds. Sarah Corbin Robert, Henry M. Robert III, William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Daniel E. Seabold, Shmuel Gerber, New York: Public Affairs, 2020.

Cynthia J. Mills (C J) became a member of NAP in 2011, and PRP in 2018. She is currently parliamentarian for the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians and a charter member of the Parliamentarians of Philadelphia Pennsylvania. C J is a graduate of Hampton (Institute) University with a BA in Political Science, and The George Washington University with a MA in Paralegal Studies. At the time of this writing, she is the parliamentarian of the Rho Theta Omega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. This is her first contribution to National Parliamentarian.

Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP is the former president and former parliamentarian of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians, Inc. He is also, at the time of writing, secretary of the Delaware Valley Unit. He is also the former president of that unit.

www.parliamentarians.org 11

The Birthplace of Robert’s Rules of Order

By Carl Nohr, PRP

In 1863, Major Henry M. Robert attended the annual general meeting of the First Baptist Church in New Bedford, Massachusetts. He had been transferred there to recover from recurrent tropical fever. At the meeting, he was elected chairman pro tem. Unfortunately, there was a contentious issue regarding local defense concerns, and the meeting lasted fourteen hours. Major Robert was embarrassed because, by his own description, he did not know how to run a meeting. It was that experience that prompted him to begin studying parliamentary law, as he resolved he would never find himself embarrassed at a meeting again. He developed a process to accumulate observations and thoughts about parliamentary procedure, which culminated in the publication of the first edition of his book, Robert’s Rules of Order, in 1876.

This experience of Major Robert at the First Baptist Church is described in the biography, Henry Martyn Robert: Writer of Rules, An American Hero, by Joseph F. O’Brien, compiled, edited, and expanded by Leonard M. Young, PRP, National Association of Parliamentarians, 2019.

“I attended a meeting one neverto-be forgotten evening, and to my surprise I was elected chairman.

My embarrassment was supreme.

I just did not know what to do. My 12

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

life at West Point, on the Frontier, and service in the Civil War had made it so that I had never had anything to do with any deliberative assembly. I did not know the least thing about the difference in rank of motions, which were debatable, or which could be amended. In fact, I was just as ignorant as anyone could be. I felt that to decline would probably not let me out of the dilemma, as I would have been forced to serve and then I would only have called attention to my ignorance, thus making my critics more alert. So I plunged in, trusting to Providence that the assembly would behave itself. But with the plunge went the determination that I would never again attend any meeting until I knew something on the subject of parliamentary law.”

In his proposed, but unpublished preface to the Rules of Order, he credits this meeting directly with having started him off on the study that led to his manual. “…[F]or four years afterwards I kept in my pocketbook a small slip of paper giving a list of the ordinary motions arranged according to rank, a list of debatable questions and of those that could not be amended. But experience soon showed that this was not enough to enable one to act

intelligently in a meeting where there were troublesome members; and furthermore, that many chairmen had entirely different notions about rules of order. This led to a fuller investigation of authorities and finally to a conviction that there ought to be prepared a very brief pocket manual, so cheap that every member of a church or society could own a copy and so arranged as to enable one quickly to find when any particular motion could be made; and also to ascertain to what extent a motion is debatable and whether it could be amended.…”

for coordinating local harbor defenses, during the turbulent Civil War period. Sometime during 1863, he was chosen to be moderator of a public meeting which was held in the First Baptist Church, (supposedly, according to all available records)—to discuss the Port of New Bedford’s defense against possible Confederate raiders.

The long meeting, said to have lasted fourteen hours, got out of hand and was cantankerous. It is said that Mr. Robert vowed ‘If he got out of the meeting alive, he would learn to control the next one he became involved in.’”

Further information from another perspective is available from a book on the history of the First Baptist Church of New Bedford written by congregation members Avis M. Pillsbury and Mildred E. Hatch, titled, First Baptist Church of New Bedford Massachusetts (the author thanks Paul McClintock for this material).

Fortunately, he did get out of the meeting alive, learned how to control meetings, and has shared that learning with us to the benefit of innumerable deliberative assemblies.

That is the history of the birthplace of Robert’s Rules of Order. What is the current condition of the First Baptist Church? It is a prominent landmark, and is a key corner building that anchors City Hall Square in the heart of downtown New Bedford, currently a city of 95,000. The meeting house was added to the National Register of Historic Places and designated a National Treasure by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 2015, due to its history in the creation of parliamentary procedure.

Unfortunately, like so many vintage buildings, the Church has fallen into disrepair. The steeple, roof, exterior, and interior all need major reconstruction and renovation, and some of this work is in progress.

Using the principle of innovative repurposing, a local association has

“Many of the [church] members had names still common today in New Bedford…. ...Many were active in the Civil War period, and in 1862 a man came in from outside the city, and made a niche for himself among them. Little did anyone know that this man was to become nationally and internationally known.... ...Henry Martyn Robert was this man—a graduate, fourth from the top, in the Class of 1857, at West Point. In 1862, the U.S. Army assigned this young lieutenant engineer to New Bedford, where he was responsible for the construction of the Fort at Clark’s Point (Fort Taber)—and

www.parliamentarians.org 13

undertaken to restore the building and make it useful once again as a gathering place. The Waterfront Historic Restoration League,1 known by the acronym WHALE, has developed a project to create a collaborative performance venue, Steeple Playhouse,2 while retaining meeting space for the church congregation. WHALE was established in 1962. Over the past 58 years, WHALE has facilitated the completion of more than 70 restoration and preservation projects in the New Bedford area.

For more information regarding the plans for the church and how you can help, see https://www.waterfront league.org/portfolio-item/first-baptistchurch/. To respect the site as the birthplace of Robert’s Rules of Order, a Robert’s Exhibit is contemplated.

This exhibit could showcase historical materials and provide information about parliamentary procedure. A video of the restoration project, showing the interior of the church can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=y9Xnk5RkuS4.

The legacy started by this sentinel moment in the history of parliamentary procedure has provided immeasurable benefit to generations of individuals and associations seeking to hold effective meetings by respecting

the parliamentary principles of regard for the rights of the majority, of the minority, of individuals, and of absentee members. Now in a 12th edition, and spanning almost 150 years, Robert’s Rules of Order continues to be an invaluable guide for those seeking to make fair and effective decisions at meetings.

General Henry M. Robert transformed the embarrassment he experienced at that meeting in the First Baptist Church into a publication that has helped so many of us avoid a similar experience. The birthplace of Robert’s Rules of Order is truly a place of historic importance. NP Scan this code to read about plans for the church and how you can help.

Scan this code to watch the video about the resoration project.

1 https://www.waterfrontleague.org/ 2 http://steepleplayhouse.org/

Carl Nohr, M.D., PRP, is a member of the NAP Board of Directors.

(The board recently appointed a special committee to investigate options for supporting the Waterfront Historic Area League restoration project in New Bedford, MA.)

14

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

The Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Vote

By Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

Robert’s Rules requires that “the chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear.” RONR (12th ed.) 4:35.

But there are several situations where calling for the negative vote is not only unnecessary but actually illogical.

1. “Intrinsically Irrelevant” Negative Vote: Robert’s words, RONR (12th ed.) 4:35.

Sometimes one comes across a situation that has strict requirements before a certain action may be taken. A good example of this is the requirement of a notice, by a prescribed time, in order to consider a bylaw amendment during a convention. However, under urgent situations, the convention standing rules may allow the action to be taken, even in the absence of compliance with the notice requirement, if a specified number of members propose or second the motion.

A vote to consider the bylaw amendment would not require the taking of the negative vote when the specified number of members proposing the consideration exists and the number is thus sufficient to comply with the convention standing rule requirement. The negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant. RONR (12th ed.) 4:35.

2. A Negative Vote on a Resignation: Robert is very clear about an association’s power relative to a resignation.

“A member in good standing with his dues paid cannot be compelled to continue his membership...” RONR (12th ed.) 32:8. So, if an association rejects a member’s resignation, does it expect the member to continue attending the association’s meetings and complying with the association’s objectives? No. If an association rejects a member’s resignation, even if the member is in arrears, the best the association can hope for is to punish the member with expulsion. So, a motion to accept a resignation is merely an authorization to the appropriate entity to commence the procedure for filling a vacancy.

It is not really a situation seeking an approval. A negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant. www.parliamentarians.org 15

3. A Negative Vote in an Election: On several occasions I have observed that an election is held with members voting ‘aye’ and ‘no’ for candidates. A yes/no vote is appropriate for an appointment because an appointment is a motion asking whether or not to appoint a certain individual. An appointment is a question. But an election is not a question. An election is a vote to select an officer from among several candidates. Robert expresses it this way, “… a form of ballot on which provision is made for voting ‘for’ or ‘against’ a candidate … is not proper.”

RONR (12th ed.) 46:1.

A voter can vote against one candidate only by voting for another candidate, or by writing in the name of a candidate who was not nominated. RONR (12th ed.) 45:25. A negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant.

4. Adopting the Meeting’s Agenda: The agenda is the only tool a chair has to assure fair debate, to conduct business in accordance with the society’s bylaws, and to prove to the members that their rights are respected. Before and after the adoption of the agenda, the agenda can easily be amended. During the meeting, the sequence of the agenda items can be altered with a motion to suspend the rules.

Some organizations adopt a special order of business that lists the agenda headings prescribing the order of business for ordinary societies. RONR (12th ed.) 41:6. Nevertheless, these agendas are too generic and would still need to be adopted if any change to the sequence of the agenda items is necessary.

There is no reason for voting negatively when deciding on the agenda. If a vote to adopt an agenda is defeated, is it possible to have an efficient and productive meeting? No. A negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant.

5. Accepting the Minutes: Once approved, the minutes are the official and historical record of all the proceedings and decisions a society reaches. RONR (12th ed.) 41:12. These decisions authorize the society to take certain action. Without the minutes, there is no proof authorizing any decision that resulted from a meeting. In many cases the treasurer cannot work with their society’s bank unless the treasurer supplies a copy of the minutes indicating the name of the officers.

So, is it acceptable to vote in the negative on the minutes? No. A formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary. RONR (12th ed.)

41:10. Even incomplete or slightly incorrect minutes must be kept for every meeting. Minutes must be completed and corrected as soon as possible. Voting against accepting the minutes is not in keeping with best parliamentary practices or with the goals of the society. A negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant.

16

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

6. Adopt a Report: Once a report is heard, adopting the report means that the association will accept every word and punctuation as a new rule! Even the treasurer’s report is not adopted. Why would an association adopt any other report? RONR (12th ed.) 51:13. If the negative vote prevails, do we unhear the report?

A negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant.

7. Motions of Complimentary or Courtesy Nature: These motions are expected to be noncontroversial and wished by all. RONR (12th ed.) 4:35. Often these motions are intended to show membership appreciation of a service rendered to the association. A negative vote is not taken unless a member objects to omitting the negative vote. A negative vote insults the individual receiving the appreciation or recognition. A negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant.

8. Assumed Motion: When there seems to be no opposition to routine business or if the question is of little importance, time can often be saved by the procedure of an assumed motion or “unanimous consent.” RONR (12th ed.) 4:58. Rules are designed to protect a minority that exists. If no minority exists, the rules to handle a motion are typically relaxed by allowing the chair to inquire, “If there is no objection …” and then omit all the steps to handling a motion, including the taking of the negative vote. This assumed motion is adopted unless someone objects. A society that does not employ this approach for most of the meeting decisions is wasting a great deal of the members’ time. A negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant.

These motions do not logically lend themselves to a negative vote. In every case, Robert’s Rules allows for business to be conducted without insisting on an awkward situation that may result from an intrinsically irrelevant negative vote.

Members do not want to watch us play with parliamentary procedure. They need results. In each of these cases, a negative vote would not be illegal. It simply would be intrinsically irrelevant.

NP

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 National Parliamentarian and an annual workshop presenter at the NAP convention and conference. (http://www.roberts-rules.com, email: parliam@roberts-rules.com) www.parliamentarians.org 17

Dueling Parliamentarians

By John R. Berg, PRP

The parliamentarian, seated next to the presiding officer during a meeting, is in a most visible position! What happens when various factions in the assembly have their own parliamentarian or parliamentarians?

That parliamentarian seated next to the presiding officer normally would have been selected by the presiding officer, with any fee to the parliamentarian being borne by the organization. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, (12th ed.) (RONR), 47:48,53. An alternative would be to have a board or other body select and contract with the parliamentarian on behalf the organization. The key element is that the parliamentarian’s client is the organization, not the presiding officer. Conceivably a parliamentarian could be selected and personally paid by the presiding officer. That could compromise the parliamentarian’s appearance of impartiality, particularly if the presiding officer is at odds with leadership or membership factions in 18

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

the organization. The parliamentarian’s client would then be perceived as the presiding officer, and not the organization.

If a faction in the organization has its own parliamentarian aside from the official parliamentarian advising the presiding officer, the parliamentarian’s client clearly would be the faction that engaged the parliamentarian.

Normally, the officially appointed parliamentarian is accepted without reservation or any action by the assembly, although it could object to the appointment of a non-member, particularly if it is perceived that the parliamentarian was appointed with bias. The presiding officer is also free to request the advice of experienced members, particularly if there is no

parliamentarian. (RONR, 23:17).

The attempt of a faction to bring its own outside or non-member parliamentarian into a meeting could be met with opposition by the majority. The assembly has authority to regulate non-members admitted into their meeting. Normally, a non-member would not be permitted to speak during debate without the permission of the assembly. If opposed by the majority, the faction’s parliamentarian may be limited to providing counsel before the meeting and electronically during the meeting.

A local political party had a majority of its voting membership sign a petition to recall their county chairman.

The secretary called a meeting to vote on the recall, and engaged a PRP to serve as the temporary presiding officer at the meeting. The chairman showed up to preside at the meeting, which he claimed was his right under the bylaws. He also brought his own pseudoparliamentarian (someone who claims knowledge of parliamentary procedure but is not a member of the NAP or AIP). An interesting exchange ensued between the PRP and the pseudo-parliamentarian and they ended up sitting on opposite sides of the chairman during the meeting. Those who appealed the chair’s ruling as to his right to preside did not have a majority present to

overturn the ruling of the chair. The recall effort failed.

Apparently, either the majority of the membership who signed the petitions did not feel the need to show up at the meeting, or the chairman was successful in enlisting enough new voting members before the meeting.

A large national organization was engaged in a long-term building project that was progressing and evolving slowly in phases for years. Some of the members believed that the project was diverting too much money and energy away from the primary purposes of the organization and proposed putting a pause on the entire project. The issue was to come before the national board of directors, a large body of nearly a hundred, whose meetings had the appearance of a small convention. The aggrieved faction of members consulted with a PRP who previously had been the national parliamentarian for the organization, but was then serving on the board of directors. The PRP explained strategy, options, moves, and counter moves, all within the context of parliamentary procedure, so that the faction had a better idea as to how they could proceed and what their chances were of success. The end result was that the protest was dropped and did not come www.parliamentarians.org 19

up at the meeting. A bitter fight had been averted.

Consider a situation in which a parliamentarian is engaged for a yearly term as the parliamentarian for an organization. RONR states that the parliamentarian “advises the president and other officers, committees, and members on matters of parliamentary procedure” (47:46). When a meeting is in progress, the parliamentarian typically would be engaged only with the presiding officer. How should the parliamentarian respond, however, if approached by a member between meetings of a session or during a recess and asked how the membership could replace the chair during the meeting? A parliamentarian personally loyal to the presiding officer might not refer them to RONR 62:10-15, which explains how to suspend the rules and temporarily replace the chair. RONR includes the parliamentarian’s role to advise members, which the parliamentarian may do if not specifically prohibited from doing so by his or her contract with the organization. The next question is whether the presiding officer should be advised by the parliamentarian to anticipate a move to replace the chair? Where does the duty to retain confidentialities apply, and just who is the client? See the Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians jointly adopted by the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) and the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP), specifically at 4.4.

20

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

The Code of Ethics addresses the parliamentarian’s duty to the client but does not define the client. Since many parliamentarians serve in organizations to which they belong and are not paid for their services, payment for services cannot be used as the defining characteristic for establishing a client relationship.

Bear in mind that the Code of Ethics applies to all NAP and AIP members, not just the credentialed ones.

The enforcement of the Code of Ethics does not have a long history establishing precedents of interpretation, and the proceedings of enforcement are confidential anyway, so there is little guidance available to parliamentarians. A parallel can be drawn between the parliamentarian’s duty of impartiality and duty to the client with that of an appraiser.

Most appraisers are governed by the strict Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), updated regularly by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation. If an appraiser is being perceived as an appraiser, the appraiser is bound by the USPAP. For example, if an appraiser is known to be an appraiser by a neighbor who says, “The county assessor just valued my house at $250,000 for tax purposes. Should I appeal it?” The wise appraiser would respond that a correct answer is not possible without performing a complete appraisal. If the appraiser instead said, “Yes, your house can’t be worth more than $225,000,” the appraiser

has just performed an appraisal and is in violation of the USPAP because all of the steps necessary to produce a credible appraisal were not taken.”

The problem is exacerbated if the neighbor then hires the appraiser to appraise the house to support an appeal of the assessed valuation. There is an implied expectation that the full appraisal should be at $225,000 or less. The appraiser is then further in violation of USPAP for accepting an appraisal assignment conditioned upon a pre-determined outcome.

Similarly, if a member of NAP or AIP is asked a parliamentary question, as frequently occurs, is a quick answer appropriate without double-checking RONR thoroughly and reviewing applicable governing documents, as would be done when preparing a formal parliamentary opinion? The NAP and AIP Code of Ethics is not as strict and detailed as USPAP for appraisers, but the ethical issues are similar. After answering a simple parliamentary question, the parliamentarian might then be engaged to supply a formal parliamentary opinion, and the client’s expectation would be that the formal opinion would support the initial response.

If a parliamentarian is functioning simply as a member of an organization and other members, knowing of the

parliamentarian’s unique expertise, ask parliamentary questions regarding the business of their organization, has a client relationship been established?

What is the parliamentarian’s duty of impartiality and confidentiality?

On the other hand, if an AIP or NAP member were engaging in debate as a member of another organization and expounding on principles of parliamentary procedure relating to the organization’s business, would it be evident that impartiality would not be expected? What if he or she were knowingly endorsing interpretations of parliamentary procedure that were objectively unreasonable (paraphrasing a draft 2020 revision of the NAP and AIP Code of Ethics)? These are questions for thought and discussion, and no authoritative answers are attempted in this article.

Since most organizations in the United States operate under RONR, there should be little disagreement among parliamentarians regarding the basics of parliamentary procedure.

It is in the application of the complex rules to unique situations that there arises room for differing interpretations.

There are also different ways under RONR to get to a similar end result.

Historically, when two people engaged in a duel, one was occasionally left dead. Beware. NP

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. He is also a retired real estate appraiser. www.parliamentarians.org 21

A P r i mer f o r P res i d i ng Off i cers , P art 2

Formal Control and Penalties

By Carl Nohr, PRP

Control of a meeting is important in achieving the objectives of an organization. As seen in “A Primer for Presiding Officers, Part 1” (Vol 82, No 1, Fall 2020), there are informal and formal ways to control meetings.

Member self-control enhances meeting quality and productivity and can be improved by teaching. The wise chair uses knowledge of the rules, with the application of tact, diplomacy, and calmness, to control the meeting on behalf of the members. At no time should the chair attempt to drown out a disorderly member by using voice or gavel.1 The principles of fairness and appropriate escalation are important in discipline and the imposition of penalties. The same knowledge and skills are used in electronic meetings and in-person meetings.

Formal control of a meeting is primarily the responsibility of the presiding officer.

The presiding officer, whether a member of the association, or an external professional presiding officer, must have knowledge, skills, and certain character attributes to be 1 RONR (11th ed.), p. 645, ll. 14-19 22

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

successful. The needed knowledge and skills include understanding of the organization and its governing documents, both theoretical knowledge of rules of order and practical skills in the application of them, and a familiarity with the organizational culture and personalities of leaders.

The characteristics of an effective presiding officer include impartiality, tact, common sense, immunity to offense, and a blend of gravitas with a sense of humor.

All members play a role in controlling a meeting.

As important as the chair’s role is in controlling a meeting, the chair is not exclusively responsible. The responsibility for maintaining the rules,

The wise chair uses knowledge of the rules, with the application of tact, diplomacy, and calmness, to control the meeting on behalf of the members.

and hence to deal with a disorderly non-member or member, is shared by all members present. Also, individual members may disagree with a ruling of the chair, and may move an appeal from the decision of the chair.2 The most important contribution from members to good meeting control is self-control. A greater understanding by members of meeting management will allow greater contributions and more effective meetings. Excellent answers from the chair to parliamentary inquires, coaching, and teaching moments can all contribute to greater self-control by members, diminishing the need for external control by the chair.

This concept is also an excellent argument for promoting widespread membership in the National Association of Parliamentarians!

During a meeting, a member may call another member to order for offenses against the rules,3 by rising and saying, “Mr. President, I call the member to order.” This is a point of order, and may interrupt the current speaker. If the chair concurs, he declares the offender out of order and directs him to be seated.4 If the offender is currently speaking, the chair asks the assembly whether the member shall be allowed to continue

to speak.5 This question is undebatable, and is dealt with immediately.

Use formal control only to the degree necessary.

Formal control of a meeting is achieved by application of the rules.

The level of strictness should be limited to the point of allowing efficient conduct of business, and may depend on organizational culture and size of the meeting. These concepts, together with the use of tact and good sense by presiding officers are specifically described in RONR: “The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgement is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business. But in large assemblies where there is much work to be done, and especially when there is likelihood of trouble, the only safe course is to require a strict observance of the rules.”;6 and “At the same time, any presiding officer will do well to bear in mind that no rules can take the place of tact and common sense on the part of the chairman.”7 The principles of efficiency and escalation suggests that minor

2 RONR (11th ed.), pp. 255-260 3 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 3-4 4 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 2-6 5 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646. ll. 10-15 6 RONR (11th ed.), p. 456, ll. 13-21 7 RONR (11th ed.), p. 449, ll. 12-14 www.parliamentarians.org 23

infractions of the rules that do not hinder the society’s activities nor affect the rights of any member, should be overlooked. If such a transgression requires comment from the chair, this may be given after rapping the gavel lightly, explaining the matter, and allowing the member to proceed.8 After the meeting, the wise chair will find value in taking a few minutes for informal teaching of the member.

If a more severe offence occurs, or an offense is repeated, the chair or any member may call the offending member to order.9 This level of discipline is impersonal; the member’s name is not used. If the offense is egregious, the member may be named, and the name and offense recorded.10 An organization’s ability to discipline members is restricted to the standing of the member in the organization. The available consequences thus include censure, removal from meetings, fines, removal from office, suspension, or expulsion.11 Consequences outside the control of the organization may ensue if illegal activity has occurred.

If the assembly wishes to impose a further penalty for the offense, a 8 RONR (11th ed.), p. 645, ll. 22-28 9 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 3-4 10 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 16-25 11 RONR (11th ed.), p. 643, ll. 12-15 12 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 26-28 13 RONR (11th ed.), p. 647, ll. 21-23 14 RONR (11th ed.), p. 647, ll. 14-20 15 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 28-33 24

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

member may move to do so, stating the proposed penalty, or the chair may ask, “Shall a penalty be imposed?” The assembly may order that the offending member be censured for the offense.

This warns the member to cease the offending behavior, or risk a further penalty. The next level of escalation is to consider removal from the meeting. The chair cannot demand that a member be removed from the meeting, but the assembly may do so.12 In this case, fairness requires that the member, if they disagree with the penalty of removal, be allowed time to briefly state their position before leaving to allow the assembly to consider the penalty.13 Other possible penalties include apology to an offended member, imposition of a fine, suspension or expulsion from the organization.14 If the offense occurred during a meeting, there is usually no need for a formal trial.15 If fines may be levied against members for defined offenses to the rules, such fines should be listed in the governing documents, and should be of amounts that strike a balance between a reasonable amount and a sufficient deterrent against repetition.

Suspension of membership is a serious penalty that should suffice for all but the worst offenses against the rules of the organization. Suspension may be ordered by the assembly.

The time and nature of the attached restrictions should be explicit, as well as any conditions that must be met prior to considering reinstatement.

The timelines and process for reinstatement should be explicit and documented.

Removal from office, for example membership on the board, committee service, or other assigned or elected positions, may be a logical penalty if the member’s behavior is considered to render them incapable of serving.

In some cases, removal from office is automatic if the member is suspended. Governing documents should be searched for language that would prohibit a member under certain conditions from serving in certain roles.

Expulsion from the organization is the ultimate penalty. All penalties preceding this level can be imposed with a majority vote; expulsion requires a 2/3 vote.16 This is appropriate when the member’s behavior is incompatible with the objectives and governing documents of the organization and there is no desire on the part of the

member, or no opportunity offered by the organization, to come into compliance. Expulsion is also an appropriate step in escalation if any conditions that must be met prior to reinstatement of a suspended member are not fulfilled in the defined time frame. If expulsion is ordered, the organization should consider whether publication to membership is in the organization’s interest, and whether any conditions exist whereby the former member could be readmitted to the organization. As such situations can be challenging, careful and thorough documentation and communication with the member are advised.

At all levels of transgression and possible sanctions, the use of careful consideration of the offense, thorough knowledge of the rules, blended with tact, sensitivity, and diplomacy, will produce the best results. In addition to carefully selecting the people involved in evaluating transgressions, organizations would do well to consider the early use of informal methods of dispute resolution.

Perceived offenses may be the result of ignorance, misunderstanding or poor communication. It would be unfortunate to lose members or to damage relationships unnecessarily. NP

16 RONR (11th ed.), p. 648, ll. 1-2

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

www.parliamentarians.org 25

GORP!

By David Mezzera, PRP

I bet you never, ever thought you’d see an NP article with this title! You may not even know what that word means. But if you’re a trail blazer or backpacker, you’ll know that “gorp” is another name for “trail mix.”

We all know that trail mix is a snack taken along on hikes, and typically contains granola, nuts, candied fruit, and frequently chocolate (M&Ms). It is sometimes called “scroggin” which stands for sultanas, carob, raisins, oranges, grains, glucose, and nuts. Back to our article title, trail mix is also sometimes called “gorp,” an acronym for good ol’ raisins and peanuts (although it contains other nuts, M&Ms or carob bits, and sometimes shredded coconut, plus pretzel or rice sticks).

So, what does all of this have to do with parliamentary procedure? I could say “nothing,” and this article would be finished. But I’m going to suggest that just as trail mix or gorp is a mixture of dissimilar food products put together for one purpose— to provide quick nourishment— you could put together a mixture of seemingly dissimilar parliamentary terms to arrive at an energy boost for yourself and your clients. I’ll give you two examples of how GORP can find its way into your parliamentary life: 1. Pick out an important parliamentary concept or motion (or two or 26

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

three), and study how they should be used correctly. Become an expert in each. Know more about each than any other parliamentarian in your circle of professional colleagues. You’ll never know when one of these items pops up at a meeting, but when it does, you’ll be there, and you’ll be the authority or whiz. So, here’s the challenge: become an expert in one from each of the GORP categories below. For your study, RONR citations from the 12th Edition are provided for each. Which will you use for each letter? Now get hiking and get studying!

Gavel (20:9, 21:20, 61:9-10) Germane (12:16-21, 23:18-21, 43:20) General Orders (41:22-24, 41:41-52) Object to Consideration (§26, 6:17(4), 10:6) Opening Ceremonies (41:30, 59:10, 59:55)

Obtaining the Floor (3:30-35, 42:2-19) Ratify (10:5, 10:54-57, 40:9) Renew (§38, 8:15, 25:6) Reconsider (§37, 6:26(4), 7:2) Preamble (10:16-19, 12:23, 28:7) Proviso (57:15-17, 56:15, 43:39) Postpone Indefinitely (§11, 6:5(1), 14:9)

2. By the way, gorp doesn’t only have to be eaten out on the trail. It is frequently found in a snack bowl at a party or in front of the TV as we watch movies or sporting events.

Some people purchase bags of pre-prepared trail mix, but I’ve seen “scroggin parties” where the guests are asked to bring along various ingredients for the mix, dump all the goodies into a large bowl, mix them up, and everyone

gets to enjoy the same mixture during the party. Do you see the analogy here? Ask each member of your study unit to bring along a motion of their own choice, dump the options into a bowl, pick out one of the choices at a time, and the party guests (attendees at the study session) can all share their expertise about that motion.

All members assembled can consolidate their knowledge just as the trail mix items are consolidated and shared by everyone. So, become an unequivocal expert in some of the above terms and/or help all members of your parliamentary group become experts collectively in key motions or procedures.

Sounds delectable!

NP

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

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

www.parliamentarians.org 27

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers The intent of this column is to provide general answers or advice (not formal, official opinions) about the questions asked. The answers are based on the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, unless otherwise indicated, and do not take into account such governing authorities as statutes, bylaws, adopted special rules of order, other parliamentary authorities, or earlier editions, except as specifically mentioned.

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

Questions should be emailed to npquestions@nap2.org.

Ratification of Executive Committee Actions

Q

Question 14: At a recent meeting, a motion was made for members to ratify, approve, and consent to the business conducted by the executive committee from March 2019 to March 2020. The motion was seconded.

This group meets once a year, which is considered its annual meeting. The executive committee is allowed to conduct necessary business during the year pursuant to the bylaws.

Discussion arose after the motion to ratify. Some members felt ratifying action gave too much latitude to the executive committee to “spend” as they wished. Others felt that as long as the actions of the executive committee were in agreement, and fell within the approved budget, that the motion was superfluous. The motion was defeated.

It has been my experience that at the annual meeting, a motion is made to ratify the actions of the executive committee or board, even if no action has been taken. Is this practice correct?

Answer: There is considerable confusion in the understanding of members on the motion to ratify and on the powers of the executive committee and of the assembly.

A motion to ratify (also called approve or confirm) is used to confirm or make valid action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly. See RONR (12th ed.) 10:54-57 for further rules and examples.

Some actions cannot be ratified. An assembly can ratify only actions of officers, committees, delegates, subordinate bodies, or staff as it would have had the right to authorize in advance. See RONR (12th ed.) 10:55.

28

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

It is imperative to read all governing document (primarily the articles of incorporation or bylaws) provisions carefully because it is possible that different terms and powers for the board and for the executive committee are in effect.

Under Robert’s Rules, the executive committee (or whatever name is established in the bylaws) has exactly the powers the governing documents give them. If the executive committee is empowered to conduct the affairs of the organization between annual meetings, then actions taken in properly called meetings with a quorum present are valid actions. Valid actions do not require ratification.

An executive board (or board of directors) has administrative powers and specified powers. RONR (12th ed.) 56:39. There may also be a smaller executive committee. RONR (12th ed.) 56:40. Both such entities are subordinate. RONR (12th ed.) 56:41. Suggested language for bylaw provisions are given. RONR (12th ed.) 56:43.

Annual reports of the board are given primarily for information but may also contain recommendations. RONR (12th ed.) 51:3(a). At board meetings, the executive committee should give a report of its activities since the last meeting. “No action need be taken on this report, which is generally intended as information only.” RONR (12th ed.) 49:20.

As far as the concern of too much power being put in the hands of the executive committee, that is a matter for the members to consider when amending bylaws. Some organizations limit actions the board and/or the executive committee may take. Some organizations have more frequent meetings, thus putting the responsibility on the members to run the organization more completely.

The practice of the assembly ratifying any actions (or none as you mention) undertaken by the executive committee has no basis in parliamentary practice.

President Appointing Chairmen

Q

Question 15: If the bylaws confer the power to the president to appoint committee chairmen, do these appointments have to be approved by the other officers, the membership, or both? Specifically, our bylaws provide, “The president shall appoint chairmen of all committees, except the Nominations and Elections Committee.”

I have always thought that the president could exercise that power without having to get approval from the other officers or membership to have chairmen he or she wants to serve on his or her board.

What is required to appoint a committee chairman under our bylaws? www.parliamentarians.org 29

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

Answer: Your question is a good example of how much care should be taken in reading governing documents. Sometimes members will make assumptions of the rules in one organization based on their experience with different organizations. Some bylaws do require that approval of the board for certain appointments is required, but this requirement should be clearly stated.

All portions of the bylaws must be consulted, for example, it is necessary to read with care sections on powers of the president, powers of the board, and creation of committees. From the excerpt of bylaws you quote, if there is nothing contradictory in other portions of the bylaws, the president alone may appoint the chairmen of all committees except the nominations and election committee. Under the plain language of this bylaw provision, no approval is required from any other entity.

Your excerpt does not address appointment of committees, merely that of the chairman. If committee composition is not addressed, the bylaws should be amended. For further details on selection of committee chairmen and members, see RONR (12th ed.) 13:17 and 50:11.

Your question concludes with reference to the president selecting chairmen for his or her board. It is not a good practice for presidents to refer to an officer, a chairman, or a board as theirs. Officers, chairmen, and boards serve the organization, not the president.

Bylaw Amendments and Term QUESTION 16: Our association recently amended the bylaw providing that candidates for elected offices may not serve more than two consecutive terms in the same office. The bylaw amendment was adopted. Now, as the election for officers is approaching, there is a difference of opinion on who may seek office.

One group maintains that anyone who served in a particular office during the two most recent terms (two consecutive terms) is, under the bylaws amendment just adopted, not eligible to be elected to the same office.

The other group feels that the new bylaw amendment restriction on serving in a particular office does not affect any past service in office.

This faction believes that anyone may be elected to an office regardless of previous offices or number of terms served.

Which group has the correct interpretation of the newly adopted bylaw?

30

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

Answer: Unless there was a proviso stating that the newly adopted bylaws do not apply to anyone who previously held office in the organization, the group that believes that under the bylaws amendment just adopted, anyone who served in a particular office during the two most recent terms (two consecutive terms) is not eligible to be elected to the same office.

The newly amended bylaws are THE bylaws of the organization and must be applied uniformly without any exception. These newly amended bylaws took effect immediately upon adoption and therefore apply to the incumbent officers.

“An amendment to the bylaws goes into effect immediately upon its adoption unless the motion to adopt specifies another time for its becoming effective, or the assembly has set such a time by a previously adopted motion. While the amendment is pending, a motion can be made to amend the enacting words of the motion to amend by adding a clause such as this: ‘…with the proviso that [or, ‘…provided, however, that’] this amendment shall not go into effect until after the close of this annual meeting.” Or, while the amendment is pending, an incidental motion can be adopted that, In the event of the amendment’s adoption, it shall not take effect until a specified time. Either method requires only a majority vote.” RONR 57:15.

“Amendments to the article on officers may raise difficulties in relation to the time at which adopted changes take effect, unless special care is taken.

A society can, for example amend its bylaws so as to affect the emoluments and duties of the officers already elected, or even to abolish an office; and if it is desired that the amendment should not affect officers already elected, a motion so specifying should be adopted before voting on the amendment, or the motion to amend can have added to it the proviso that it shall not affect officers already elected.” (RONR 57:16) Questions & Answers Research Team

Alison Wallis, PRP Q&A Research Editor

Ann Homer, PRP Assistant Q&A Research Editor

Rachel Glanstein, PRP Parliamentary Consultant

Timothy Wynn, PRP Parliamentarian

www.parliamentarians.org 31

NAP Connections

Zoom Study Group Graduates Four New RPs

By Dorothy L. Gordon, RP

The Ohio Association of Parliamentarians (OAP) Registered Parliamentarian (RP) Zoom study group was organized to learn Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 11th Edition (RONR), in an in-depth online collaborative format. As an educator of 33 years, I know what the academic research reports say about properly structured study groups, and how effectively participants of these groups learn. I was motivated to be at least one of the people to network with Patricia A. Koch, PRP, to look into a teleconferencing format to lead a group of individuals who had a desire to pursue RP status in a distance-learning format.

An OAP email invitation arrived in my inbox to explain a new endeavor, and to invite anyone interested in learning to become an RP. The email stated Patricia Koch would be the PRP mentor. Through trial and error, four willing participants decided to diligently connect as a Zoom group and become accountable to each other and to our mentor. Patricia Koch, William Lavezzi, Nancy Terpening, Bryon Baxter, and Dorothy Gordon all come from different areas of the state of Ohio.

The Zoom interactive platform was significantly helpful to the group’s learning, and has many advantages.

The Zoom group learning format 32

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

allowed each of us to interact with video and audio. The participant materials came from the National Association of Parliamentarians: In Order Study Guide for the NAP Registration Examination, arranged

by Nylanne Scheidegger, PRP. The manual divides parliamentary topics into five succinct parts. This book arrangement accommodates different learning styles. Our mentor provided us with the opportunity to learn, and eventually to own the information.

As we would repeat the questions from the manual for discussion, we would break down information into bite sized pieces (chunk) to facilitate learning. Our eyes would look down and up at the computer screen (scan, or eye-gaze) to focus on the text and participant faces. We found ourselves putting the subject matter into our own words while we continued to give eye contact to our cohorts. Eye-gaze research explains that by scanning and putting information into one’s own words helps learners to make the information their own. This significantly helps foster deeper understanding. As a bonus, each session was recorded, to be available for playback or download. This allowed group members or others throughout the state, to have access to the recordings as a learning tool.

NAP Connections

Everyone in the group valued our discussions and explanations, as well as how we were digging deeper into RONR parliamentary concepts. Our mentor challenged the group to ask “Why?” to most of the questions in the RP Study Guide. No question was too small to ask, or answer. Our mentor provided clear, concise, and well thought out topics for instruction, and provided scenarios that could, or could not, be applicable to the principles of parliamentary procedures.

This Zoom format provides for uninterrupted and convenient sessions.

We were able to meet in the comfort of our homes, while miles apart.

Furthermore, this study group built comradery among the participants, allowed different perspectives among group members, fostered communication skills, provided crucial feedback, support, and encouragement, and allowed each of us to learn from each other, and develop friendships through the process.

This RP study group started on March 4, 2019, and continued to March 30, 2020, for a wrap-up session. A total of 37 sessions were held. Our meeting dates typically consisted of two days per week, a Monday and Thursday, or Monday and Wednesday. Meetings shifted

over time to accommodate the five founding members’ schedules. The study group allocated one hour and thirty minutes for each session.

The group decided to cover the RP Study Guide Part Five, Four, Three, Two, and One, respectively. Three of the four participants took their RP Exams on each section. The other member took all parts of the RP Exam at once. The four participants from this one-of-a-kind, OAP Zoom RP study group, have each successfully passed the Registered Parliamentarian Examination and are now proud Registered Parliamentarians in the state of Ohio.

A ripple effect was created and enhanced NAP, OAP, our Miami Valley Unit study group, and future RP Zoom study group participants.

Two of our members were trained to become OAP Zoom hosts to conduct these online Zoom sessions. William Lavezzi, OAP Webmaster/Social Media Chair, the first host for the group, trained RP study group participants Nancy Terpening and Dorothy Gordon. Some of the subjects covered in the Zoom host training included how to host a Zoom session, writing invites to join a meeting, how to end a session, and problem-solving technical issues.

Dorothy L. Gordon, MEd, RP, is a retired Ohio K-12 Teacher of 33 years, a 2019 50th OAP Annual Session presenter, and PQC Study Group member. She is a 500-hour Yoga Teacher Training student, Health Coach, and a member of the Prince Hall Masonic Medical Team of Ohio, who presents on wellness related topics.

She is a Master Gardener with the state of Ohio. www.parliamentarians.org 33

NAP Connections

Promoting Parliamentary Law Month

By Debra A Henry, PRP

Parliamentary law month provides an excellent opportunity for your unit or association to enthusiastically inform your community on the applications of parliamentary procedure. In the month of April, NAP members should be actively engaged in developing awareness of proper meeting management. The members of your local group should be excited about this prospect. Your question maybe, “How do I share my excitement about this subject with others?” A solid public relations strategy will help you promote your event clearly and consistently.

There are many types of activities that you could produce to implement our organization’s tagline, “Educating the World on Parliamentary Procedure.”

This year, many units may choose to host an educational workshop via a webinar. A cyberspace event is low in cost; ideally, it should be offered to attendees at no cost.

Your approach to promoting the event should be multifaceted. Here are some suggestions for implementing a public relations strategy for your online workshop: Identify your audience • Ask yourself, “Who are my people?”

You should recognize that the people who are most like you would be your constituency. They would be individuals who enjoy working collaboratively and efficiently, and 34

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

belong to boards, legislative bodies, organizations, and/or clubs.

• Suggest that every member of the unit or association commit to issuing no less than 10 invitations per member, utilizing his or her social or professional network.

• Make use of the membership lists provided on the websites of local or regional chambers of commerce to invite their members.

• Perform outreach to boards of church, civic, social, and fraternal organizations.

Brand the event • Give the event a name that is memorable and connected with the objective of your parliamentary law month event.

• Portray the “look and feel” of the event in your design portfolio with graphic elements to give the target audience a preview of what is to come. The design elements should be uniform and recurring in all communication—stationery, flyers, forms, websites.

• Use fonts that are easy to read and commonly used so that the fonts can be replicated and consistent across print and online media.

• Create a logo for the event or utilize your unit’s or association’s logo and integrate it into the design portfolio for the event.

NAP Connections

• Design a web page on your unit’s or association’s website devoted to the details of the event.

• Generate a free URL and complimentary website dedicated to the event if you do not have an existing website.

Reference the URL in all communications related to the event.

Promote the event • Emphasize that this will be a free and fun event. Advertise the value that the user will obtain by attending the event. Have contests, giveaways, skits, and exercises that will increase the enjoyment of your parliamentary law event. Attendees learn more when they are entertained and amused.

• Enlist a celebrity guest whose philosophies are commensurate with the mission of NAP to address the audience. Advertise the presence of the celebrity at your event.

• Ask a local politician to offer a proclamation, and publicize the presence of the politician at the event.

• Invite a professional registered parliamentarian to teach a complex topic at your parliamentary law event, and promote the expertise of that professional as a part of your public relations strategy.

• Distribute a press release to local media: print, television, and radio outlets.

• Submit an op-ed to the local or regional newspaper to advocate for better meetings through parliamentary procedure, and highlight your event.

• Utilize social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Linkedin.

Ask all members of your unit or association to promote the event on their personal social media.

• Create a hashtag to be used consistently online to follow the progression of the event, categorize content, and create a larger audience for the event.

• Produce a promotional video to be utilized in social media posts, your website, and on video platforms like YouTube or Vimeo.

• Grant interviews to local TV and radio outlets in your community.

• Engage an event ticket distribution platform, such as Eventbrite, which will assist in promoting your event to its users. If there is no charge to attendees, there will not be a charge for your unit or association to use the site.

• Invite local newspapers and TV and radio outlets to cover your parliamentary law activity.

One of Benjamin Franklin’s most popular quotes is prescient regarding preparations for parliamentary law month: “If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail.” Whether you use all the suggested strategies or incorporate only a few recommendations to promote your event, I am certain that your unit or association will attract more attendees, provide useful information, and increase membership in NAP. I wish you much success in your parliamentary law month activities!

Debra A Henry, MD, PRP, has attained the highest credential of the National Association of Parliamentarians. A skilled meeting coach, who is a practicing physician and psychiatrist, Debra imparts her knowledge of parliamentary procedure, leadership development, and group dynamics in an insightful and entertaining manner that makes instruction fun.

Debra serves on the NAP Communications Committee. www.parliamentarians.org 35

NAP Connections

NTC Through the Eyes of Youth

By Kianna Bolante, Student Member

Since joining NAP in March 2019, I have been exposed to an endless number of opportunities to expand my parliamentary knowledge and apply that on state and national levels.

The National Training Conference was an exceptional highlight to my journey thus far. Not only did I get to experience the conference as an attendee, listening to the wisdom of profound parliamentarians around the nation, but I was also given the honor of presenting my own workshop as a part of the NAP Youth Committee.

On the receiving end, I was happily overwhelmed by the content choices.

Ranging from three thoughtful sessions covering the significant changes in the 12th Edition of RONR, to meeting preparations within a pandemic environment, and the perfect touch of entertaining interaction through a game of Lotería, there was no piece missing to cover a fulfilling event. My means of parliamentary application is through Career and Technical Student Organizations like Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA). Serving as the National FBLA parliamentarian, one of my goals is to draft bylaw amendments. As a parliamentary procedure competitive event mentor,

I work towards helping students with case scenarios. Workshops like “Amending Bylaws” by Lawrence Taylor, PRP, and “Creating a Presiding Script” by Tim Wynn, PRP, were the perfect fit for what I was involved in as a youth member.

The conference came full circle when I presented my own workshop.

I was finally giving back to an organization that has only enriched my motivation and knowledge to new heights. The workshop I presented, “All That and a Bag of Chips!,” is as fun as it sounds, aiming to bridge the gap between youth and mature adults by promoting mentorship and friendly competition in a game revolving around generational slang.

Being a student member, expected to present in front of numerous people of all ages, I expected to feel nervous.

Don’t get me wrong, the feeling was especially prevalent leading up to the workshop, but it immediately faded away as I noticed all the support I was receiving throughout it. This experience sparked a moment of celebration, giving me the assurance that NAP has and always will be an organization that welcomes their youth unconditionally.

Kianna Bolante is a senior from Fife High School in Washington State. Since joining NAP in March 2019, she has been appointed to numerous officer positions in Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA) where she serves as the State Parliamentarian and the National Parliamentarian, serving over 200,000 members worldwide. Kianna is also a part of NAP’s Youth Committee where she aims to spread parliamentary authority awareness through various online projects and presentations.

36

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

NAP Connections

Parliamentary Law Month Proclamation April 2021 Whereas, since April is the birth month of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the first American manual of parliamentary procedure in 1801, it is an appropriate time to honor him and celebrate the use of parliamentary procedure; Whereas, it is fitting to honor Henry Martyn Robert, author of Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies, also known as Robert’s Rules of Order; Whereas, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely recognized and used parliamentary authority in public and private organizations; Whereas, it is timely to reflect on the importance of parliamentary procedure in meetings in providing for civil discourse, protecting individual rights, ensuring fairness, and in maintaining order; Whereas, The National Association of Parliamentarians® has, by adoption of a standing rule, designated the month of April as Parliamentary Law Month; Whereas, the National Association of Parliamentarians® is a professional society dedicated to educating leaders throughout the world in effective meeting management through the use of parliamentary procedure; and Whereas, the vision of the National Association of Parliamentarians® is to provide parliamentary leadership to the world; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that I, Darlene T. Allen, PRP, President of the National Association of Parliamentarians®, do hereby declare April 2021 as Parliamentary Law Month and call upon the districts, associations, units, and all members to observe the month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities as a way to create the future and bring our mission and vision into reality.

Darlene T. Allen, PRP 2019-2021 NAP President www.parliamentarians.org 37

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Toyin Ajasin (NY) Rhoneise Barnett-Smith (DE) Cynthia Bell (TX) Darryl Blackwell (PA) Diane Blount (DC) Janice Booker (TN) Winnie Brinkley (DC) Annie Class (FL) Cheryl Corbin (TX) Beverly Davis (NY) Demetreecia Davis (DE)

Tamika Davis-Cannon (DE) Donna Delfyett-White (NY) Veronica Dowling (AZ) Barbara Franklin (AL) Nkenge Gilliam (NY) Malik Goodson (NY) Janice Gray (CO) Aubreana Holder (NY) Tonda Ladson (NY) Gary Leach (CA) Josiah Leonard (NC)

Lanette Littlejohn (IL) Kimberly Morgan (ELEC) Skip Novakovich (WA) Anilsa Nunez (NY) Cheryl Oleyar (CO) Javette Orgain (IL) Carla Patrick-Fagan (MI) Charlene Proctor (MD) Fatima Robinson (NY) Sarah Russell (FL) Shealese Russell-Reams (DE) Joshua Schreck (WA)

Dawn Stewart (NY) Jian Qun Tang (CH) Vivian Tansil (MI) Erik Tejada (NY) Arabella Walker (FL) Andrea Webster (NY) Maggalean Weston (DC) David White (NY) Orson Williams (NY) Loraynne Wilmer (DE) Jacquita Wright-Henderson (DE)

NEW Professional REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians: Jackquline May (ELEC) Martha Rollins (VA) Shawn Paine (OK) Edward Nelson (FL) Adrian Stratton (NY) Ronald Dupart (DC)

Sandra Baker (NJ) Dawn Baskerville (NY) Nona Fisher (TX) Daniel Nowiski (MI) Heather Ewasiuk (MB) Diana Bacon (AB)

Traci Bransford-Marquis (ELEC) Steven Hicks (Virginia) Allison David (NY) Carole Brinkley (NY) Pamela Harmon (TX) Branden Cave (AB)

Angela Foster (DC) Joy Foster (NY) Isatu Kanu-James (NY) Sally LaMacchia (CA) Gail Lover (CA) Beryl Miles (NY)

Silent Gavels* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Jacqueline Achong (OK)

Raymond Duke (VA)

Linda Juteau (NY)

Marjorie Vogel (KS)

Bernie White (NS)

New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Krista Anderson (MN) Danielle Bratton (IL) Diane Brock (NJ) Dawn Bundick (ELEC) JoAnne Challenger (NY) Gail Fung (NJ) John Johnson (NJ) Aquila Leon-Soon (NJ) Marisa Singh (NJ) Justen Wright (DE) Teresa Devine (TX) Renee Frazier (NY) Lucretia Stewart (GA) Kaitlin Camp (GA)

Carolyn Lecque (SC) Michele Parker (MI) Elena Coley (NJ) Stephanie Edwards (MI) Robin McDaniel (West VA) Sandra Nelson (TN) Billette Owens Ashford (GA) Avania Richardson-Miller (NJ) Yolanda Scipio-Jackson (NJ) Yvonne Solomon (MI) Lisa Archer (NJ) Amma Avant (NJ) Priscilla Barnett (NJ) Sharon Black-Johnson (MI)

Brenda Browne (NJ) Al Qadr Camillo (NJ) Vanessa Coakley (MI) Donita Cordell (MI) Marlo Crowder (OH) C. Andre Daniels (NJ) Sandra Diodonet (NJ) Leslie Foster (NJ) Hoo Kok Gan (Malaysia) Cordelia Golden (NJ) Marianne Grano (MI) Kelly Griffin (NJ) Marsha McFadden (ELEC) Kahli Mootoo (NY)

Eleanor Peterson (MS) Samuel Raines (MD) Chad Royer (NY) Debbie Skeete Bernard (NJ) Nerissa Smith (NEAP) Jahshae Stewart (NJ) Margaret Talton-Williams (MI) Eric Teel (NJ) Lynell Wright (TX) Robert Bledsoe (NEAP) Debra Esterak (TX) Deanna Rush (FL) Schurron Cowart (NY) Lisa Martin (West VA)

* For the period September 16, 2020 through December 15, 2020 38

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

NAP Connections

New Members* Helen Morales (NY) Samantha Price (TX) Phillip Reichner (SC) Brenda Roper (ELEC) Valery Tarver (OH) Cassandra Borders (MI) Dana Boyd (MI) AB Britton (MI) Jenine Elbert (MI) Nisette Gray (MI) Carine Hails (MI) Gena Harrison (MI) Kimberly Horne (MI) Cheryl Hudson (MI) Cheryl Minor (NY) LaDonna Moore (MI) Cynthia Pearson-Matthews (MI) Cassandra Williams (OH) Rachelle Akinwusi (MI) Raquel Banks (MI) Riya Bhivare (MI) Letitia Block (OH) Paulette Carter-Scott (MI) Louise Edje (MI) Tricia Edwards (MI) Cheryl Emanuel (MI) Laverne Fisher (OH) Johnetta Fisher (MI) Roneca Glenn (MI) Dana Hill (OH) Meredith King (OH) Dellisa Lewis (MI) Mary McDonald (MI) Judy McElroy (OH) Mia McNeil (MI) Tara Miller (MI) Eunice Moore (MI) Shenique Moss (MI) Cleather Nichols (MI) Peggy Odom-Reed (NY) Vikshita Palleria (MI) Tiyanna Payne (MI) April Raines (NC) Arya Shah (IL) Ada Smith (MI) Tonie Stokes (MI) Deanne Surles (MI)

continued Rhonda Thomas (MI) Kelly Tuong (MO) Kenya Williams (NY) Michele Williams (MI) Yvonne Anthony (TX) DeAnna Cambridge (MI) Pamela Durden (MI) Felicia Foster-Gibson (MI) Tammy Fussell (OH) Whitney Gaskins (OH) Ra’Shanda Glenn (MI) Kristina Hinckson (NJ) Wanda Hines McGriff (NY) Sharon Hoskins (NY) Mallori King (OH) Lesa Moore-Williams (MI) Jacqueline Newman (MI) Cheryl Phillips (OH) Gloria Polk (MI) Norma Rodgers (NJ) Angela Rush (OH) Ericka Shoulars (NJ) Yvette Slate (OH) Melanie White (MI) Madinabonu Ashurova (IL) Shawanda Beale (NJ) Renee Belton (NJ) Kevin Bob (NJ) Kinjal Chaudhari (IL) Francine Davis (NJ) Regina Hall (NY) NaTasha Harley (NC) Amena Haynes (NY) Illonka Hines (NY) Keisha Jones (NY) Jennifer Okolo (TX) Johanne Pearson (MI) Mansi Vaghela (MI) Tracy Wheeler (NJ) Shawn Wilson (NJ) Troy Wilson (NJ) Tiana Beard (ELEC) Suzanne Burckhalter (SC) Regina Jackson (ELEC) Danielle Peterson (ELEC) Dawn Sherman (ELEC) Christy Singleton (MD)

Lewis Vetter (TX) Charlena Young (ELEC) Catharine Archer (Bahamas) Amelia Bell-Hawkins (FL) Deborah Catchings-Smith (MO) Cheri Cox (IL) Courtney Garland (AL) Crystal Moore (ELEC) Bridgette Motley (MI) Carol Wagar (OR) Sherita Belle (DE) Benjamin Cohen (FL) Shaneka Giscombe (NY) Pamela Griffin (GA) Lorelie Knowles (Bahamas) Joseph McConnell (CO) Michele Nelson (CA) Bevely Roberts (MI) Kelly Spencer (IL) Mattie Taliaferro-Patterson (AR) Binh To (WA) Karen Watts-Jones (WA) Ashwin Balaji (MI) Alex Brower (WI) Tanya Davis (NY) Carla Gardner-Jones (TN) Thomas Greco (SD) Brandy Johnson (WI) Krystal Kay (IL) Cynthia Miree-Coppin (MI) Vasudha Nimmagadda (MI) Varun Nimmagadda (MI) Jennifer Scruggs (NEAP) Crystal Sewell (MI) Alicia Smith (SC) William Sudduth (SC) Marcia Thomas (MI) Jo Vaughn (MI) Sharee Fink (MI) Janet Gardner (IL) Maliyka Muhammad (NY) Corey Fleming (NY) Crystal Franklin (NY) Danez Lockhart (FL) Tamika Manifold (NY) Taryn McNamee (CA)

Vineta Mitchell (MI) Henry Etta O’Neal (TX) John Piercy (NJ) Michele Rawls (DE) Ryann Smith (DE) Gail Edwards (PA) Gail Forest (OH) Meghana Lanka (MI) Wesley Ramsey (NY) Eyonna Tredway (MI) Lisa Mack (OH) Gwendolyn Bush (MI) Sandra Clemons (PA) Melody Coleman (IL) Pauline George (MI) Carrol Glispie (MI) Maurice Gray (DE) Velvet Mickens-Newman (PA) Mary Pasqualetto (NY) Deborah Santiago (NY) Elton Smith (DE) Aidan Smith (DE) Jacqueline Blakey (PA) Courtney Cole (MI) Shane Gilmore (TX) Angela Hayden (PA) Janice Moore (MI) Estella Norwood Evans (NY) Pamela Stephens-Jackson (NY) Philip Storm (MO) Andrew Mackenzie (OR) Tiffany Matthews (DE) Brenda Johnson (NEAP) Wendy Lattibeaudiere (NY) Anthony McPherson (NEAP) Chrystal Porter (NEAP) Kathryn Simmons (NY) Autumn Smoot (NY) Aprylle Wallace (NEAP) Sophia Azim (WI) John Fannin (DE) Felicia Fett (VA) Kecia Ford (NY) Darlene Kemp (NY) Crystal Leotaud (NY) David Love (CA) Sybil Mimy Wells (NY)

* For the period September 16, 2020 through December 15, 2020 www.parliamentarians.org 39

NAP Connections

New Members* Camille Titus (NY) Kadeem Brown (NY) Kafi Meadows (NEAP) Linda Monteiro (NEAP) Rosa Simmons (FL) Ali Ali (Middle East) Vnai Ashe (VA) LeRoy Barr (NY) Stephanie Bell-Knight (DE) Tonya Cantlo (NY) Christopher Ellis (NY) Cedric Gaddy (NY) Elizabeth Gill (NY) Sidney Joyner (NY) Karen Ledford (MI) Nigel Margetson (NY) Jackie Morrison-Brailsford (NY) Gbenga Oluwajuyigbe (Nigeria) Rhonda O’Reilly Bovell (NY) Nicole Price (ELEC) Mary Redd-Clary (VA) Kristin Robinson (NY) Annie Sowell (OH) Ashley Stuart (OK) Charlotte Taylor Powers (IL) Karla Twyman (DE) Linda Valentine (NY) David Fry (NY) Debra Lucas (NY) Casey Moreau (WA) Imogen Pohl (AB) Constance Taylor (FL) Carma Anderson (NY) Joseph Barnhardt (DE) Ashley Bovell (NY) Brian Bratten (DE) Lawrence Collister (TX) Theresa Coney (NEAP) Ramsey Cooper (ELEC) Chenita Daughtry (NEAP) Morgan Elliott (Arizona) Kevin Evans (DE) Royston Gordon (OH) Richard Gordon (OH) Myles Greene (NY) Letitia Harris (NEAP)

continued Angela Hunter (NEAP) Carla Hunter Ramsey (NY) Wanda Jackson (NY) Dhruv Jain (Ontario) Lawrence Johnson (DE) Sharon Jones (NEAP) Dimitri Julien (NY) Daphne Kelly (NY) Karlton Kelly (NY) Joseph LaChapelle (ELEC) Cheryl Locks (DE) Kathy Lucas (NEAP) Gregg McCullough (OH) Jessica McNeill (NEAP) Kent Moline (WA) Thomas Mosher (WA) Juliet Ramsey (NY) Jayden Reyes (NY) Jerrell Robinson (NY) Linda Simms-Chin (NY) Victor Taylor (ELEC) Darryll Thomas (NY) R. Wesley Thrower (GA) Jackie Wallace (TX) Clayton Ward (NY) Shawn Williams (NY) Iantha Smiley (VA) Lorene Krumm (NV) Tami McKay (NV) Alex Montgomery (MI) Steven Taylor (NY) Sharon Abramski (NY) Steven Plank (NY) Rhoneise Barnett-Smith (DE) Marie Bjork-Haugen (WA) Patricia Carter (FL) Tangela DuPree (FL) Mary Giannini (WA) Regina Gray (DE) Martha Johnson-Rutledge (FL) Latonya Kearse (SC) Terri Kelly (GA) Victor Kyler (DE) Rhonda McDaniel (GA) Phyllis Mitchell (GA) Zion Reams (DE) Gregory Short (TX)

Monique Slater (FL) Yvonne Barnett (DE) Constance Beckman (FL) Kristin Beery (VA) Patti Bratten (DE) Janice Campbell (SC) Debra Crump (GA) Kemba Ellerbe (NY) Jennea Ellis (PA) Doralo Fuller (TX) Dawn Griffin (GA) Marcia Hall (GA) Shenninta Newman (MD) Justina Reynolds (GA) Crystal Richardson (MI) Brianna Robinson (NY) Linda Thompson (GA) Amadi Utak (NY) Iola Williams (NJ) Deborah Wright (DE) Theresa Blank (MD) Saundra Brown (FL) Darlene Buckstead (MO) Shelly Clark (GA) Rory Etienne (TX) Pearl Givens (SC) Myesha Good (GA) Tracia King (GA) Patrice King (CA) Stacey-Ann Lewis (NEAP) MiShawna Moore (GA) Veronica Ransom (NY) Samantha Rodwell (AB) Shealese Russell-Reams (DE) Walette Stanford (FL) Pia Stokes (DE) Amy Hansen (Alaska) Katrina Banks (NY) Todd Bolden (NJ) Demetreecia Davis (DE) Tamika Davis-Cannon (DE) Daron Gersch (MN) Kiesha Humphrey (NY) Michelle Jones (British Columbia) Gloria Mercado (VA) Marsha Stringer (GA) Anthony Thompson (NY)

Diann West (GA) Loraynne Wilmer (DE) Linda Bassett (OR) Barbara Bowens (FL) Fredrica Brailsford (SC) Ayoka Campbell (GA) Faith Denson-Moorehead (NY) Mildred Drayton (GA) Dennis Harrell (TX) Christy Jackson (GA) Brenda Jackson-McKnight (SC) Alice Jenkins (GA) Mary Jimerson (GA) Jacqueline Sheriod-Scott (SC) Mary Smith (FL)

Thank you instructors!

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Martine Assaf Adebola Babatunde Sadie Boles, PRP Charles Bowles Jacqueline Compton Bunch, RP Kevin Connelly, PRP Violet Corbett Kay Crews, PRP Maurice Henderson, PRP Alaina Jackson Joy Jackson-Guilford Jewel Jones, PRP Patricia Koch, PRP Gail Knapp, PRP Marian Martin, PRP Edwin Miles, RP Brian Pelkie, RP Rob Robinson, PRP Norma Rodgers Eleanor Siewert, PRP Beverly Tatham, PRP Mary Westmoreland Roland Williams, PRP

* For the period September 16, 2020 through December 15, 2020 40

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2021

Call to Meeting At lanta • G eo rgia

43rd

NAP Biennial Convention September 9-12, 2021 • Expert-led educational sessions • Parliamentary procedure in action • Informative interactive 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