National Parliamentarian magazine (Vol. 82, No. 3)

NP

Volume 82, No. 3 | Spring 2021

National Parliamentarian

Embracing Electronic Meetings Selling Your Practice Responsibly. . . . . . . . . . . . page . 4 Meet the 2021-2023 Board Candidates. . . . . . page 20 Helping Candidates Succeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 40

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

National Parliamentarian

Volume 82, No. 3 | Spring 2021

Contents From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message Embracing Electronic Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEATURES

Vice President Wanda M. Sims, PRP

Selling Your Practice Responsibly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Jason V. Morgan, PRP

Secretary Kevin R. Connelly, PRP

The Idea You Intend to Convey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 John R. Berg, PRP

Treasurer Carrie Dickson, PRP

Best Practices for Zoom Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Justin Schmid

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

Use Your INDEX Finger! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 David Mezzera, PRP A Rebuttal to “The Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Vote” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Weldon L. Merritt, PRP Meet the Candidates: 2021-2023 Board of Directors . . 20 Answer Key (Use Your INDEX Finger!) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 DEPARTMENTS

Parliamentarian Timothy Wynn, PRP

Test Yourself

Legal Advisor Melanye Johnson, RP

NAP Connections

Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh

Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 NAPEF: Your Donation Makes a Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 NAP Body of Knowledge: Your Template to Parliamentary Knowledge and Performance . . . . . . . . . 36 Cynthia R. Mayo, PRP, and Margie R. Booker, PRP Helping Candidates Succeed with the New RP Credentialing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

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

New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . 42 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 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. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2021 (Summer 2021) Volume 83, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2021 (Fall 2021) Volume 83, No. 2 . . . . . . November 1, 2021 (Winter 2022)

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 ©2021 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

How does the new Code of Professional Responsibility influence a decision to sell or buy a parliamentary practice?

Read the article by Jason Morgan to find out. Are you up to date on current benefits and drawbacks to using the Zoom platform for meetings? Get a Zoom review, offered

by Justin Schmid. Think you know how to search the index of RONR (12th ed.)? Check in and compare your knowledge of terms used in the 12th edition of RONR as you read David Mezzera’s article! And don’t miss the report on the PowerPoint lessons for RP credential candidates, their teachers, and their mentors, brought to you by the new NAP Special Committee on RP Education.

We hope you enjoy the variety of topics provided this quarter by your fellow NAP members.

2

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

President’s Message

Embracing Electronic Meetings We have reached a milestone! It has been more than one year since we adapted to using social distancing and personal protective equipment in our service as parliamentarians. Some embraced the change with open arms. Some fought the change with clenched fists.

Ultimately, we have been able to share our techniques and help build a process that allows organizations to meet in an electronic environment to conduct their business.

But what have we really learned? And where do we go from here?

Through trial and error, we have learned that one of the most difficult tasks undertaken in electronic meetings is remembering to mute and unmute before and after speaking. We have learned that an electronic meeting takes twice as long from start to finish as an in-person meeting if not managed effectively. We have learned that multitasking and inattention while in the meetings contribute to the extended time spent in electronic meetings. We have learned the chat window has become a replacement for social interaction, and can mask questions of procedure and requests for actions if not monitored. Singularly, these are minor inconveniences; but collectively, they have the potential to create unproductive and chaotic meetings. Parliamentary procedure will help the meeting flow better once the inconveniences are addressed.

With each new meeting there are opportunities to take stock of what is in place to conduct a successful meeting. Observing techniques and testing the techniques in various settings help us to determine what to place in our parliamentary toolboxes.

Your toolbox is not meant to sit in the corner stuffed with tips and tricks and collect dust. Use your toolbox and be willing to share what you have learned. Is there a webinar presentation given by you waiting in the wings?

Parliamentary Law Month is celebrated each April in the National Association of Parliamentarians®. It is my hope that units and associations opened their toolboxes and shared their experiences. We learn from each other. When we are no longer eager to learn, complacency sets in. It also is my hope that units and associations have made known their existence to, and shared their knowledge with, nonmembers though exhibits, public service announcements, workshops, and other means.

The American humorist, Will Rogers, was quoted as saying, “Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” If your unit or association has not availed itself of the information on the NAP website that provides direction for meetings during the pandemic, it is time to end the dormancy. The end of inactivity is only a click away.

Remain safe and alert, Darlene T. Allen, PRP 2019-2021 NAP President www.parliamentarians.org 3

Selling Your Practice Responsibly

By Jason V. Morgan, PRP

Under the retired Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians, it was difficult to sell a parliamentary practice when retiring or moving away from local clients.

Potential buyers would be concerned that paying for a practice would mean impermissibly giving something of value to someone for recommending their services. This limited the potential for the profession to grow. But under the newly adopted Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians, parliamentarians are explicitly allowed to purchase a parliamentary practice.

This change could be seminal.

Parliamentarians now have more incentive to grow their practices, build relations with clients and colleagues, and develop practices, procedures, contacts, and other tangible and intangible assets that can be packaged for sale to parliamentarians seeking to quickly expand their own practices. This means that parliamentary practices are likely to become more professionalized, thus creating value for clients and to new and potential parliamentarians alike.

Parliamentarians have new opportunities to invest or earn material reward, but they also face new risks. Because this is a new provision, and because parliamentarians rarely buy or sell their practices, understanding how to navigate these risks is vital.

The clause to allow a parliamentarian to pay for the purchase of a parliamentary practice was inspired by the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Rules for 4

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

Professional Conduct, Rule 1.17.

Under the ABA rules, a lawyer may sell or purchase a law practice if (1) the seller ceases to engage in the private practice of law in the area or jurisdiction in which the practice has been conducted, (2) the entire practice is sold to another lawyer or law firm, (3) the seller gives written notice of certain client rights to each of the seller’s clients, and (4) fees charged to clients are not increased by the sale.

Although the Code of Professional Responsibility is less detailed than the rule that lawyers follow, parliamentarians should follow similar practices to protect their clients and to protect themselves: First, when buying or selling a parliamentary practice, the seller must cease to practice in the area where parliamentary services have been provided. This could be a geographic area or an area of service. For example, a seller who is moving to a new state, shifting from serving homeowners associations to serving charitable nonprofits, or retiring from paid parliamentary practice altogether would likely have no difficulty showing that the parliamentary practice sale was legitimate and not just a cover for a prohibited scheme in which clients are developed and then sold like commodities.

Second, the parliamentarian selling the parliamentary practice must evaluate potential buyers to make sure they are

qualified to offer continued quality services. The seller must practice due diligence, especially if the seller’s clients have complicated structures or dynamics requiring high levels of knowledge, skills, and abilities. Sellers also must practice due diligence by, for example, reviewing résumés of potential buyers to verify that they have current credentials, interviewing potential buyers, and talking with potential buyer references. At some point before the sale, the buyer may also need to review enough information about the seller’s clients to ensure that the buyer can provide service without conflict. Parliamentarians have duties to their clients regarding matters such as withdrawing from employment (rule 4.7); not misrepresenting parliamentary credentials, education, experience, or other qualifications (rules 2.1 and 3.1); fulfilling agreements with clients (rule 4.1); and declining certain appointments (rules 3.3 and 3.4). All these provisions can come into play when a parliamentary practice is sold.

Third, before the sale is finalized, the seller should contact all the seller’s clients to inform them of the proposed sale, to inform them that they may choose another parliamentarian or take possession of the files the parliamentarian has for them (rather than allow them to be transferred to the buyer), and to give them an opportunity to object to the transfer. In fact, before

finalizing the sale, the seller should seek informed consent from all clients to meet the requirement of confidentiality under rule 4.4.

Fourth, fees should not increase because of the sale. The sale of a parliamentary practice cannot be used to avoid the seller’s obligation to provide service “in accordance with any agreement with the client” under rule 4.1.

Although fees can eventually be raised, reasonable client expectations of continuity should be met. Moreover, the time and expense spent by the seller and buyer in transferring the practice cannot reasonably be charged to the clients.

Such charges would reflect adversely on the profession and be a violation of rule 2.1.

Parliamentarians should be careful when buying or selling a parliamentary practice, but they should not let the risks deter them from exploring opportunities to quickly expand or accept reasonable renumeration as a reward for contributing to the profession. With reasonable effort and diligence, parliamentarians can transfer parliamentary practices while protecting themselves and their clients. And now that parliamentarians can get rewarded for building up their services, while helping provide for continuity of services to clients, much of the potential for the parliamentary profession to expand has been unleashed. NP

Jason V. Morgan, JD, PRP, CP, has served on the NAP Professional Standards Committee since 2019. In addition to providing parliamentary services to organizations in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, Mr. Morgan has a long career in government service that has included service related to both technology and law. The opinions expressed in this article are those of Mr. Morgan alone. www.parliamentarians.org 5

The Idea You Intend to Convey

By John R. Berg, PRP

Gilbert & Sullivan’s opera “H.M.S. Pinafore” premiered in 1878, just two years after Henry M. Robert’s Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies. To assure that the audience did not miss an important plot point sung by the character Buttercup, the character Sir Joseph asks, “Then I am to understand that...?” and he summarizes the plot point. Buttercup then responds, “That is the idea I intended to convey.”

The important concept here is that the listener repeats back to the speaker what the listener understood from the speaker, followed by the original speaker confirming the correct understanding. This is referred to as reflective listening.

It is important for us as parliamentarians to assure that the meaning that we intend to convey is clear and that our words cannot be misunderstood.

Similarly, the chair repeats the pending question to the assembly before debate, frequently during debate after there are amendments or other secondary motions, and again before the final vote.

6

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

In written bylaws, resolutions, or any other rules, the meaning must be clear enough so that it cannot be easily misunderstood or even intentionally misinterpreted. One effective method in translating documents into another language involves having another person translate the document back into the original language so that the original translator can determine if it still has the meaning intended to be conveyed.

Having more than one person reviewing a draft for clarity is a useful process, and this practice contributes to the value of committees in drafting documents.

Words often have more than one meaning, and meanings change over time.

If my grandmother back in 1920 said that her husband was gay, it would have a quite different meaning than my granddaughter today saying that her best friend is gay. Think of the traditional Christmas Carol “Deck the Halls” with the line “Don we now our gay apparel” as another example of how the word meaning changes.

Free and freedom used to mean primarily without compulsion or constraint, and the concept of without cost or obligation was only a minor usage. Today, with advertising being extensive, the term free is generally understood to mean without cost or obligation, with the former meaning limited to matters relating to police custody.

Cleave is actually two different words, with two different origins, which happen to be spelled and pronounced the same. Yet they have opposite meanings. Cleave, meaning to adhere firmly, closely, loyally, or unwaveringly, comes from the Old High German kleben, to stick. Cleave, meaning to divide as if from cutting, comes from the Old Norse klufa, to split. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, (11th ed.), 2014, p. 230.

This can be confusing at a marriage ceremony at which the couple is admonished to cleave together and allow no one to cleave the marriage asunder.

Invalid means not valid. Ineligible means not eligible. Incoherent means not coherent. Yet inflammable means flammable, contrary to the usual usage of the prefix “in,” which typically negates the following part of the word. The currently increased usage of the term invaluable to mean valuable can be confusing and even irritating to those who think invaluable should mean not valuable.

The classic vaudeville routine “Who’s on First” made famous by

Abbott and Costello is a classic example of words being misunderstood. If the reader is not familiar with this routine, stop reading right now and do a quick Internet search of “who’s on first.” The humor and confusion arise because the baseball players assigned to first, second, and third base have the names of Who, What, and I Don’t Know, respectively.

Abbott tries to tell Costello the names of the respective players on the team and six minutes of chaos ensues. See also their routine on getting dough for loafing at a bakery. (Dough can mean unbaked bread or be slang for money, and loafing can mean not working or forming loaves of bread.)

Confusion can be introduced in bylaws when any attempt is made to incorporate rules from elsewhere.

If the bylaws of a subordinate body want to reference the provisions of the superior body that are binding on the subordinate body, it is best to have only a simple reference or no reference at all. If an attempt is made to quote the superior provisions, conflict can arise if the superior bylaws are amended before inferior ones are amended to conform. If the superior bylaws are paraphrased, even more confusion arises because the inferior bylaws would be misleading and superseded by the bylaws of the superior body.

Likewise, parliamentary rules from the adopted parliamentary authority should not be included in bylaws or www.parliamentarians.org 7

special rules of order unless there is an attempt to supplement or overrule the adopted parliamentary authority.

Simply to paraphrase something from the parliamentary authority can be disastrous because the bylaw or special rule of order provision would supersede the carefully worded provision in the parliamentary authority.

If a bylaw states “the president appoints all committees as she deems appropriate to promote the work of the society,” is the intent to allow the president to create committees rather than simply name members to the committees created by the bylaws or the society? The default rule in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, RONR (12th ed.), 50:13(d), is that the president does not have authority to create committees. The bylaws should either use the wording referenced in RONR, “The president shall appoint all committees” (with any needed exceptions), or should state very clearly that the president has authority to create and establish committees.

Some bylaws state that something must be adopted by a majority of the quorum. The intent might be that something is to be adopted by a majority of votes cast, with a quorum being present at the meeting.

However, the literal meaning would be a majority of the quorum, such that if the membership were 100, a quorum is 51; if 70 were at the meeting and 65 voting, a majority of the quorum would be 26 votes. Yet, under RONR, the majority needed 8

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

for adoption in that case would be 33.

It would be easier to state, “adopted by the members.” RONR puts in the requirement of a majority vote, meaning, “more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting” (44:1).

Likewise, if the bylaws were to state that something must be adopted by a majority of the membership, is the intent to mean the majority of the entire membership, or just a majority vote at a meeting of the membership as opposed to a meeting of the board?

If the first, it would require a majority of the total membership regardless of how many were at the meeting. In that case, the term “majority of the entire membership” should be used as it appears in RONR. Again, avoid throwing out the carefully balanced and worded provisions in RONR. Neither of the terms simple majority nor super majority appear in RONR. To some, simple majority means a plurality, or more than any other alternative. Yet, to others, it means more than half, or as RONR defines, majority.

Table as a verb is another example of something to be avoided unless you are operating under a parliamentary authority other than RONR that clearly defines the term.

It is best to avoid terms that do not have a universally understood meaning.

If, on a Tuesday, two people agree to meet next Friday, one may think that means the Friday coming up in three days, while the other may think it means Friday of the next week, which would be ten days later. As with the reflective listening introduced above, confusion can be avoided by confirming with detailed information, such as, “yes, we can meet on Friday the 17th” or “Friday in ten days.” In responding to an email or text message, rather than responding with a simple “yes,” respond with something like, “Yes, I can be at the meeting at the lodge building at 4:00 p.m. on Friday the 17th.” That gives the original sender the opportunity to correct any misinformation.

The 1958 song “Purple People Eater”

by Sheb Wooley raises the question of what a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater eats. Is it purple and eats people, or does it only eat purple people? Without clarifying punctuation, it could be more clearly described as a one-eyed one horned flying eater of purple people.

Pronouns can also be confusing, even without current gender issues.

To say that Bill wanted to hit Jim but didn’t because he was too small, could be confusing if either the writer

or reader was not clearly versed on English language grammar rules and usage. Was it Bill who was too small or Jim? It certainly makes a difference as to which idea is intended to be conveyed.

Robert’s original 1876 Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies was intended to apply during meetings. After having been revised and newly revised, RONR now contains provisions applying to many administrative functions of an organization outside of the meetings themselves. If the bylaws only specify that RONR applies to the meetings of the society, confusion may arise over its application in other functions of the organization.

Communication involves ideas that are intended to be conveyed by words in such a way that the receiver takes those words and recreates the same original ideas.

Careful wording of motions and documents in the first place can assure that the idea intended to be conveyed is conveyed. There is an old carpenter’s rule of thumb, “Measure twice, cut once,” If you do not have time to do it right the first time, when will you ever have time to correct it? NP

John R. Berg, PRP, was president of the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians 2017-2021 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 and now serves as its vice president. www.parliamentarians.org 9

Best Practices for

Zoom Meetings

By Justin Schmid

Many organizations were forced to move online due to the pandemic, and for many, Zoom became the default online platform.

However, Zoom presents some technical challenges to meet the parliamentary demands for proper deliberative assemblies.

10

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

This article provides advice on best practices for running meetings on the Zoom platform in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, (12th ed.) (RONR). Note that Zoom constantly updates their software, so new features may have been added or changed since this article was written.

Always make sure to update your Zoom application before a meeting.

Authorization in Bylaws Before moving your meeting over to Zoom, check your bylaws or governing documents to see if they permit electronic meetings. RONR (12th ed.) 9:30. In some cases, legislation or emergency measures may permit electronic meetings.

Robert’s Rules of Order provides sample bylaw provisions and rules in the Appendix. The sample provided for Scenario A: Use of Full-Featured Internet Meeting Services would be appropriate for Zoom meetings.

Chairing Versus Hosting a Zoom Meeting While it might seem to make sense that the chair, as presiding officer, will also be the host of the Zoom meeting, it is better that someone else take on those responsibilities.

Just as the chair of a meeting wouldn’t be responsible for signing in members and handling other administrative matters during the

meeting, someone else should take on the responsibility of hosting the Zoom meeting and handling the technical duties required during the meeting.

The chair should instead be made a co-host. Zoom allows any number of co-hosts. A co-host has all the same controls as the host, except that the host alone can start and end the meeting, open a waiting room, make another participant a co-host, and control breakout rooms.

The tasks handled by a host or co-host on a Zoom call would typically fall to a membership secretary or sergeant-at-arms, but the role might be filled by anyone who possesses necessary technical skills.

Depending on the size of the meeting and confidentiality issues, this might be a member or an outsider, paid or volunteer.

General Tips Rehearsal: Running a rehearsal of the meeting with only the chair, hosts, co-hosts, and other key participants involved in running or organizing the meeting provides a safe and private opportunity to practice using the various tools.

Problems or challenges can be identified in advance of the actual meeting.

Practice Session: Depending on the size, experience level of the participants, and complexity of the meeting, a practice session scheduled a day or two in advance of the actual meeting will allow participants to test out their equipment, troubleshoot any problems, and gain

experience with the Zoom platform and its features and tools.

Proper Identifier: Participants must all be identified by their proper name. If not, they can be renamed by the host or co-host in the meeting so that everyone knows the participant’s true identity.

Participants who cannot be identified properly may be Removed by the host or a co-host, as they cannot be identified as members. RONR (12th ed.) 61:7.

Participant Panel: When you click on Participants at the bottom of the main Zoom page in the meeting controls, it will bring up a panel that shows a list of the participants in the meeting, as well as the number of participants. This is the participant panel. The chair and anyone assisting the chair should keep this panel visible throughout the meeting. It displays critical information relevant to the meeting, such as Raised Hands.

Breaks: Online meetings can be very tiring, both mentally and physically. Breaks should be scheduled at the end of every hour, or at most, every hour, and a half. A five or ten-minute break after every hour will go a long way toward helping participants focus on the meeting. When a break is taken, the chair should suggest that all participants turn off their video feed.

They should not log off or sign out of the meeting. A host or co-host can also Mute All participants at a break. www.parliamentarians.org 11

Recordings: The minutes should contain a record of what was done at a meeting, not what was said by the members, RONR (12th ed.) 48:2, therefore meetings should not be recorded.

Screen Sharing: During the meeting, content can be shared with participants. This might be the agenda, current motion, a report, or other important document that participants should see. Generally, it is recommended that outside of small meetings, screen sharing be disabled except for hosts and co-hosts.

Someone other than the chair should be responsible for screen sharing documents during the meeting.

Recognition, Speaker’s Lists, and Raise Hand To seek recognition in a Zoom meeting, participants can use the Raise Hand tool. A small hand will appear next to their name in the participant panel and their name will move to the top of the list. If multiple participants use the Raise Hand tool, their names will appear in the order in which they pressed the Raise Hand tool in the participant screen, which makes it easy for the chair to call on speakers in order.

The Raise Hand tool can be found when you press the Reactions button on the bottom toolbar. Participants who phone in to a Zoom meeting can also access this tool by pressing *9 on their dial pad. Clicking the icon, or pressing *9 again lowers the hand, 12

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

making it disappear from the participant panel screen.

Points of Order and Interrupting Motions Interrupting motions such as points of order, requests for information, and parliamentary inquiries can be made in small and medium-sized meetings by participants simply unmuting themselves and making their interrupting motion. But, in large meetings, where participants cannot unmute themselves, one option is to enable chat with host only, or to provide a phone number that participants can text, allowing participants to send a message to the host or co-host.

Another option is to advise all participants and adopt in special rules, that if they wish to make an interrupting motion, they should use No Reaction in the participant window (or the Faster or Slower reaction if you are using yes/no for voting). Someone will then need to be monitoring the Participant Pane for this symbol and unmute that participant so they can make their interrupting motion.

Voting There are three tools that can be used to conduct votes on the Zoom platform: Raise Hand, Yes/No, and Polls.

None of these tools are considered secure though. For secure voting, you will need to seek out an external online voting platform to be used in conjunction with your Zoom meeting.

Routine business and minor issues should be approached using the procedure of unanimous consent.

RONR (12th ed.) 4:58. If anyone wants to object to a particular motion, they should be advised that they can use the Raise Hand tool.

If there are some participants present who are not eligible to vote, you can move them into a Breakout Room while votes take place, to prevent them from voting.

Raise Hand Tool All participants can use the Raise Hand tool, much as they would physically raise their hand. The results are immediately visible to all participants in the participant panel.

The chair can use the Lower All Hands tool after each vote. This tool is best used in small and medium-sized meetings, and is accessible even to participants who dial in.

Yes/No Buttons The Reaction button on the bottom toolbar also has Yes/No buttons, which can be used to quickly conduct a vote.

Like the Raise Hand tool, when a vote is required, the chair simply asks participants to click yes if they are in favor or no if they are opposed.

The host and co-host can see a summary count of the votes for both yes and no in the Participant Panel and can use the Clear All Feedback option to remove all votes. The downside to this tool is that it cannot be used by phone-in participants.

So long as everyone can use it, this

is one of the fastest tools for conducting votes.

Polls Zoom’s polling feature allows a host to create a poll for participants that can be answered by either a single choice or with multiple choices.

Polls can be conducted anonymously by checking the Anonymous box when creating it but are not considered secure.

You can launch a poll at any time during the meeting, and all participants in the meeting can vote in it, except the host and cohosts.

The results are displayed as both total number of votes cast for each selection and as a percentage. The results can be displayed to all participants and you can download a report of the vote results.

If you are going to use polls during your meeting, you should create in advance a generic, “Are you in favor of the motion?” poll that can be used throughout the meeting.

Polls can then be reused as needed by relaunching them.

Aside from taking some effort to set up, polls have two problems: phone-in participants cannot access polls and hosts and co-hosts cannot vote in polls.

Debate and Public Chat On Zoom calls, the public chat is often used by participants to make comments or make motions. This results in participants circumventing their having to wait to speak and can create confusion in the meeting. On www.parliamentarians.org 13

the positive side, it helps people feel a bit more connected.

In small and medium-sized meetings, so long as it is clear to all participants that they cannot use the public chat to make motions, conduct debate, or enact any official business, the practice generally can be managed.

But in large meetings, it can become extremely unwieldy, and you may wish to turn off this function, or at least ensure it is closely moderated.

Security for Meetings Zoom has improved the default security options for meetings, so you generally don’t need to worry about these settings. During a meeting, hosts and co-hosts can use the Security icon on the bottom toolbar to adjust security settings, such as what participants are able to do (i.e.: unmute themselves, screen share, etc.) and can remove unruly participants, if necessary. NP

Tips for the Chair in Zoom Meetings • Get familiar with the participant pane and the key tools prior to the meeting. For example, turning on and off participants’ videos, muting and unmuting, and the Lower All Hands button. Keep the participant pane open throughout the meeting.

• While participants should remain muted when not speaking, the chair should generally stay unmuted so that they can speak when necessary.

Tips for Participants in Zoom Meetings • Turn off notifications on your computer and remove distractions.

• Check your sound and video prior to joining or join early to check them online.

• In small meetings, keep your video on unless you are away from the computer or otherwise occupied. In large meetings, only turn on your video when speaking.

• Keep yourself muted, and only unmute when you are recognized by the chair to speak or are making an interrupting motion.

• Try to keep your comments brief.

• Focus on what’s happening in the meeting while on camera.

Justin Schmid is the Legislative Coordinator for the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) in British Columbia, Canada. He has acted as an in-house advisor and educator on parliamentary procedure for CUPE for over twelve years. Since the pandemic, he regularly runs a range of digital meetings and facilitates trainings online.

14

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

Use Your INDEX Finger!

David Mezzera, PRP

Since the publication of the 12th edition six months-plus ago, we have been encouraged to study the changes in RONR, beginning with the method of referencing specific citations using sections and paragraph numbers rather than pages and line numbers, then studying its content, and finally paying attention to the addition of the Appendix. Hopefully, we are well along in doing this in order to be proficient in consulting for, and advising, organizations and presiding officers.

During this process, however, have you done any studying and updating your knowledge about the subjects listed in the INDEX of the 12th edition?

The new Index has some interesting” inclusions. For example, have you ever noticed the main entries for such terms as: ephors (huh?), Sthenelaidas (what?), Clive Priddle (who?), or the make-believe novel Crestwood by Ernest Dunn (hmmm)? Check those out in the INDEX for a surprise or two. You can also find references to Five Towns Jewish Times and Barclay’s Digest of Rules and Practice of the House (why?) and some other unique terms such as witenagemot and witan and Village-moot!

Now is the time to take up a challenge to figure out what parliamentary terms really are main headings in the 12th edition INDEX. Give your best guess before actually using your index finger to roam through pages 651-714 (that’s 54 total pages that now comprise

the Index). Write the letters A through Z on a piece of paper and indicate YES or NO as to whether you think the listed term is found as a main heading in the Index or not.

A. Prayer L. Keypad M. Serpentine B. Old business N. Consensus C. So moved D. Supermajority O. Bullet voting E. Simple majority P. Railroading Q. Continued F. Conflict of meeting Interest R. Bring back G. Recusal motions H. Breakout groups S. Restorative I. Chat room motions J. Point of T. Continuing Information breaches K. Queue U. Settled rule And here’s an extra credit question: Which of the following Parliamentary Authorities is/are listed in the Index?

V. Cushing Y. Cannon W. Sturgis Z. Jefferson NP X. Demeter Answers may be found on page 28 with some interesting particulars in some cases. Spend some time looking through the answer key— and checking out the INDEX— to enlighten yourself with some new details about the 12th edition.

This is a teach-yourself exercise.

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

www.parliamentarians.org 15

A R ebuttal to

“The Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Vote”

By Weldon L. Merritt, PRP

The Winter 2021 issue of the National Parliamentarian® included an article

by Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP, entitled, “The Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Vote.”

It is my belief that Mr. Cuesta has stretched the meaning of “intrinsically irrelevant” well beyond its meaning in RONR. Accordingly, this article is submitted as a rebuttal.

The term “intrinsically irrelevant” appears only three times in RONR (12th ed.): at 4:35, 37:10(a), and 44:9(a). The reference in 37:10(a) refers to 44:9(a), which in turn refers to 4:35. The controlling language is in 4:35, which first states, “The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear, except that this rule is commonly relaxed in the case of noncontroversial motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature; but even in such a case, if any member objects, the chair must call for the negative vote.” That sentence is followed immediately by the statement, “A further exception arises when the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant, as, for example, when ‘a vote of one fifth of the members present’ is required, and the number who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than one fifth of those present ….” (Emphasis added.)

While the italicized phrase in the preceding quote is only an example, not an exhaustive list, the clear implication is that a negative vote is “intrinsically irrelevant” only when the voting threshold is based on some fixed base, such as “those present” or “the entire membership,” rather than the more usual base of “those present and voting.” Using the RONR example quoted above, the affirmative vote either is or is not greater than one fifth of those present. Either way, the outcome is determined by the size of the affirmative vote alone. The negative vote cannot make a difference.1 This article will discuss Mr. Cuesta’s examples, in the same order and with the same headings as in his article, and why I believe he is mistaken.

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

Mr. Cuesta’s first example is a bit confusing. He posits a convention in which the bylaws require a specified number of days’ notice for consideration of an amendment, but allow an amendment that did not meet the notice requirement to be considered “if a specified number of members propose or second the motion.” Thus, he is not referring to a vote at all (affirmative or 1 See also, Kim Goldsworthy, CP, PRP. “Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Votes,” Parliamentary Journal, LVI, No. 3 (July 2015), 73.

16

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

negative), but to a fixed number of members required to propose or second consideration of the amendment.

If the above scenario were referring, instead, to the vote required to allow the amendment to be either considered or adopted, and if that requirement were stated as a proportion of those present or of the entire membership, I would agree that the negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant and should not be taken. But in the more usual case, such as an unqualified nine-tenths vote (of those present and voting), the negative vote should be taken, “no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear.” RONR (12th ed.)

4:35. The negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

2. A Negative Vote on a Resignation: In his second scenario, Mr. Cuesta correctly cites RONR (12th ed.) 32:8, which provides, “A member in good standing with his dues paid cannot be compelled to continue his membership ….” He fails to acknowledge, however, that the same section includes examples of when a society might wish to reject a member’s resignation, including when the member’s dues are in arrears or when the member wants to resign to avoid disciplinary procedures.

In the case of dues being in arrears, the society may first want to try to persuade the member to pay the dues that are in arrears, and if unsuccessful, then expel him. And in the case of pending disciplinary procedures, the society may wish to proceed with the trial. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

3. A Negative Vote in an Election: I have a minor quibble with the statement in Scenario 3 that “an election is not a question.” An election is a question; not whether to elect a specific individual to an office, but whom to elect. That quibble aside, Mr. Cuesta correctly quotes RONR (12th ed.) 46:1, which provides, “a form of ballot on which provision is made for voting ‘for’ or ‘against’ a candidate or candidates … is not proper.”

If that advice is adhered to in an election, the issue of how to treat negative votes would not arise. But Mr. Cuesta himself acknowledges having observed some societies ignore that advice and use ballots with “for” and “against” options. The question then becomes how to treat negative votes.

RONR itself does not provide advice on what to do if, despite the provision in 46:1, a society uses ballots with “for” and “against” options. Official Interpretation 2006-5 on the RONR web site,2 however, advises, “When voters are led to understand that they can vote against candidates in this fashion, their doing so must obviously be credited.” Therefore, it seems that both affirmative and negative votes must be counted. If the negative vote prevails, the society has an incomplete election to be handled as any other incomplete election. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

2 Robert’s Rules Official Interpretations, http://robertsrules.com/official-interpretations, 2006-5. www.parliamentarians.org 17

4. Adopting the Meeting’s Agenda: I agree with much of what is stated in Scenario 4 about adoption of the agenda, including that “[t]here is no reason for voting negatively when deciding on the agenda.” Indeed, once any proposed changes to the agenda are settled, the agenda should be adopted by unanimous consent. (See Scenario 8, below, for discussion of unanimous consent.)

Where I disagree with Mr. Cuesta in his answer to the question, “If the vote to adopt an agenda is defeated, is it possible to have an efficient and productive meeting?” His answer is, “No.” I contend, however, that while it may be more difficult, it certainly is possible. The assembly may simply follow the standard order of business at RONR (12th ed.) 3:16, omitting any obviously inapplicable items. So while members should have no good reason to vote against adoption of the agenda, if they insist on doing so, they have that right. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

5. Accepting the Minutes: In Scenario 5, Mr. Cuesta correctly notes that “[a] formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary,” citing RONR (12th ed.) 41:10. Indeed, RONR (12th ed.) 41:11 goes further, providing that after any proposed corrections have been resolved, “[t]he minutes are … approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made.” Thus neither vote, affirmative nor negative, is taken.

RONR (12th ed.) 41:11 further provides, “The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary’s draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it.” If an unsophisticated chair nevertheless calls for a vote, and no one objects or raises a Point of Order, I contend that both the affirmative and negative votes must be taken. What would be the effect if the negative vote prevailed? Simply that the offered draft of the minutes is not approved, and the secretary must try again with another draft. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

6. Adopt a Report: In Scenario 6, Mr. Cuesta states that “adopting [a] report means that the association will accept every word and punctuation as a new rule!” I disagree that the report would necessarily become “a new rule” (emphasis added).

But his statement is essentially a paraphrase of the statement in RONR that “an affirmative vote on such a motion [to adopt a report] has the effect of the assembly’s endorsement of every word of the report—including the indicated facts and the reasoning—as its own statement ….” RONR (12th ed.) 51:13.

RONR (12th ed.) 51:13 further notes that “[a]doption of an entire report is seldom wise except when it is to be issued or published in the name of the whole organization.” But if there is a motion to adopt the entire report, members opposed to doing so certainly have the right to vote against the motion and to have their votes counted. Mr. Cuesta rhetorically asks, “If the negative vote prevails, do we unhear the report?” Of course not! Hearing the 18

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

report and adopting it are two separate and distinct events. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

7. Motions of a Complimentary or Courtesy Nature: I agree with most of what is stated in Scenario 7 concerning complimentary or courtesy motions, including that ‘[a] negative vote insults the individual receiving the appreciation or recognition.” The disagreement is with Mr. Cuesta’s conclusion. Although correctly stating that “[a] negative vote is not taken unless a member objects to omitting the negative vote” (emphasis added), he leaps to the conclusion that the negative vote therefore is “intrinsically irrelevant.” No! If a member demands the negative vote be taken, it must be taken. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

8. Assumed Motions: In Scenario 8, Mr. Cuesta confuses assumed motions, with unanimous consent.

Assumed motions may or may not involve taking an actual vote. Unanimous consent can be used with any motion for which the chair believes there is likely to be no opposition, regardless to whether the motion is assumed by the chair or actually made by a member. This rebuttal addresses the use of unanimous consent.

I agree with Mr. Cuesta that a motion for which the chair seeks unanimous consent “is adopted unless someone objects.” (Emphasis added.) And while disagreeing that unanimous consent necessarily should be used “for most of the meeting decisions” (emphasis added), I do agree that a society failing to use unanimous consent when appropriate “is wasting a great deal of the members’ time.” Nevertheless, “[i]f any member objects, the chair must state the question on the motion, allow any desired debate (unless it is an “undebatable” parliamentary motion …), and put the question in the regular manner.”

RONR (12th ed.) 4:59. And in that event, both the affirmative and the negative vote must be taken.” A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

Finally, in many of the scenarios posited by Mr. Cuesta, no vote at all normally should be taken. But if a vote is taken, it must include the negative, as well as the affirmative, vote.

I agree with him that “[i]n each of these cases, a negative vote would not be illegal.” In contrast to him, however, I contend that a negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant. NP

Weldon L. Merritt, JD, PRP, CPP, has been a member of NAP since 2003 and a member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians since 2006. A retired lawyer residing in Albuquerque, New Mexico, he has served as president of the New Mexico State Association of Parliamentarians, the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians, and the Electronic Association of Parliamentarians. He currently serves as chair of NAP’s Professional Standards Committee. www.parliamentarians.org 19

Meet the Candidates

2021-2023 Board of Directors

Candidate statements are submitted for your information, as written.

They have not been edited.

P resident Wanda M. Simms, PRP Wanda M. Sims, PRP, is an experienced leader who will further NAP’s mission. If elected president, Wanda’s focus will be to: • integrate targeted, needs-related training accessible via our website for members and non-members; • leverage technology to improve the quality and delivery of member services; and • provide units and associations with strategies and tools for developing their educational and leadership programs.

Wanda has been a member of the NAP Board of Directors for six years. In 2019, she was elected vice-president and is chair of NAP’s Membership Extension and Retention Committee and the board’s Personnel Committee. As treasurer for two terms (2015 to 2019), Wanda improved NAP’s financial position, strengthened its internal controls, and increased from $200,000 to nearly $600,000 its investment portfolio, which now is valued at $1.1 million.

Wanda joined NAP in 2008 and earned her Professional Registered Parliamentarian® credential in 2012. She is a member of the Florida State Association of Parliamentarians.

Wanda served as the 2015 Biennial Convention’s assistant workshop coordinator and a workshop presenter at the 2016 Training Conference.

Wanda has the skills, knowledge, and abilities to serve as your president; she will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of NAP and would appreciate your vote.

20

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

V ice - P resident Joyce Brown-Watkins, PRP Joyce Brown-Watkins is asking for your support of her candidacy for the office of Vice-President of the National Association of Parliamentarians®.

Having served on the board 8 years has equipped her with the prerequisites that will enable her to effectively carry out the duties of Vice-President.

Involvement at the national level include serving on the Youth, Membership Extension and Retention, Minutes Approval and Pricing Committees as well as monitor for membership and registered test and facilitator for PQC and PRC credentials.

Along with having served 2 terms as District Director (2013-2017) and Director-at-Large (2017-2021) the challenges has helped her to achieve goals and carry out the mission of NAP. Continual committee involvement aid in goals to promote NAP, meeting management, and the credentialing process. These goals continue to aid in her desire to bring out the best in all of our members, potential members, and especially the leaders throughout our association.

A member of NAP since 1990 this candidate has the experience to successfully carry out the duties of Vice-President.

Continual focus on the Vision and Mission of NAP and work with the President and executive board to ensure NAP continues to grow.

Joyce asks for your support and vote.

www.parliamentarians.org 21

Meet the Candidates

continued

V ice - P resident Kevin Connelly, PRP I am asking for your support to allow me to continue to serve all of NAP, this time as your Vice President.

As a Professional Registered Parliamentarian since 2002, I have had the honor and the pleasure to assist at the unit, association, district, and national levels, including serving the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians (WSAP) as its secretary, vice president, president, and parliamentarian.

I have been and continue to be a member and officer in three parliamentary law units, and have presented educational workshops at all levels of NAP. Professionally, I have served as a parliamentarian to community associations, professional organizations, nonprofit corporations, and political parties.

Nationally, I have served on the NAP Board of Directors for the last three terms, first as a District Director Representative and then the last two terms as your Secretary.

I would like to use my experience as a District Director to work with the Membership Extension and Retention Committee to extend our recent successes in gaining new members and retaining current ones.

If elected, I will work as hard as I can to serve and assist NAP in its mission, and in its vision to provide parliamentary leadership to the world.

22

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

S ecretary Mona Calhoun, PRP Mona Calhoun has been a member of NAP for more than 15 years and earned the PRP designation in 2010.

She has served as First Vice-President for the Sartwell-Tunstall Unit; Treasurer and Delegate for the Registered Parliamentarians Unit; and as Historian, Chair of Parliamentary Law Day, and Treasurer for DCAP. On the national level, she has served as Chair of the Credentials Committee (2013, 2015), and the Budget/Finance Chair for the 2015 NAP Biennial Convention. She is the current Professional Development Committee Chairman.

Mona has served in several leadership roles for community boards, and civic and professional organizations. She has served as secretary for a regional conference, two international committees, and a state professional organization. She understands the importance of accurate and timely documentation. Mona has experience serving as a parliamentarian and presider; and she has provided consultation services to SGAs, HOAs and for the boards and annual meetings of national associations. She has presented workshops on parliamentary procedure at a vast array of conferences.

Mona believes it is important to keep the organization moving forward and implement new strategies to retain the current members and appeal to new members. Mona humbly asks for your support as NAP Secretary.

www.parliamentarians.org 23

Meet the Candidates

continued

T reasurer Mark Apodaca, PRP Mark has been a member of NAP since 2015 and currently serve as the Treasurer of the New Mexico State Association of Parliamentarians. He is also a member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians.

Since 1983, he has served on boards of more than 20 national, state, and local nonprofit organizations as Chair, President, Vice President, and Treasurer. Mark has also served as a parliamentarian and board consultant in the areas of finance and governance to state and national organizations.

Mark’s 42 years of management experience in the area of accounting/finance includes 15 years in corporate, a total of 13 years with two nonprofit organizations, and another 15 years in government. He also taught at a major university.

During the 2019 conference, while Mark was a Registered Parliamentarian, he was asked by some members to consider running for Treasurer but one of the requirements was to be a Professional Registered Parliamentarian. He became a PRP shortly after the conference.

Mark is asking for support from fellow parliamentarians to endorse him as NAP’s next Treasurer during the 2021-2023 term. It will be his way to share his experience, expertise, and knowledge, and contribute to the association.

24

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

T reasurer Henry C. Lawton, Jr., PRP Henry C. Lawton, Jr., joined NAP in 2011 after a long career in the computer field, (where he assisted in the development of a number of financial systems), and management positions at Job Corps.

Henry: • Has extensive work experience provides him with the ability to manage business finances, using his knowledge of spreadsheets.

• Has the ability to collaborate with team members and drive results.

• Has strong verbal and written communications skills.

Upon becoming a regular member of NAP in 2011, he organized two units in Jacksonville, Florida. Henry began preparing for his RP credential in 2011 and obtained it in 2018.

It took longer than expected due to a number of unexpected orthopedic surgeries. Reengaged, he obtained his PRP credential in 2019.

Currently, Henry, is president of the Jacksonville Parliamentary Procedure Study Group and the Florida State Association of Parliamentarians, a member of the Professional Development Committee, the Webinar and Meeting Support Committee, 2021 Biennial Convention Workshop Coordinator, and a facilitator for the PQC, PRC and Train-the-Trainer.

Henry believes deeply in the mission and vision of NAP. To that end, as NAP Treasurer, he will work diligently with the board and NAP staff to continue to improve the association’s finances.

www.parliamentarians.org 25

Meet the Candidates

continued

D irector -At- L arge Adam Hathaway, PRP Adam Hathaway is dedicated to promoting equal access to democracy through his teaching and promotion of parliamentary procedure, as well as through public service, having held leadership positions in organizations ranging from the international to the local. This conviction led him to join the National Association of Parliamentarians in 2005. Adam’s education clearly reflects his devotion to leadership and development, as he holds a Bachelor’s in Organizational Communication and a Master’s in Public Administration.

Adam served as Albuquerque Parliamentarian Unit President, New Mexico State Association Secretary, Vice-President, President, and Parliamentarian for several years. He is also a member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, Green Gavel Electronic Unit, eNAP Unit, and the Electronic Association of Parliamentarians.

In his second year on the Board, as Director-at-Large, Adam serves as Chairman of the Communications Committee and member of the Personnel, Association Management System, and Minutes Approval Committees and performs other tasks as assigned.

Adam has presided over non-profit organizations with budgets in the millions, overseen their investments, and supervised large numbers of volunteers, individually and in teams.

Adam believes deeply in the mission and goals of NAP and the fostering of the five R’s of success: Recruitment, Retention, Reinstatement, Reinvigoration and Relevance.

26

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

D irector -At- L arge Carl Nohr, PRP On election day in Las Vegas in 2019, I told you how amazing it was to discover NAP. After one term as a Director, I am even more impressed with our organization and my fellow members!

I became a member of NAP in 2013; Registered Parliamentarian in 2017 and Professional Registered Parliamentarian in 2018. I am a credentialled corporate director through the Institute of Corporate Directors, and serve as a Director, Speaker, Chair and Secretary for other organizations.

This is an exciting time for us. We can enhance our financial stability and simultaneously increase our influence in the world through expanded educational offerings. While continuing to build a strong internal focus on high quality member services and credentialling, we can simultaneously look externally to engage others through education. Some will just want to learn, while others will become members as we travel the path to parliamentary excellence together. Instead of serving thousands, we can serve tens of thousands!

I offer professionalism, experience and enthusiasm. It would be a great privilege to serve a second term as one of your Board Directors. I am happy to hear your thoughts anytime; email cnohr@telus.net or call (403) 581-8776. Thank you for considering me.

www.parliamentarians.org 27

Answer Key Use Your INDEX Finger! from page 15

The following terms may be found as main headings in the Index, and these terms appear on specific pages in RONR in the Preface and Introduction (pages xxiii - xlviii), or in the text (pages 1-633): B. “Old business” is referred to in a footnote that indicates it is a phrase that should be avoided.

C. “So moved” is also referred to in the text as another statement that should be avoided.

H. “Breakout groups” (a fairly new term) is explained in §52.

I. “Chat room” is identified as a non-recommended procedure for a deliberative assembly.

J. “Point of Information” still exists as a main heading, but only to tell the reader to see “Request for Information,” the better terminology for this procedure (although “Point of Information” still even appears in the text of the 12th edition).

L. “Keypad voting” is recognized as a method of electronic voting.

N. “Consensus” is referred to, but appears only in the pages of the Introduction, never in the text.

The following terms may be found as main headings in the Index BUT with some intriguing addenda: A. “Prayer” is listed with references to 3 citations, but two of those paragraphs [41:30 and 59:50] do not actually contain the word “prayer.” Instead, “invocation” is used in both cases.

D. “Supermajority” is a heading that has just been added to the 12th edition’s Index. It refers to voting instances that require a greater threshold than an original vote (such as two-thirds or a majority of the entire membership). Although this term is in the Index, it actually does not appear in the pages of text.

“Supermajority” does appear, though, in one of the Appendix Scenarios as a footnote on page 648, but the Appendix itself is not referenced in the Index.

28

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

F. “Conflict of interest” appears as a heading, referring the reader to 45:4, but the specific term “conflict of interest” does not appear in the text.

G. “Recusal,” is another entry in the Index, but again, does not appear in the text, although the matter of not voting when a member should abstain or refrain from voting (the meaning of “recuse”) is covered in 45:4.

K. “Queue” appears in two main headings in the Index, but without any direct citations to text pages and paragraphs. They both only reference other topics to search. And the frequently used word “queue” does not actually appear in the text.

M. “Serpentine,” also newly added to the Index, is explained in the text as a method of counting off members standing for a vote but does not appear as the actual term “serpentine.”

O. “Bullet voting,” another added term in the 12th edition Index, is explained in the text [45:3] as a partial abstention when not voting for a full list of candidates, but here too, the actual term does not appear within the text.

P. “Railroading” is another example of a new term that appears in the 12th edition Index but without any direct citation to text pages or paragraphs. The Index refers the reader to “gaveling through,” which appears in the text, but not “railroading” itself.

Q. “Continued meeting” is still another new term added to the 12th edition Index. It is a non-parliamentary term used by some for an “Adjourned meeting.” The Index entry refers readers to see the entry for “Adjourned meeting.” Here too, “continued meeting” does not actually appear in the text, but only in the Index as an attempt to explain what an “Adjourned meeting” is.

S. “Restorative motions” is yet another new entry in the 12th edition index which does not appear in the text. This entry in the index refers readers to “Motions that bring a question again before the assembly.” Demeter’s Manual uses the term “restoratory motions,” and AIPSC uses the term “specific main motions” for this category of motions.

T. “Continuing breaches” (and “Breaches of order” as well) are listed in the Index with multiple references to the text. The exact term “continuing breaches” appears only in the Preface [xxvi].

The closest in the text are “continuance of the breach” and “breach of a continuing nature.” www.parliamentarians.org 29

The following terms do not appear at all as main headings in the INDEX: E. “Simple majority,” although used by many people in the non-parliamentary world, does not appear in the Index nor directly on any pages of text. But closely related, 14:4(7) does refer to a vote that “requires a majority vote in its simple and usual form.” Close!

R. “Bring back motions” as they apply to bringing a question again before the assembly is used colloquially by parliamentarians, but it does not appear in the Index as such. The two words “bring” and “back” do appear in a generic sense in 37:1, and there is an Index heading for “Motions that bring a question again before the assembly;” but again, not “Bring back motions.”

U. “Settled rule” does not appear in the Index, nor even in the text with those exact words. The word “settled” appears in other contexts. Interestingly, “Settled rule” appears in the Index of RIB, and there is an entire section devoted to its explanation there [RONR In Brief p. 50-51].

Extra Credit: Only two Parliamentary Authorities are mentioned in the Index (other than RONR itself). One is the Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States (Jefferson’s Manual). Additional narratives about Jefferson encountered in the Introduction may be found in the Index under Jefferson, Thomas.

The other mentioned in the Index is the Manual of Parliamentary Practice: Rules of Proceedings and Debate in Deliberative Assemblies (Cushing’s Manual), with additional references to Cushing in the Introduction found under Cushing, Luther S. in the Index.

A Clarence Cannon is mentioned in the pages of the Introduction [xlvii] but not in the Index. But this is not the Hugh Cannon who authored Cannon’s Concise Guide to Rules of Order, which itself is not referred to in RONR. And neither of the others (Alice Sturgis or George Demeter) nor their parliamentary manuals are identified in text or Index of RONR. So, the correct answers would be Z and V. Additionally, neither The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure nor Mason’s Manual are identified in the text or Index of RONR. Keep inspecting the INDEX of the 12th edition—you never know what you might find there!

30

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

&

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.

Reports Attached to Minutes

Q

Question 17: I’m the newly elected secretary of a contentious club. Past minutes, as taken by different secretaries, vary. Some attach copies of officer and committee reports, some include the report in the body, and some just mention that a report was given. What’s the right practice?

Answer: You are wise to seek consistent and correct practice. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition (RONR) is an essential tool for any conscientious secretary, as it contains the rules for drafting (see RONR (12th ed.) 48:2-7), and for approving minutes of a meeting, RONR (12th ed.) 41:9, as well as sample minutes (see RONR (12th ed.), 48:8).

For regular meetings, if the assembly is small, the complete substance of oral committee reports, which should be brief, are included in the minutes.

RONR (12th ed.) 48:4(8) and 51:60. The treasurer’s report may be simply a verbal statement of the cash balance on hand or the balance minus outstanding obligations. RONR 48:20. In larger assemblies, committee reports should be submitted in writing and may be attached to the minutes.

RONR (12th ed.) 51:23.

When voting is by ballot, the complete tellers’ report is included in the minutes. RONR (12th ed.) 48:5(1)(b).

When a committee report is of great importance or should be recorded to show the legislative history of an issue, the assembly can order that it be “entered in the minutes.” In this case, the secretary either incorporates the entire report or attaches it. RONR (12th ed.) 48:5(5). www.parliamentarians.org 31

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

In connection with an annual meeting or convention, there may also be other reports that become the official record of the organization by adoption of the report by the assembly. An example is adoption of a historian’s report.

RONR (12th ed.) 48:27.

Tellers’ Quorum

Q

Question 18: Many organizations at their conventions now use electronic methods of voting in a business meeting, including using a keypad device to vote for officers. In such cases members do not leave their place, and voting is accomplished quickly before the particular meeting is adjourned.

However, some groups still adjourn the business meeting to allow delegates to go to a polling room to cast their paper ballot. A tellers’ committee prepares its report, and the results are reported at the next convention meeting which could either be later that day or the next day.

Since delegates are voting in a polling place which takes place outside of an actual meeting (that is, between meetings of the convention), what requirements, if any, are needed to ascertain a quorum? It is conceivable that the total number of ballots cast might be less than the quorum established at the meeting just prior to opening the polls. For example, a number of delegates skipped the voting process for whatever reason, and caused the total number of ballots cast to be less than the quorum established at the most recent meeting. Would that nullify the results of the election?

Answer: No, if a quorum was verified immediately before adjourning to vote, if less votes are cast than the quorum, the results of the election are not nullified.

Those members who fail to cast a vote are abstaining, and the impact is the same as if they abstained from voting during the business meeting.

A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members who must be present at the meetings of a deliberative assembly for business to be validly transacted. RONR (12th ed.) 3:3. “Quorum” is a concept related to a business meeting. For a convention, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, a quorum is a majority of those who have registered for the convention in attendance, even if some have departed. RONR (12th ed.) 3:4.

An important and related concept is that no member may be compelled to vote. RONR (12th ed.) 45:3. Members have a right to abstain. In the case of polling places apart from the convention, as referenced in RONR (12th ed.)

46:31(1), members may abstain by not going to the polling place at all or by casting a blank ballot. During business meetings, members may abstain

32

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

by not voting, whether the vote be taken by voice, by rising/show of hands, paper ballot, or by device. Because members may simply choose not to vote, it is entirely possible to have less total votes cast than the quorum for the business meeting.

The tellers (and the assembly) should be well aware of the number necessary to elect an individual to office or to adopt a motion. This is usually a majority vote. The tellers’ report does not indicate the number eligible to vote, nor does it include abstentions. Further rules and correct language for tellers’ reports are found in RONR (12th ed.) 45:38.

In any event, a quorum must be present when the tellers’ report is received and when the chair declares the candidates elected, this being the assembly’s opportunity to raise any points of order regarding the vote, and to decide any questions raised by the election process, such as assigning an office to an individual who has received a majority for multiple offices. RONR (12th ed.)

46:31(1), or determining how to record doubtful ballots RONR (12th ed.)

45:33. This is also the point at which the assembly would ballot again for any offices left unfilled or schedule the time and place for such additional balloting, if not already provided for in the program.

Governing Documents

Q

Question 19: Our organization has adopted quite a lot of governing documents over a period of many years. We are working hard to make our rules sensible, clear, and easy to find.

Our lawyer often indicates provisions should be in the bylaws, our executive director prefers inclusion in our Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), while our member parliamentarian keeps mentioning another document, Standing Rules. Our bylaws committee is working on restructuring our governing documents, but we are unclear on what should be included in our bylaws, in our policy or SOP, or in Standing Rules. Please give some direction.

Answer: It is essential that a voluntary organization adopt and follow its rules. The importance of the rules can vary widely, and the need for flexibility varies as well. For this reason, parliamentary law recognizes several types of governing documents. A clear outline of the various types of documents is contained in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition, (RONR) 2.

If the organization is incorporated, there will be laws for the state of incorporation that must be followed. Otherwise, the most significant www.parliamentarians.org 33

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

governing document for most societies is its bylaws. The bylaws should contain the basic rules of the society. The bylaws should contain those rules the society considers so important they can only be changed with notice and a high voting threshold, and which cannot be suspended (except for the rare exceptions of a rule that provides for its own suspension or a rule in the nature of a rule of order). RONR specifically enumerates that bylaws will contain the name of the organization, its object, membership, officers, meetings, executive board (if chosen), committees, parliamentary authority, and the process to amend the bylaws. Sample bylaws are included in RONR (12th ed.) 56:58 et seq.

The category of Standard Operating Procedure (often referred to as SOP or as “policy”) is not mentioned in parliamentary authorities. If this is a document created by staff or by volunteers, but has not been adopted by the membership (or the entity having authority to adopt rules), it is a type of custom. “Custom” is a practice that is followed by an organization as if it were almost a rule. If there is no conflict with a rule adopted by the society, the customary policy may be followed. If there is a conflict, however, the rules that have been formally adopted must be followed. RONR (12th ed.) 2.25.

Standing Rules contain details of the administration of the organization.

Such rules may be adopted or amended as the need arises and will vary greatly among organizations. An example of a standing rule would be to list the time of meetings or the use of a sign-up sheet. Standing rules are adopted or amended by majority vote as the need arises. An adopted standing rule remains in effect until it is rescinded or amended but it may be suspended for a particular session. RONR (12th ed.) §2.23.

Members are entitled to full and free access to their governing documents so that they are aware of the rules in order to participate fully. Members should be informed that they may amend their governing documents as needed in order to formally adopt the rules they wish to follow.

Questions & Answers Research Team

Alison Wallis, PRP Q&A Research Editor 34

Ann Homer, PRP Assistant Q&A Research Editor

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

Rachel Glanstein, PRP Parliamentary Consultant

Timothy Wynn, PRP Parliamentarian

NAP Connections

NAPEF: Your Donation Makes a Difference Visit our website for more details about grants, and to apply for one yourself. If you have questions about NAPEF, please contact us at info@napef.org.

Together, we can meet these challenges and continue providing educational programs that promote effective meetings.

Please support the NAPEF mission by giving today.

Every gift, no matter the size, helps.

The mission of the National Association of Parliamentarians Educational Foundation (NAPEF) is to fund and support NAP and others who have educational programs that promote effective meetings. In this time of the COVID-19 worldwide pandemic, the ability to conduct effective meetings is more important than ever because the meeting dynamics are compounded by the virtual setting instead of the traditional face-toface interactions to which many are accustomed.

In 2020, NAPEF awarded two grants to NAP: $27,500 to update education materials, and $10,000 to support the Virtual National Training Conference.

Other grant opportunities have provided support to the Train the Trainer course for 40 NAP members, and for the Credentialing Commission to develop step three of the new program to attain the RP designation.

NAPEF has been able to support NAP with similar amounts annually over the past ten years.

NAP has begun updating all its educational materials to comply with the 12th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. We know you want to be a part of this transition—your contribution to the NAP Educational Foundations gives you the opportunity to bask in the glow of helping to make a smooth transition in the education materials.

As in 2020, we face challenges in education for NAP members. Virtual and hybrid meetings are likely to continue to be a necessity for most of this year. The Foundation wants to be able to assist NAP in this and other endeavors. This is an excellent time for you to help make this possible by giving to the NAPEF. Thank you for your dedication to parliamentary education. NAPEF looks forward to you joining in and supporting parliamentary education. You may join in by giving online at www.napef.org or www.facebook.com/NAPEducationalFoundation/, or by mailing your check made out to NAPEF to the NAP headquarters. www.parliamentarians.org 35

NAP Connections

NAP Body of Knowledge: Your Template to Parliamentary Knowledge and Performance

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

To “provide parliamentary leadership to the world,” prompts leaders of associations, units, and the club to develop and implement training and developmental programs, using the NAP Body of Knowledge.

It is a key document developed in the early 21st century that spells out what a parliamentarian should know, using domains to specify essential competencies. It is the key template for associations, units, and the club to design and implement engaging and interactive lessons to confirm that parliamentarians know and can demonstrate correct parliamentary procedure “to the world.” Each of the eight domains provides the competencies parliamentarians must know and can demonstrate where needed.

In addition to training, members are advised to use the NAP Body of Knowledge in their preparation for credentialing as a Registered Parliamentarian (RP) or a Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP).

The new process to become a Registered Parliamentarian was developed based on the NAP Body of Knowledge. One might ask: What are the domains and how can associations, units, and the club prepare and implement engaging training and developmental programs to ensure that the mission of “educating leaders throughout the world in effective meeting management” is met? (2020 NAP Membership Manual, p. 2).

36

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

Eight domains set standards that members, leaders, and consultants should know and be able to meet.

Subjects addressed in each domain are as follows: • Domain 1. Meetings, the Conduct of Meetings, Motions, and Meetings-Related Procedures • Domain 2. Motions, Minutes and Other Records, Governing Documents • Domain 3. Rules, Nominations, and Elections Serving as Parliamentarian in Meetings and Conventions • Domain 4. Committees, Teaching • Domain 5. Officers and Boards, Business and Ethics • Domain 6. Bylaws and Other Governing Documents, Governance • Domain 7. Consulting Skills • Domain 8. Nominations, Elections, and Voting Associations, units, and the club are encouraged to use the NAP Body of Knowledge to plan, design, and conduct engaging training and development programs that prepare new members for the membership test, and prepare members to become Registered Parliamentarians (RP) and Professional Registered Parliamentarians (PRP).

What comprises a viable training and development plan that associations,

NAP Connections

units, and the club can use to assist in promoting parliamentary procedure?

Most units and the club have monthly meetings that include a parliamentary procedure topic as an educational component. Associations usually meet annually and conduct educational sessions dealing with

parliamentary procedure. The recommended process is to design educational sessions using the eight domains. The recommended plan is designed for the aspiring NAP student, the aspiring Registered Parliamentarian (RP), and the Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP).

Recommended Plan for an Aspiring NAP Student Develop the educational sessions, using the following domains:

Time Allotted

Develop

Name of Number of Knowledge/ Domain Educational Objectives Practical Number Session To Cover Application # 1 Meetings 16 8 hours

# 2 Motions 13 14 hours

# 3 Rules 7 14 hours

Outcomes Abbreviated Outcomes: Refer to NAP Body of Knowledge for details.

Members should know how to debate and vote on business in a meeting.

Members should have the knowledge and skills to use common motions during a meeting.

Members should know how to read and enforce the rules of the organization.

Recommended Plan for an Aspiring Registered Parliamentarian Develop the educational sessions, using the following domains:

Time Allotted

Develop

Name of Number of Knowledge/ Domain Educational Objectives Practical Number Session To Cover Application # 1 Conduct of 17 18 hours

Meetings

# 1 Motions and 13 15 hours

Meeting-Related

Procedures

Outcomes Abbreviated Outcomes: Refer to NAP Body of Knowledge for details.

Leaders should have the knowledge and skills to prepare an agenda and chair a meeting of an assembly or executive board.

Consultant education is designed to prepare a parliamentarian to serve as a paid or unpaid consultant to client organizations of which he or she is not a member. www.parliamentarians.org 37

NAP Connections

Recommended Plan for an Aspiring Registered Parliamentarian (cont.)

Develop the educational sessions, using the following domains:

Time Allotted

Develop

Name of Number of Knowledge/ Domain Educational Objectives Practical Number Session To Cover Application # 2 Minutes and 7 7 hours

other Records

# 2 Governing 8 16 hours

Documents

# 3 Nominations 9 12 hours

and Elections

# 3 Serving as 6 8 hours

Parliamentarian

in Meetings and

Conventions

# 4 Committees 7 7 hours

# 4 Teaching 3 4 hours

# 5 Officers and Boards 9 3 hours

38

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

Outcomes Abbreviated Outcomes: Refer to NAP Body of Knowledge for details.

Leaders should have the knowledge and skills to prepare and approve minutes.

A Consultant should be able to identify, write, review the types and contents of governing documents; determine how higher authority impacts documents, write, and manage scripts, and distinguish between governing documents and advise of conflicts.

Leaders should have the knowledge and skills to conduct nominations and elections for office.

A Consultant must help clients before, during, and after meetings, advise, train, write scripts, provide parliamentary advice during meetings, and meet with clients before and after meetings.

Leaders should discuss the relationship between a committee and the full membership and be able to lead a major committee.

A Consultant must design and present effective and appealing educational programs, apply basic adult learning theory, and measure participant knowledge and performance.

Leaders should know the relationship between individual officers, the board, and the membership, and the duties of each.

NAP Connections

Recommended Plan for an Aspiring Registered Parliamentarian (cont.)

Develop the educational sessions, using the following domains:

Time Allotted

Develop

Name of Number of Knowledge/ Domain Educational Objectives Practical Number Session To Cover Application # 5 Business and Ethics 4 4 hours

# 6 Bylaws and 8 10 hours

Other Governing

Documents

# 6 Governance 4 4 hours

# 7 Consulting Skills 5 6 hours

# 8 Nominations, 3 3 hours

Elections, and

Voting

Outcomes Abbreviated Outcomes: Refer to NAP Body of Knowledge for details.

A Consultant must comply with the Joint NAP/AIP Code of Ethics and local business legal requirements, develop a business plan, and prepare business documents for professional services and establish a method of setting fees.

A leader should know the form and function of bylaws and other governing documents and how to amend governing documents.

A Consultant must advise clients about the rights and responsibilities of a board, individual officers and board members, methods, appointment and instruction of committees, limitations on their authority, and types of governance structures.

A Consultant must advise clients and work effectively with staff regarding any parliamentary issue or concern.

A Consultant must advise clients, write scripts, organize, and instruct tellers, and handle election challenges.

Cynthia R. Mayo, Ph.D., PRP, is the current District Two Director. She has been a member of NAP SINCE 1991, and has served the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians (VSAP). Cynthia has served on several NAP committees, including the Leadership Development and Professional Development Committees. She has contributed several NP articles in the past years.

References: NAP Body of Knowledge

Margie R. Booker, PRP, is the immediate past president of the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians (VSAP). She has been a member of NAP since 2005.

She has conducted workshops at NAP Conventions and the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians.

Margie is the current Vice-President of the Virginia Alpha Unit of Registered Parliamentarians (VAURP).

RONR (12th ed.), §1-§63, pp. t4-t43 RONRIB (3rd ed.), Chapters 1-11

www.parliamentarians.org 39

NAP Connections

Helping Candidates Succeed with the New RP Credentialing System A Bit of History Before any of us had heard of COVID-19, the NAP Commission on Credentialing was holding one of its periodic marathon meetings in Las Vegas. At one meeting, a major part of the agenda was about perfecting the questions on the new RP assessments using sophisticated data analysis. This analysis compared the test results of the Alpha testers (PRP volunteers) and Beta testers (actual candidates).

At this meeting, President Allen joined us for a very important and fruitful conversation about how to make this new system the best it could be.

According to the bylaw amendment that created the commission, commissioners are forbidden to do any teaching since the special committee that proposed it found that the accepted standards for credentialing bodies require that they be separate and independent from those who provide education in the knowledge and skills to be recognized by a credential. However, since this new process is radically different from the 1200 question legacy exam, the candidates were often confused about how to prepare for this new system.

The data analysis confirmed that asking candidates to teach themselves or find someone to help them was inadequate for many without other options. Conversation between President Darlene Allen and 40

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

Commission Chair Burke Balch resulted in Commission Vice-chair Gail Knapp resigning from the commission in order to chair a new Special Committee on RP Education.

This committee was created by the NAP Board last November. The other members appointed by the board to the special committee are Steve Glanstein, Dave Mezzera, and Mary Remson.

What the Committee Has Been Doing Since its creation, the committee has held weekly meetings on Zoom, with members writing educational materials between the meetings. After initially agreeing on the format that this education would take, and with support and help from President Allen, the committee decided to produce a complete set of educational materials that cover everything the candidate is required to know for all three steps in the new process. This material would teach the rules that each assessment would test, and it would provide examples of how they are applied.

As of this writing, the committee has completed PowerPoint lessons on the first three parts of step one and is working on part 4. By the time you read this article, many more lessons will have been finished. The committee also created a Lesson Zero that explains the whole new process, and gives hints for being successful as a

NAP Connections

candidate. The committee continues to meet weekly on Zoom to review the new lessons created by its members.

How This May Involve You If you are a candidate or possible candidate for the RP, or if you are a mentor/teacher of members who may wish to become RPs, these lessons are designed for you. The committee is currently making arrangements to present the first lessons on bi-weekly 1 1/2 hour webinars starting the end of March. We expect that they will continue to be offered every other week until the whole assessment process is completed.

We will first present Lesson Zero, and then there will be two lessons on Step One Part 1 (lessons 1a and 1b).

A candidate who completes these three lessons should be prepared for the Step One Part 1 quiz. For Step One Part 2, the committee needed three lessons (Lessons 2a, 2b, and 2c). Then there will be sets of lessons for the other parts. That is because some parts require several lessons to cover all the material. The lessons are numbered to indicate which of the assessments they cover.

Since the committee is continuing to write these lessons, we expect that the bi-weekly schedule will be ready as the candidates need them. All the lessons will be initially presented in PowerPoint webinars and will be free of charge for all NAP members. After the presentations have been offered, they will be available to download in PDF format for review. The initial presentation will also be recorded so that anyone who was unable to attend may view them later.

A Final Word The educational philosophy that underlies these lessons is that the best learning takes place when the learner is actively involved in the process.

Therefore, all of the lessons have been created with both didactic material and interactive material. The commission data analysis has shown that the candidates who are most likely to succeed do two things well.

First, they read and learn the rules that have been provided for each of the many small assessments that are the core of the new process. Second, they understand the rules well enough that they are able to apply them in simulated real-life situations.

Step one consists of eight parts that are tested using online multiplechoice quizzes. The topics and rules begin with the basics. As the candidate progresses, the topics include more complex rules and applications. Step two consists of writing assignments that cover the kinds of things parliamentarians do outside of meetings. Step three presents a complete simulated meeting for the candidate to serve as the parliamentarian, while two evaluators observe and score their performance.

The members of the special committee believe that this new process uses the most current educational research to give the RP credential the respect that it deserves.

We believe that with both knowledge of the rules and the ability to efficiently apply them, the new system will credential future RPs who will be a valuable asset to society and will be able to serve clients extremely well. www.parliamentarians.org 41

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Dianna Anderson (FL) Yvonne Barnett (DE) Kathy Blair (TX) Kevin Bob (NJ) Rose Mary Bolden (TX) Richard Brown Jr (LA) Marilyn Calhoun (TX) Taniqua Carter-Brown (MI) Tauhid Chappell (PA) Shavonde Chase (TN) Cheryl Cole (GA) Dianne Edgerton-Norman (NY) Kevin Evans (DE) Regina Gray (DE) Yanni Gray (NY)

Letitia Harris (NEAP) Michael Hatcher (NY) LaShonda Henderson (FL) Valarie Hollingsworth (NY) Twylah Jenkins (PA) Sonya Johnson Clark (GA) Sharon Jones (NEAP) Jeffrey Joseph (NY) Darlene Kemp (NY) LaToya Kittrell (NY) Wendy Lattibeaudiere (NY) Daisy Matthews (MD) Shalima McCants (NY) Ivan McDaniel (NY) Sheree McLaughlinGoodman (MI)

Dominique Miller (NY) Paula Parker (ELEC) Noah Peace (NY) John Piercy (NJ) Julia Price (NY) Kathy Rafter (BC) Michele Rawls (DE) Ronald Reed (TX) Tiffany Richardson (SC) Frances Rizo (TX) Norma Rodgers (NJ) Inetta Rogers (TN) Chalon Rogers (CA) Tonya Ross (PA) Christopher Saint Jean (NY)

Donna Salmon (MD) Yolanda Scipio-Jackson (NJ) Jacalyn Shelton Wallace (MI) Erica Shifflet-Chila (MI) Cheryl Simmons Gray (ELEC) Xiomara Thomas (TX) Francine Vasquez (DE) Aprylle Wallace (NEAP) Maggalean Weston (DC) Kenya Williams (NY) Brunhilda WilliamsCurington (KY) Karma Williams-Davis (NJ) Shawn Wilson (NJ) Faye Yelardy (NY)

NEW Professional REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians: Wanda Berry Joseph (NY)

G. Kenneth Morgan (NC) Robert Schuck (WI) Deborah Underwood (IL)

Peter Senopoulos (NEAP)

Silent Gavels* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Ronald A. Avedisian, PRP (CA) Viola F. Brannen, PRP-R (MB)

Helen H. Gilmore (PA) Phyllis Lehrke (MN)

Molulela S. Monyake, RP (Africa)

Berniece E. Wilkins (IN) Roger Woloshyn, PRP (MB)

New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Jenifer Abraham (PA) John Adams (WA) Sobande Afolabi (NJ) Payton Alaama (CA) Geoff Alan (VA) Tasha Ali (NJ) Venus Allen (NC) Tedra Allen (FL) Demisha Allen (NC) Stanley Allman (NY) Mary Allman (NY) Anita Alsbrooks (NC) Julio Aponte (NJ) Tracey Arrington-Farlow (NJ)

Willa Ashe (ELEC) Zoey Ashley (NJ) Anastasia Austin (PA) Gladys Ayala (MI) Amanda Babb (FL) Elizabeth Baker (WI) Sherry Ballentine (NC) Kortnee Barnett (NC) Carolyn Barry-Ginyard (NY) Paulette Bartlett (FL) Sandra Belcher (VA) Veronica Bell (NC) Traci Benjamin (NJ) Robin Bennett (NC)

Vanessa Benson (NC) Kimberly Berry (FL) Artisha Blackman (FL) Morgan Blount (FL) Annie Blue (NC) Shannon Bowers (NY) Valerie Brant-Wilson (FL) Andrea Breazeale-King (NC) Keena Brittingham (NY) Lynn Brogden-Cabell (MD) Belinda Brouette (TX) Vonice Brown (NC) Johanna Brown (NC) Tanja Brown (MD)

Lei-Ling Brown (OH) Lindy Brown (NC) Tanayah Bruce (NJ) Randall Bryant (TX) Gwendolyn Buie (IL) Tameka Bullock (MD) Pediedra Burgess (FL) Dottery Butler-WA (MD) Jason Callahan (NY) Angela Canady-Blaylock (NC) Wanda Carr (NC) Cassandra Carson (NJ) Kathleen Carter (TX)

* For the period December 15, 2020 through March 18, 2021 42

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

NAP Connections

New Members* Wilda Carter-Neville (NC) Sharon Cates-Williams (NY) Myra Celestin (IL) Esther Cenat (NJ) Rhonada Chambers (NC) Jimmy Chambers (TX) Sandra Chambers-Collins (FL) Letitia Cherry (NC) Rafiah Chester (PA) Katherine Christopher (FL) Eurecka Christopher (FL) Pamela Clanton (IL) Raisha Cobb (NC) Donald Cole (IL) Kareen Coleman (FL) Sharon Collins (MD) Diana Corneilson (NY) Erika Correa (NY) Phyllis Cowans (NJ) Adrienne Craig (NC) La’Tisha Crawford (MD) April Cunningham (FL) William Cytowicz (NJ) Maxine Dalen (FL) Shanena Davenport-Fogan (DE) Sabryn Davis-Cannon (DE) Frank Dookie (NJ) Maria Dudley (CA) Kishia Dunlap (NC) Esther Dunnegan (NC) Yvonne Ellerbe (NC) Jack Eltman (PA) Sandra Engle (MI) Danielle Epps (NJ) Karynne Estrada (NEAP) Jared Evans (GA) Linda Evans (NC) Dana Farrakhan (MD) Tiffini Ferdinand (FL) Karen Fernander (FL) Benjamin Fitzgerald-Fye (NY) Zandra Floyd (FL) Migeya Ford (NC) Nicole Ford (VA) Kimberly Franklin (IL)

continued Daphne Franklin (NY) Novella Franklin (FL) Rosiland Franklin-Peterson (NJ) LaKeisha Freeman (IL) Chayla Freeman (NEAP) Tonya Freeman (NC) Darlene Fung (FL) Sean Galvez (NEAP) Erica Gardner (NEAP) LaMima Gilbert-Lewis (NC) Jo Gilmore (NJ) Abigail Gomes (NY) Selica Grant (NY) Deniece Gray (NC) Michelle Greene (MD) Jerrelle Griffin (VA) Ileetha Groom (NC) Melissa Guillaume-Thomas (NY) Jennifer Gysler (CA) Diana Halsey (MD) Vanessa Hamilton (NJ) Sharon Hardesty (NJ) Faye Harmer (CO) Jennifer Harper (ELEC) Candice Harrell (NEAP) Dana Harris (DE) Emiley Hatten (FL) Towanna Haywood (NC) Taquia Hearn (GA) Deirdre Hendersen (IL) Deborah Henderson (IL) Tomas Henderson (TX) Edith Henderson (NC) Barbara Henry (NC) Sylvia Hicks (NC) Venton Hill-Jones (TX) Todd Hill-Jones (TX) Richelle Hines (DE) Kathleen Hodges (PA) Ruby Hogan (FL) Krishanda Holmes (NC) Leola Horton (FL) Hayward Horton (NY) Lynette Howard (NJ) Lauren Hunt (NC)

Christopher Hyde (AB) Bobby James (PA) La-Dana Jenkins (NJ) Danne Johnson (OK) Aundre Johnson-Byrd (DE) Wagenia Jones (NJ) Cheryl Jones (PA) Judy Jones-Liptrot (FL) Dorine Joyner (NC) Terry Joyner (NY) Kevin Judd (DC) Alana Katz (NY) Paula Kay (FL) Lisa Kellman (NEAP) Marlena King (NEAP) John Kitchens (KS) Sarah Kneier (PA) Carrie Koudelka (WA) Stephanie Kowalyk (IL) Cynthia Langley Davis (NJ) Michelle Lawrence (NC) Lynea Laws (GA) Yvonette Lawson (IL) Selina Lazarus (NY) Michael Leak (PA) Torhonda Lee (FL) Yvelle Lee (FL) Karen Leftwich (MT) George LeGrand (SC) Alexandra Lewis (NJ) Marquita Lilly (NC) David Little (SC) Kristin Loye (WA) LaToya Lucas (NC) Kimberly Lyons (NC) Cean Mack (ELEC) Kassi Mackie (WA) Andrea Madden (VA) Julie Makowski (NY) Marilyn Manning (GA) Cherie Marquez (TX) Tanyon Martin (NC) Jocelyne Martinez (NY) Joy Martinez (NJ) Dana Massie (NY) Andrea Massop Ramos (NY) April Maxwell-Henley (NJ)

Valerie Mays (FL) Pauline McCurry (MS) Misty McDowell (OH) Lois McEntyre (MI) Michelle McKenney (NC) Ebony McLean (NY) Dannie McMillon (FL) Latisha McNeil (NC) Maria Medina-Blair (FL) Cory Milam (VA) Jennifer Mitchell Earley (OH) Debra Molinare (IL) Natalie Montague (NC) Yvette Mooney (NJ) Monifa Morgan (NY) Brenda Morgan (NY) Donna Marie Morris-Powell (NC) Sheryl Morton (NC) Keenya Mosley (GA) Debrea Mossett (GA) Jennifer Mumford (NC) Jeanie Murphy (TX) Darryl Murray (ELEC) LaKeshia Neal (NC) Tracey Neal (PA) Jomel Nelson (NY) Camille Newman (NC) Jeanell Newmuis-Haley (NJ) Dorita Newsome-Dobbins (NJ) Shirley Nichol (NJ) Angela Norman (MD) Andrea Nottingham (NY) Tierra O’Garra (NC) Tracie Orr (NC) Erica Orr (FL) Sonji Owens (MD) Letha Page (FL) Vera Palmer (NC) Sheneal Parker (NEAP) Joyce Parker-Hewett (NC) Natalie Peters (NY) S. Renee Phillips (NC) Flora Pitchford (NC) Marie Plaisir (NY) Gail Ponder (NJ)

* For the period December 15, 2020 through March 18, 2021 www.parliamentarians.org 43

NAP Connections

New Members* Michele Posey-Johnson (IL) Kayla Poston (NC) Curtis Powell (NY) Renee Powell (NY) Dion Powell (NY) Nichole Pressley (FL) Annette Puckerin (SC) Mikayla Raines (NC) Stephen Ralph (NM) Shari Rankin (NC) Cynthia Redfearn (NC) Alpha Reynolds-Lewis (NJ) Samantha Richards (VA) Aritha Richardson (NC) Michele Richlin (WY) Yvette Ridley (NJ) Corinne Rivers (NJ) Stephanie Roberson (NC) Nicole Roberts (NY) Schniqua Roberts (DE) Sharrone Robinson (NC) Tracy Robinson (IL) Evonda Robinson (NC) Jahmel Robinson (NY) Birhanie Robinson (NY) Giesele Robinson Greene (OH) Trimechiah Rogers (MD) Leah Rogers (NJ) Gene Roncone (CO) Maximo Ronquillo (VA) Chanda Ross (FL) Selena Rozier (FL) Carlyne Ruban (NY)

continued Jennifer Russell (WI) Samantha Saint-Germain (NJ) A. Najah Salaam JenningsBey (NY) Judith Samuels (NJ) Jherel Saunders-Dittimus (NJ) Jerrica Sawyer (FL) Briana Scott (NY) Leah Selvy (NC) Aisha Shaheen (IL) Bresha Shaw-Franklin (GA) Paul Sheehan (NY) Michael Shelton (NY) Makayla Shelton (NY) Keisha Shreeves-Whittington (MD) Regina Simmons (NJ) Whitney Sims-Rucker (IL) Valerie Sinclair (NC) Fredrika Sinclair (NC) Donna Smith (DE) Jade Smith (FL) Mark Smith (NJ) ReGina Smithwick (NC) LeStancia Spaght (MD) Darlene Sparks (FL) Eric Staten (TX) Irene Stevenson (FL) Dannette Stevenson (FL) Pamela Stevenson (NC) Kymmberli Stowe (NV) Cynthia Stubbs (NC)

Dana Swain (FL) Melissa Tanke (WI) Cydney Taylor (NY) Carolyn Taylor (FL) Gloria Taylor-Neal (NC) Alexander Tays (FL) Chevella Thomas (NC) Felicia Thomas-Williams (NY) Monica Thompson (MI) Tarsha Thompson (NC) Aytoiya Thompson (NC) Brandon Tilghman (NEAP) Teresa Tolbert (IL) Lenita Umstead (NC) April-Michelle Valmont (NJ) Shauna Vanderschaaf (UT) LaToya Vick (NC) Unabyrd Wadhams (MD) Itasca Waiters (IL) Natarsha Waklatsi (NY) Wanda Walker (FL) Mala Walker (NY) Antionette Walker (NJ) Charity Wallace (NEAP) LaTonya Ward (MD) Latricia Warren (NY) Katwona Warren (NY) Lorna WA (NY) Brenda Watson-Ellis (FL) Terri Weaver (NJ) Bessie Weaver (FL) Audia Wells (IL) Rehshetta Wells (NC)

Peta-Gayle White (NY) Doreen Wilburn-Smith (NC) Amy Wilkens (OH) Tanya Wilkins (NC) Demetria Williams (FL) Deirdre Williams (NJ) Gwendolyn Williams (NC) Shatysh Williams (FL) Kimberly Williams (NC) Matthew Williams (NY) Cyshelle Williams-Graham (NC) Rheba Wilson (TX) Hyacinth Winn (NY) Pia Woodley (FL) Rhonda Wooten (NC) Chanda Wright (NC) Yvette Wynn (NY) Kimberly Young Wilkins (NY)

Thank you instructors!

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Kay Crews, PRP Theljewa Garrett, PRP Sadie Boles, PRP Azella Collins, PRP Beverly Tatham, PRP Jewel Jones, PRP LaShonda Henderson, RP Sheryl Womble, PRP

* For the period December 15, 2020 through March 18, 2021

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

44

National Parliamentarian • Spring 2021

NAP

43rd Biennial Convention Reserve the best seat in the house (or office).

The convention educational program this year will be delivered electronically so you will be able to participate in the comfort of your own home or office.

Clear your calendar the week of

September 6-12, 2021 to take advantage of all this year’s event will offer.

Watch your email for more details coming soon.

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