National Parliamentarian (Vol.82, No. 4) by National Association of Parliamentarians

Volume 82, No. 4 | Summer 2021

National Parliamentarian

It Begins as It Ends

The Chat Box: Boon or Boondoggle? page 13

NAP 43rd Biennial Convention Preview page 24

Virtually Anything Is Possible page 34

Parliamentary Resources at Your Fingertips

There is only one place to turn for your parliamentary resources: NAP. Browse our online store for • Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and In Brief – we offer spiral-bound versions not available anywhere else! • Parliamentary reference cards • Basic information handouts • Script samples • Leadership primers for officers • Credentialing study guides • Teaching resources • And so much more

Check us out today at

www.parliamentarians.org

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

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

National Parliamentarian

Volume 82, No. 4 | Summer 2021

Contents

From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message It Begins as It Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEATURES We Interrupt This Meeting! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Todd Brand, PRP Pass It So We Can Find Out What’s in It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 John R. Berg, PRP Abstain From Abstaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP The Chat Box: Boon or Boondoggle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Carl Nohr, PRP In Defense of Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Patricia E. McDougle, PRP “That’s What She Said,” A Review of the Cult of RONR . . . 20 Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP Democracy in Our Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Adrian Stratton, PRP Special Section 2021 NAP 43nd Biennial Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Schedule at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Registration Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Cancellation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 DEPARTMENTS Test Yourself Wild Guesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 David Mezzera, PRP Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Answer Key – Wild Guesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 NAP Connections NAPEF: Creating a Firm Foundation for Education . . . . . . 31 Mrs. Florence Motley, 1912-2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Kevin Connelly, PRP Virtually Anything Is Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Pamela Harmon, PRP Enhancing Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Anna Weselak So, You Want to Be a Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 A message from the NAP Commission on Credentialing Letter to the Editor: Zoom Meeting – via email . . . . . . . . . 38 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . 39 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 www.parliamentarians.org

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 83, No. 1 . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2021 (Fall 2021) Volume 83, No. 2 . . . . . . November 1, 2021 (Winter 2022) Volume 83, No. 3 . . . . . . . . February 1, 2022 (Spring 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

The authors of “Features” this issue bring a variety of topics based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition. The Q&A Team, composed of Alison Wallis, Ann Homer, Rachel Glanstein, and Timothy Wynn, address sticky questions about approving minutes, rules for small boards, and a non-member chairing a meeting remotely. Don’t miss our “Connections” section this issue. Learn about grants from the NAP Foundation, and the commitment essential for those who serve as credentialing commissioners. As we approach the 2021 convention and election of new officers, this editor thanks President Darlene Allen for appointing such a knowledgeable NP Review Team: Assistant Editor Betty Tunstall, Dana Dickson, Ferial Bishop, and Ronald Dupart. Credit for the attractive layout of each issue is due Kansas City graphic designer Rosemary Holderby of Cole Design & Production. Thank you to our authors, the hard-working NP team, and the members who have sent encouraging notes about the content and appearance of your magazine. 2

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

President’s Message

It Begins as It Ends “All endings are also beginnings. We just don’t know it yet.” The words of American author, journalist, and philanthropist Mitch Albom could not be truer. The line that separates the end of this historic time and the dawn of a bright future is not clearly defined. We can see events taking shape and moving toward the goal, in the distance. Will we fully retreat to that which makes us comfortable? Unlikely. There will be significant and long-lasting differences in the way organizations meet and operate. Presently, units and associations are taking a much-needed summer break in their meeting schedules while preparing to attend the 43rd National Biennial Convention. The circle is nearly complete with both the annual membership meeting having been held and the biennial convention to be held via electronic platforms. Being flexible and able to pivot quickly allowed us to make changes, which yielded substantial and meaningful parliamentary experiences that will prove to be useful in the future. Looking ahead, the pre-convention leadership conference, convention business meetings and workshops, and post-convention professional courses await us. There will be differences in the way our pre-convention and post-convention events and activities will be conducted. Information to guide us through the logistics of conducting an electronic biennial convention will arrive in your inbox. Please pay special attention to the requirements and deadlines. Sharing the accomplishments and progress with members at convention time continues to be a high point of each administration. Sharing our electronic convention experiences as we sit face-to-face in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 2022 will be a dream come true! Albeit premature to say goodbye, it is not too soon to thank the 2019–2021 Board of Directors, Standing and Special Committees, NAP Headquarters staff, District Directors, and the Twins, Tamara Harris, and Dave Whitaker, for their support and hard work during this pandemic and administration. Thank you, members, for your continued support of NAP. You have enriched your parliamentary experiences and knowledge, thereby supplanting mediocrity. I wish the members of the incoming administration much success as they begin to take NAP to the next level. I am anticipating quoting the words of the great William Shakespeare: “The wheel is come full circle.” Be safe! Darlene T. Allen, PRP 2019-2021 NAP President www.parliamentarians.org

We Interrupt This Meeting! By Todd Brand, PRP

While our teachers and loved ones may have taught us the sage advice, “never interrupt,” we parliamentarians know that interruptions are an important part of the parliamentary process. One common motion is a Point of Order, which alerts the chair and the assembly to a breach of the rules. Two other interrupting motions are found in section 33 of RONR, specifically a Request for Information, and a Parliamentary Inquiry. The purpose, characteristics, and proper handling of these latter two motions are the focus of this article. As we jump in, let’s note two reasons these motions are important. It is not uncommon to witness a member saying, “Point of Order” (which requires a ruling of the chair) when really the goal of the member was not to point out a breach of the rules, but rather to gain information or understanding. It makes sense to use the right motion and avoid the need for a ruling if that is not the goal. Second, these motions aid the membership’s decision making. While we work to keep meetings moving forward efficiently, a meeting that rushes by with members casting votes without the information they need or 4

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

without understanding the current parliamentary process, can lead to frustration and poor decision making. Members have the right to certain information, and always the right to know what is happening in the current parliamentary situation. So, what are the common characteristics of these two motions? Can we even call them motions? These requests are indeed motions; however, they are unique in certain ways. Let’s discuss. The standard descriptive characteristics of these two requests require no second, neither is debatable or amendable, and neither is subject to reconsideration. More important, neither includes a vote, so they are certainly not your typical motions! For further characteristics, the reader should examine RONR 33.2. The purpose of a Parliamentary Inquiry is “…to obtain information on a matter of parliamentary law or the rules of the organization bearing on the business at hand.” RONR 33:3. Often this type of request will arise around the process of handling amendments, as this can be confusing for members. It may also come up in the context of questioning the order

of secondary motions, or as a request for the chair to assist in wording or choosing an appropriate motion. Whatever the question might be, the need for this motion is clear. A confused member (or the entire membership!) does not help the decision-making process. In addition, when members do not understand what is happening in the parliamentary process, it is easy to lose faith in or disengage from the meeting process itself, or, even worse, the organization. It is better for a member to gain clarity on what is happening than to become frustrated or make the assumption that the rules are unfair. In RONR 33:4&5, we are directed on how to process a parliamentary inquiry with some important notes. By way of process, a member rises to make an inquiry, the chair asks the member to state the inquiry, and the member then has the floor to do just that. This part is straightforward, but remember the following as well: First, this inquiry is not subject to appeal, as there is no ruling. The answer from the chair is simply an opinion. This adds value to this motion in that the process is simple and often very quick. It can also serve the chair well by providing a glimpse at where the greater membership may be in understanding the meeting process and may lead the chair to provide more clear articulation of upcoming steps as the meeting progresses. Second, remember this is an

interrupting motion. A parliamentary inquiry may be made when another member has the floor. Unlike a point of order, which must be addressed at that time by the chair’s discretion of the urgency of the inquiry, the answer may be delayed until after the current speaker is finished. Third, a reminder that the chair is under no obligation to answer hypothetical questions. That said, it may serve the meeting well to do so if the chair senses it will assist the membership with the business at hand. Turning our attention to our second motion, let us consider the Request for Information. This motion “…is a request directed to the chair, or through the chair to another officer or member, for information relevant to the business at hand but not related to parliamentary procedure.” RONR 33:6. This type of request could arise when the background information for a motion is inadequate or incomplete. Often this request is about the impact a motion or amendment will have on the budget or the organization itself. There are many reasons why such a request may be made, and, like the parliamentary inquiry, this motion is helpful to give members a way to become better informed about the decision at hand. The details we need to properly handle the request for information are found in RONR 33:7-10. Similar to the parliamentary inquiry, a member rises to make the request, the chair www.parliamentarians.org

asks the member to state the request, and the member then asks their question. Like the previous motion we examined, the chair can use some discretion when this request interrupts the speaker who has the floor and has begun to speak. It is hard to imagine many instances when the desired information can not wait until the speaker has relinquished the floor. However, the reason this request may interrupt is that the question itself may be for the speaker who has the floor. In this case, the speaker decides whether they will allow the interruption and, if so, the time used comes out of the speaker’s allotted time. If not directed to the speaker, there likely does not need to be an interruption, and the chair or someone else through the chair, can respond after the person assigned the floor is finished speaking. A few thoughts in closing. The calm and professional handling of these interrupting motions sets a tone for their proper and reasonable use. One question that a parliamentarian may wonder is whether these requests must be stated formally and in proper form. While we try to encourage proper parliamentary language in our meetings, these requests are often stated less formally. The chair should

recognize this and process the requests as a proper request for information or parliamentary inquiry, regardless of the formality used by the member. A reminder too, it can be helpful to teach organizations and their members the use of these motions. The use of these motions helps avoid the incorrect and somewhat more complex and disruptive Point of Order. These requests also empower members, and better engage them with the meeting to acquire information to assist with sound decision-making. Finally, with many meetings occurring online these days, parliamentarians need to ensure that all participants understand how to make an interrupting motion. It could be the dedicated purpose of the chat box, or perhaps through use of a unique icon to gain the attention of someone monitoring the online platform, who will then alert the chair. NP

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

Todd Brand, PRP, is the current president of the Alberta Association of Parliamentarians. With a Master of Arts in Leadership & Management, Todd blends his knowledge of organizational development with his expertise in parliamentary procedure to help his clients via consultation, training, presiding, and serving as meeting parliamentarian. 6

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

Pass It So We Can Find Out What’s in It By John R. Berg, PRP

The presiding officer of a legislative body has been widely quoted as saying “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” (https://youtu.be/hV-05TLiiLU). This raises the question of whether it is best to adopt something first and then fill in the details, or to fill in the details before adopting it. The normal parliamentary procedure in the adoption of a motion involves amending it before it is adopted. Some may ask, “Why take all the time to amend something if it may not pass anyway?” The primary reason can be expressed in the idiom, “the devil is in the details.” While many members may approve of a general concept, they might not approve of it when specific details are included. The majority might agree to apple pie for dessert, but some may not want walnuts or too much cinnamon in it, or some may want apple pie with no sugar added. What about adding ice cream, or perhaps a slice of cheddar cheese? A specific type of apple pie may not receive majority support while generic apple pie more likely would. It can be very frustrating for members to have originally supported a general concept, only to realize that

they cannot later support it in its final form. Two thirds might approve a bylaws amendment to achieve an admirable goal by modest means, only to realize that the subsequent measures to implement it, adopted by only a majority, become grossly objectionable. A Pandora’s box can be opened when something is approved without knowing the details that will follow. For this reason, the general rule is that a motion is amended before it is adopted. Hopefully, it also will be read by those called upon to vote on it. In purchasing a new car, does the wise buyer first agree to purchase the car, then negotiate the features, price, and terms? An experienced car salesperson would say that psychologically the buyer actually does agree to buy the car before filling in the details. The buyer does not www.parliamentarians.org

always realize this, which is to the advantage of the salesperson. The same holds true in politics and deliberative assemblies. Ascertaining an assembly’s receptiveness for a specific motion often can be accomplished informally before the meeting. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th ed. RONR does not permit straw polls (the taking of a non-binding preliminary vote) because they neither adopt nor reject the measure, and are meaningless and dilatory (45:72). Going into a committee of the whole, as suggested in 45:72, is one method to allow a vote that is not final. In addition to going into a committee of the whole, there are other methods to test the prospects of passage for a particular measure. The two most commonly used are the main motion to Commit and the secondary motion to Postpone Indefinitely. The main motion to Commit introduces a main motion on a new subject and, at the same time, refers it to a committee where it can be considered in more detail and be perfected before coming back to the assembly. “If the referral is pursuant to a subject on which the assembly has already taken some action” it is an incidental main motion. RONR 13:6. These two differ from the more common subsidiary motion to Commit which refers a pending matter to committee. RONR 13:1. The main motion to Commit would be defeated if there was not majority approval for the general concept expressed in 8

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

the motion. Thus, the committee has some expectation that their work will not be in vain if they can come up with a final version of the motion that can receive majority approval from the assembly. The motion to Postpone Indefinitely can be used when the main motion is already on the floor. If a member feels that there is not sufficient support to adopt the motion regardless of how it may be amended, that member could move to Postpone Indefinitely. This provides the opportunity to defeat the motion without risking its adoption. If Postpone Indefinitely is adopted, the main motion is rejected, and time consumed in perfecting it with amendments will have been saved. Since Postpone Indefinitely is debatable, including the merits of the main motion, and amendments to the main motion are in order before voting on Postpone Indefinitely, the Previous Question can be used to hasten a vote on Postpone Indefinitely. RONR 11. Objection to the Consideration of a Question also could be used as a way to kill a main motion before there is any debate on it. This is not commonly used because it requires a two-thirds negative vote on the question put as “shall the motion be considered?” It is undebatable and typically would be used only when widespread disapproval of the motion is anticipated. RONR 26. A fourth method of testing the possible approval of a motion can be through the use of the agenda. RONR 41:58-62. This is useful in meetings

in which there is a tight agenda and significant items of business are put on an agenda that is approved at the beginning of the meeting. If there is substantial disapproval for a specific item, it is simply removed from the agenda by a majority vote. This is a much lower threshold than the two-thirds vote required to adopt Objection to the Consideration of a Question, and accomplishes the same result. It also is debatable, which Objection to the Consideration of a Question is not. If an item removed from the agenda were reintroduced later in the meeting under new business, the chair could rule the motion out of order because the assembly already would have decided not to consider the motion. On appeal, that ruling could be reversed by a majority vote. Alternatively, the agenda could be amended by the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. RONR 41:63, 35:1-2. There are other instances in which something is adopted, and the details added later. A motion with a blank could be adopted, in which case the assembly must proceed to fill the blank before taking up other business. RONR 12:105. The preferred method is still to fill the blank before adopting the motion.

A second instance would occur when a motion to Commit does not include details as to the composition of the committee. Again, if adopted, the assembly must proceed to fill in the details before taking up other business. RONR 13:10-14. A motion to give instructions to the committee could follow, even at a later meeting. RONR 13:22. Whether the details are added before or after the adoption of a main motion, RONR still provides the most efficient method for deliberative assemblies to make decisions in a fair and orderly manner. When asked if you want the apple pie for dessert, ask for the specifics before saying yes, otherwise accept what is served to you. 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

A B S T A I N F R O M A B S T A I N I N G By Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

One of the most misapplied parliamentary concepts is the right to abstain. In accordance with Robert’s Rules, the proper voting procedure is to ask, “Those in favor of the motion, say aye. Those opposed [to the motion], say no.” RONR (12th ed.) 4:37. The common practice in most clients’ meetings is, “Those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say, no. Anyone abstain?” Habitually asking for abstentions as part of every voting procedure conflicts with Robert’s Rules. The chair should not call for abstentions in taking a vote. The logic here is that to abstain means not to vote at all. The question is meaningless because not voting, or answering that one abstains, or not answering at all, results in the same non-vote. RONR (12th ed.) 4:35. When one may abstain 1. Robert’s Rules does state that a member “can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote.” RONR (12th ed.) 45:3. The right to abstain is proper as long as it does not conflict with an authority that is ranked higher than Robert’s Rules, e.g., the society’s constitution or bylaws. This right to abstain is common in societies where each member has the power to vote entirely upon his own interests and wishes, such as a club or a society with a general assembly where each member has the sole power over his own vote and no one else’s. 2. A member has the right to express his opinion on a question. The parliamentary means of communicating his opinion is “to express it by his vote.” RONR (12th ed.) 45:3. If a member cannot be compelled to vote, RONR (12th ed.) 45:3, and he chooses to abstain, that member chooses to remain neutral and silence his opinion on the matter. In order to remain neutral and silence his opinion, that member should not participate or have any impact on the final disposition of the motion. This includes not making the motion, or seconding it, or amending it. Additionally, the member who chooses to abstain should not participate in debate or by influencing the other voters through actions or body language. He might as well momentarily leave the assembly.

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

When one may NOT abstain Robert’s Rules yields to the association’s documents of governance, especially the association’s constitution and bylaws. Typically, these documents define the obligation of the voting members. In most of the situations where the services of a parliamentarian are essential, a board of directors or a convention of delegates constitute the voting members. In each of these cases, the society’s constitution or bylaws define the voting members’ role as an obligation to reflect the voice of their constituents. After all, every such voting member represents hundreds or thousands of members who have no right to vote at the board or convention. It is inaccurate and presumptuous for such a voting member to vote by saying, “I vote in favor/against the motion.” No board member or delegate votes exclusively for himself. Each such voting member is the voice of a group of constituents that are relying on the voting member to reflect the will of the constituents. Constituents do not elect a delegate or board member to vote for them, and then instruct that voting member to attend the business meeting and not vote. A delegate or board member is elected to serve as a champion for the interests of the constituency. Silence is not service. Technically, when a chair does not vote, he is not abstaining. He is protecting his impartiality by voting only during a secret vote, or when he wishes to have an impact on the decision by causing or breaking a tie or a 2/3 vote. RONR (12th ed.) 45:3. Members who wish to abstain often give the following inadequate excuses 1. I must remain neutral in front of my voting friends. The reflection of the constituents’ voice is critical. Their voice must not be denied or reduced by the voter’s need to satisfy friends on the board or at the convention. Obligation to friends on a board is too often averse to loyalty to the constituents. 2. I cannot vote for the minutes because I missed that meeting. The voting member received a timely notice of the meeting and had time to study or hear the minutes. If the voting member later discovers an error in the minutes, he can move to amend the minutes weeks or months later. The right to vote cannot be denied except through disciplinary proceedings. RONR (12th ed.) 1:4. Anyway, a formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary, especially since the goal is primarily to correct the minutes. RONR (12th ed.) 41:10. 3. I cannot vote because I am confused on the issue. The voting member had plenty of time during the handling of the motion to request information, to debate, and to listen to both sides. Additionally,

www.parliamentarians.org

the member had an obligation to prepare for the meeting based on the shared content of the timely call of the meeting. 4. I am indifferent to this motion because it does not affect my constituents. Although a voting member has the fiduciary obligation to serve as the voice of a limited constituency, his primary duty as a voting member is to participate in the decisions that affect the entire membership. 5. I must recuse myself from voting because I have a conflict of interest. Under Robert’s Rules, a conflict of interest is defined as having “a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members.” RONR (12th ed.) 45:4. In these cases, Robert’s does not prohibit the vote, instead simply recommends that the member should not vote. “However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances.” RONR (12th ed.) 45:4. 6. I must recuse myself because the motion includes me. If a member were not allowed to vote for a motion that included him, no one would ever be able to vote for a motion that involved the entire membership. After all, the voting member is a member of the entire membership. Additionally, a majority would never be able to protect itself from being expelled by a small minority. Furthermore, the practice of prohibiting voting members from voting if the motion includes them would be an illegal means of discouraging a member from running for an office position being that he could not count on his own vote in a close race. RONR (12th ed.) 45:5. 7. I strongly disagree with this motion. An abstention is not a stronger means of voting in the negative. The services of a parliamentarian are generally not required at a meeting if the meeting involves a small, local gathering where every member votes solely for his own interests. The services of a parliamentarian are typically required when the votes of the membership are delegated to the members of a board or a convention. The voting members in the former situation have every right to abstain. The voting members in the latter situation have an obligation to abstain from abstaining. NP

Lorenzo R. Cuesta is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian. He has served as a parliamentarian for boards, conventions, and annual meetings in and beyond California for more than 20 years. He is a frequent contributor to National Parliamentarian and an annual workshop presenter at the NAP convention and conference. (http://www.roberts-rules.com, email: parliam@roberts-rules.com) 12

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

The Chat Box: Boon or Boondoggle? This article considers whether the chat box is a boon or boondoggle in the conduct of business at formal meetings, and how it can be useful in formal and informal meetings. The recent shift to electronic meetings (e-meetings) was disruptive, but also created new opportunities. While some regard an e-meeting as a poor substitute for an in-person meeting, an e-meeting has its own advantages. Such meetings will be a permanent part of our future, and it is useful to understand how they can best serve the needs of organizations. Electronic meetings present some new features that do more than replicate in-person functionality. Such features may help or hinder the democratic process in deliberative assemblies. One such commonly available feature is the chat box. This is a field in which attendees can enter text. This function usually has several possible settings; attendees can chat publicly or privately with each other, only with the meeting host, or be disabled completely. The entered text can be saved. Is the chat box a help or a hindrance in the conduct of business at a deliberative assembly meeting? First, let’s determine if the use of the chat box meets the definition of a deliberative assembly. A deliberative assembly is a group of people meeting in a setting that allows simultaneous aural communication among all participants.1 The opportunity for all members to hear each other is fundamental to the deliberative process. A group using

••• By Carl Nohr, PRP

texting, emails, chat rooms, and faxes does not constitute a deliberative assembly. Next, by reviewing relevant parliamentary principles, let’s examine why the use of such texting functions does not meet the definition of a deliberative assembly.2 One person has the floor at a time.3 Before a member can speak in a meeting, they must obtain the floor. This is done through recognition by the chair that the member has the exclusive right to be heard at that time. In a chat box, multiple members may enter text without recognition. Only one question can be considered at a time.4 This long-standing parliamentary principle is essential to allow members to know exactly what is being discussed and decided at any given time. The presiding officer has the responsibility to control the meeting in such a way that this principle is respected. Such control over what members may enter in the chat box is not practical. All remarks must be germane to the single question under consideration.5 This is an essential principle to allow fair and efficient conduct of business. Even an excellent presiding officer, with support, would be challenged to monitor the chat box and rule entries out of order if they were not germane. 1 2 3 4 5

RONR (12th ed.) 1:1 RONR (12th ed.) 9:34 RONR (12th ed.) 3:30 RONR (12th ed.) 5:4 RONR (12th ed.) 43:20 www.parliamentarians.org

••• Remarks must not attack a member’s motives.6 Again, monitoring the chat box for personal comments would overwhelm the most experienced presiding officer. Furthermore, comments may be made privately between individuals, making it impossible for the presiding officer and other members to even know what is being said. All remarks must be addressed through the chair.7 This is an important principle in decorum so that business can be conducted impersonally regardless of the mood of the assembly and the attendees. An open chat box defeats this principle, both in the public and the private comments that can be made. No member may speak more than twice to the same question on the same day, unless the organization has adopted rules permitting this.8 In the chat box, prolific members may enter any number of comments without seeking recognition. This property of the chat box is less important in committee of the whole and its alternate forms, where this limitation on number of speeches is lifted.9 No member may debate a second time on the pending question as long as members who have not yet spoken wish to do so.10 Again, if used for debate, the chat box allows unlimited entries without recognition, defeating this principle. The use of names of members should be avoided.11 This principle helps maintain a neutral and impersonal atmosphere, respecting all members equally. The author has noticed the frequent use of “@name” in the chat function at meetings; this contravenes this parliamentary principle. Reports, quotations, and other materials may not be read without permission.12 While members could seek permission to enter text from a report 14

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

or hyperlinks to documents or websites, they can also enter such materials into the chat box without recognition and permission, thus circumventing this requirement. Refrain from disturbing the assembly.13 No member should be permitted to whisper or otherwise disturb the assembly. Using the chat box is the equivalent of talking out loud during a meeting without recognition to do so. The chat box is certainly distracting to presiding officers and members, if not outright disturbing, and thus is hostile to this parliamentary principle. Distracting members of an assembly is incompatible with good governance and attentive participation. Assembly members may be considered to have a fiduciary duty to prepare for, attend, participate in debate, and vote on matters of interest to the organization. The chat box can easily distract from these responsibilities, whether used publicly or as a private conversation between two members. Some organizations may have a code of conduct that addresses the duty of members at meetings; regardless, attentiveness to the business at hand is always the best approach to individual and organizational success. Minutes should record what was done at a meeting, not what was said.14 The text entered in the chat box may be saved. Recording what members have written contravenes this parliamentary 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

RONR (12th ed.) 43:21 RONR (12th ed.) 43:22 RONR (12th ed.) 43:12 RONR (12th ed.) 52:2 RONR (12th ed.) 42:9 RONR (12th ed.) 43:23 RONR (12th ed.) 43:26 RONR (12th ed.) 43:28 RONR (12th ed.) 48:2

principle on record keeping. If both verbal debate and the chat function are used during a meeting, saving the chat text provides an uneven and undue level of recording of comments made by members in the chat box, compared to comments made verbally. If members are aware the chat box may be recorded, they may also limit their comments, which will decrease the diversity of thought that is foundational to good decision making. There is also a legal concern, in that a preserved copy of the chat comments may be discoverable. It is thus apparent that the chat feature does not meet the definition of a deliberative assembly, and that attempting to use it, at least for most activities during a formal business meeting, presents several parliamentary process problems. However, there are three ways the chat box can be used effectively in a formal meeting. The first is as a communication tool, allowing members to seek recognition. Members may indicate the desire to debate by entering “debate” or “d.” If the chair wishes, the members may be asked to indicate whether they are in favor or opposed to the pending question by adding a “for” or “against” or for shorthand, “+” or “-.” This will allow the chair to alternate speakers in debate to respect the minority and generate a diversity of thought.15 Also, members may indicate that they are seeking recognition to make an interrupting motion by entering the name of the motion, for example, point of order, or “poi.” The subtleties of interrupting a member who has started to speak, or has been recognized but not yet started to speak, can be managed in this manner, albeit demanding an alert and attentive presiding officer. This is of course, also the case in an in-person meeting!

Second, the chat box may also be effectively used to enter the exact wording of a main motion or amendment that a member has moved verbally. Having the text entered will allow the members to see it, the chair to read it exactly as the mover intended, and the secretary to record it accurately. Alternatively, this function can also be managed by using the white board function of some platforms, or a shared document outside of the meeting platform. Third, the chat box may be used effectively to make proposals to fill blanks. This would include nominations, unless the nominator wishes to debate, which requires recognition.16 Is the chat box useful outside of formal business meetings? Members appreciate the opportunity to “chat” with other members at meetings. This social interaction is a vital aspect of membership and the foundation of many great friendships that develop as we meet together. The chat box can be very useful as an adjunct to conversation in this setting, to help us find new ways to nourish old friendships and develop new ones through membership in associations and participation at meetings. The chat box can be enabled during breaks and dedicated times outside of formal meetings to accomplish this. In summary, the use of a chat box presents several problems during formal meetings except if used as a restricted communication tool to seek recognition, to enter the text of main motions and amendments, and to make proposals to fill blanks. It can, however, be used effectively for important social interactions outside of formal meetings. 5 RONR (12th ed.) 42:9 1 16 RONR (12th ed.) 46:6 www.parliamentarians.org

••• Here are some suggestions for rules that organizations can consider ensuring all members understand and use the chat function correctly. 1. The chat box shall be used only to seek recognition, enter the text of a main motion or an amendment, or to fill blanks. Only the “everyone” chat box function shall be used. All other use of the chat box either publicly or privately is not in order. 2. All rules of decorum apply to the chat box. 3. To seek recognition, a member shall enter into the chat box “debate” or “d,” and may indicate whether they are in favor or opposed to the immediately pending question by adding “+” or “-.” 4. A member intending to make a motion that may interrupt a speaker shall enter the title of the motion in the chat box. The member shall then be recognized to state the purpose of the motion. If the chair does not immediately recognize the member, they may unmute and seek recognition verbally. 5. After making a main motion or amendment verbally, the mover shall enter the text of the motion or amendment into the chat box. 6. A member wishing to make a proposal to fill a blank may enter the proposal into the chat box. In the case of a nomination, the name of the nominee shall be entered. 7. If a member wishes to post material or a hyperlink in the chat box, they shall request permission of the assembly through the chair to do so. They shall indicate this request in the chat box by entering “request to post material.” After recognition, they may make their request, which shall be ruled on by the chair, or the decision turned over to the assembly. 8. The chat box text shall not be saved.

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

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

In Defense of Committees By Patricia E. McDougle, PRP

Often maligned, rarely understood. Criticizing committees is a popular topic of conversation whenever members congregate to chat about the organization. Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said, “Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain and most fools do.”1 Criticisms of committees may include: • There is too much meaningless discussion—minutes are kept, and hours are wasted. • A question can be studied for weeks, even months, and the committee does not reach a conclusion. • The committee’s report may summarize and justify its methods and activities with few, if any recommendations, leaving the value of the committee undeterminable.

• Another criticism is that committees can go on forever. “We have always had a [fill in the blank] Committee. Our bylaws require it.” Times and circumstances change; and the purpose of that long-ago-established committee may no longer be relevant. Do committees deserve such a reputation? Regardless of the critics, committees are an integral part of organized societies. The business of an organization is far too complex and varied for individuals working alone, or for a small group like a board of directors, to manage. Multiple groups of people working throughout the organization are most often required to accomplish its mission. The National Association of Parliamentarians® (NAP) is an

1 https://www.brainyquote.com/search_results?q=fool+criticize. www.parliamentarians.org

example of a successful organization where committees are indispensable in accomplishing its objectives. Examples of NAP committees, briefly summarized, are: • Communications – investigates and recommends methods for marketing and making the general public aware of NAP and its services. • Educational Resources – develops educational material for publication in the name of NAP. • Membership and Registered Examiners – processes and administers the exams for NAP membership and for achieving the status of registered parliamentarian. • Commission on Credentialing – a special committee that administers the credentialing program of NAP. What is the definition of a committee? Robert’s definition provides clarity to enhance the understanding of committees in organized societies: “A committee, as understood in parliamentary law, is a body of one or more persons, elected or appointed by (or by direction of) an assembly or society, to consider, investigate, or take action on certain matters or subjects, or to do all of these things. Unlike a board, a committee is not itself considered to be a form of assembly.”2 Shakespeare’s Juliet said, “That which we call a rose by any other

name would smell as sweet.”3 This applies directly to committees whether called a task force, advisory board, council, commission, or panel. Sources of committee problems. Two typical sources of problems existing in committees, whether in government, in the business world, the PTA, or the Girl Scouts, are the people selected to serve on the committee, and a failure to communicate. People selected to serve on the committee. People selected to serve but who are not committed to, or lack expertise in, the purpose contribute to the problem, and lessen the likelihood of success. Their manner of participation may also be a factor: the dominate ones with something to say about everything, the quiet ones who never say a word, and the political types who wait and watch to determine the direction of the prevailing wind before speaking out. Least likely to be a problem source are those who listen to others and weigh the alternatives before speaking. Their contribution may be the most valuable. Failure to communicate. Failure to anticipate barriers to communication is a second source of committee ineffectiveness. The free flow of conversations—both critical and complimentary—is essential. Barriers to effective communications: • failure to understand the purpose or problem.

2 RONR (12th ed.) 50:1. 3 Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/full.html. 18

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

• lack of knowledge of organization served. • resistance to change. • organizational politics. • personality differences. • closed mindedness. Guidelines for composition of a committee. RONR (12th ed.) in 50:18 gives us the following guidelines for the proper composition of a committee. Standing committee members should be chosen to provide the strongest group for handling any task within the purview of the committee. Special committee members should be selected with consideration to the objective: 1) if the objective of the committee is to implement an order of the assembly, select only a small number of members that are in favor of the action to be carried out; 2) if the committee is appointed for deliberation or investigation, select members that are representative, as far as possible, of all points of view within in the organization. This committee is often larger, and when carefully selected, its recommendations are likely to reflect the will of the appointing body.

Successful committees, making a difference. Whether committees are appointed, named, or elected, leaders and members must recognize their responsibility in contributing to the success of the committee by choosing the right individuals based on the committee’s purpose. People selected [or elected] to serve must possess the versatility and ability to work together, have sufficient vision to comprehend the problem, have a demonstrable talent for communication—to actively participate—and have the willingness to acquire subject knowledge if they do not already have it. Participation by all committee members in input, energy and experience greatly enhances committee effectiveness. In Defense of Committees. Committees serve a critical role in organizations by focusing on only a part of the big picture. A committee’s success depends on the people appointed and their ability to communicate. Committees continue to flourish because a long history of successful committee outcomes has established a model worth emulating for every organization seeking to manage its many and complex components. NP

Patricia E. McDougle, PRP, has been a member of NAP since 1985 and a PRP since 1991. She serves as parliamentarian and provides training for international, national, state, and local organizations as well as government bodies on a local level. She has supported youth organizations, FFA, FBLA, FCCLA, and others for many, many years as a judge for parliamentary competitions. She is a member of the Broward-Palm Beach Parliamentarians. www.parliamentarians.org

“That’s What She Said” A R eview of T he C ult o f R O N R By Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP

When a serious student of parliamentary procedure sees a link to a series of videos titled, The Cult of RONR, on YouTube, the Internet site hosting millions of videos, he may be curious, but might be put off. It sounds like a site that is antiparliamentary procedure, or at least anti-RONR. When he (or she) starts watching one of these videos and is greeted by a woman with bright pink hair, and a man wearing tie-dyed clothing, he may assume that this is some type of parody of parliamentary procedure, and watch it for the humor. While humor is subjective, this reviewer finds it outrageously funny, and something else as well. The Cult of RONR, is an exceptionally good series of educational videos, especially for people studying for the NAP registration examination, or for people who want an in-depth education in RONR.i These videos are co-hosted by Caryn Ann Harlos, with the bright pink hair, and Mike Seebeck, with 20

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

the ubiquitous tie-dyed clothing. Ms. Harlos is the national secretary of the Libertarian Party; Mr. Seebeck has served on several bylaw committees of various state Libertarian Party organizations. Ms. Harlos is an aspiring parliamentarian, studying for the NAP registration exam. Perhaps the best way to describe the site is to use its own description, which gives the flavor of the humor as well: “Welcome to The Cult of RONR you heathen you. Each day we plumb the depths of the Most Holy RONR to gain the esoteric wisdom so that we do not get our a**** kicked by High Priests of Robert’s at future meetings, and to bring the Good Word to the unwashed masses. We are practically Martin Luther!” The hosts approved of the 12th Edition of RONR new citation system, noting that, “…so it looks like a Bible,” and is “perfect for the cult.”ii

It is this irreverent humor that cocoons the education. The co-hosts ask each other, in turn, a question—their “daily devotions”— from the National Association of Parliamentarian’s “Daily Parliamentary Calendar.” One question is discussed every weekday. On Sundays, they conduct “Sunday Services,” where they do the research section of the exam, often with a discussion of the quote. This discussion of both the daily and Sunday questions is in depth, often delving deeply into the text to determine why an answer is correct, not merely if an answer is correct. This is the true educational value of The Cult of RONR. Exceptional value does not mean perfection. For example, a majority vote is habitually referred to as fifty percent plus one, perhaps their greatest sin. The referrals to the procedure internal to the Libertarian Party are a double-edged sword. Much of the time an example of some event that happened at a Libertarian Party meeting can be analogous to situations that the viewer has faced. Other times, it can be quite obscure.

These videos are not for everyone, however. Someone offended by language that could not be used in debate (which is an understatement), should not watch these videos. The language is salty, risqué, and filled with double entendres, such as the oft repeated phrase, “That’s what she said.” This is not a video series for people who like the lecture format; people who prefer a teacher lecturing to them should avoid these videos. This is much closer to the Socratic method of questions and answers. The co-hosts engage in an excellent dialogue about the arcane details of RONR. This reviewer must admit to thinking, “Why didn’t they have something like this when I was studying for my RP?” He also enjoys the humor (if not the tie-died clothing and pink hair). That, too, is not for everyone. For those people who are not turned off by the humor, the language, and the format, the videos that are part of The Cult of RONR, are an excellent educational resource. NP

i The videos are found here: https://www.youtube.com/c/CultofRONR/videos They begin on 1/1/20 and reference the 11th edition of RONR until October, when they reference both the 11th and 12th editions. ii Video of October 6, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEO7HFcZWZo&t=4129s

Jonathan M Jacobs, PRP, CPP, is the vice president of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians and the secretary of the Delaware Valley Unit. He passed his registration exam 25 years ago.

www.parliamentarians.org

Democracy in Our Deliberations By Adrian Stratton, PRP

Democracy begins, is maintained, and ends with the members of an assembly. The ideas and opinions that members express truly add to the unique nature of each session. Often, individual interpretations skew perceived rights within a membership, and disagreements that result test the capacity of democracy as business is conducted. Do we wish for order enabled by regulation, or the freedom democracy seeks to protect in our deliberations? These two seemingly conflicting ideas must work together if either is to be useful for members engaged in parliamentary law. Regulation in support of fairness constrains and defines boundaries. A strength of democracy is that a majority determines how tight governing constraints should be. The freedom for an assembly to decide for itself is critical to self-government. Regulation limits freedoms, but without rules, the environment through which democracy can thrive is diminished. In extreme circumstances, overly regulated assemblies can render democratic principles ineffective or useless. Freedom, in contrast to regulation, is action without restraint. However, a total absence of constraint by members in deliberations would surely lead to chaos. Members have individual and collective privileges within the context of an assembly. For example, the full and free discussion of motions, and limits

on the number of times one may speak in debate, creates both privileges and protections in assemblies who adopt the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised as their parliamentary authority.1 To be enjoyed, the privileges and freedoms democracy protects must be defined. Democracy exists somewhere in the middle of restriction and a total lack thereof. Adopting rules to protect freedom is a necessary democratic task. The balance between regulation and freedom is particular to each assembly and occasion. Fairness to all contributes greatly to favorable perceptions of justice in democratic assemblies. Important democratic concepts to consider in fairness to all members are the right to be heard, majority rule, and the collective ability to change. Participation in debate provides an opportunity for all members to be heard. Democracy is centered on full and open participation.2 In democratic assemblies any member may seek recognition and offer proposals or thoughts on a matter. Even the unpopular, or uncomfortable opinion can be shared. To consider opposition is necessary for democracy to work. Full participation empowers an assembly, with the members determining what is to be discussed and for how long. The will of members is expressed by majority rule. One of the greatest protections in procedure is that it is the

1 Henry M. Robert III, et al., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition (New York: Public Affairs, 2020), pgs. 1 and 38–39. 2 Hugh Cannon, Cannon’s Concise Guide to Rules of Order (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1995), p. 49. 22

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

assembly who decides. An assembly has the freedom to make great decisions. An assembly also has the freedom to make poor decisions. Outcomes aside, of upmost importance is that a majority, greater than half, determines the disposition of business before it, unless rules provide otherwise. The collective ability to change enables refinement of action and current sentiment. An assembly can change collective thought as members may change attitudes on an issue. Democratic assemblies accept that business may be undone.3 Reconsider, rescind, and amend are all options to modify actions previously taken, where appropriate. The members who comprise an assembly individually have a right to change their opinions on previous actions, and so does the assembly, where it is possible to do so. Without regulation, certain democratic privileges are continually jeopardized. Sensible precautions to safeguard freedoms should be a priority, and special care should be taken. Without freedom to fairly exchange ideas, members would certainly raise concerns about subsequent rulings. Speaker time should have limits so that one person does not unfairly dominate debate, preventing others from sharing. The majority may choose to do whatever it pleases, so long as it agrees with governance and is not in conflict with any rule it is subject to. Unjust rules and

limitations that undermine democratic principles should be changed to reflect fairness. The power to enable democracy rest with the presiding officer, but the will of the majority is the final authority. Democracy as a system of cooperation allows members to develop their government. Do we wish for order enabled by regulation, or the freedom democracy seeks to protect in our deliberations? This question is one every assembly must answer if it is to behave democratically. Subject to modification within context, democracy is an expansive concept and a living framework. The delicate relationship between regulation and freedom is important. If either has a disproportionate effect, effort should be made to correct the imbalance for the sake of democracy in an assembly. Parliamentary law, as a mechanism for democratic interaction, seeks to ensure that the will of an assembly is expressed and fulfilled. Rights and alignment to the aims of an assembly are always under consideration by the members. If we cannot have democratic participation in our assemblies, then where can we? Where will we protect democracy if we do not protect it in our assemblies? In our deliberations, both regulation and freedom must be present if democracy is to exist. Ultimately, in each decision an assembly decides for itself just how much of an impact democracy will have. NP

3 Hugh Hellman, Parliamentary Procedure (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 42.

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

www.parliamentarians.org

NAP

43rd Biennial Convention

Reserve the best seat in your house or office for NAP’s 43rd Biennial Convention, which will be held virtually September 8-11, 2021. It kicks off this year with your choice of up to 20 educational sessions on topics including • Drafting clear and logical bylaws • Parliamentary opinion writing • Preparing for contingencies • Designing better meetings using behavioral science • Avoiding professional responsibility pitfalls best practices • Activities for engaging parlipro teams • Understanding Step 2 of the new RP credentialing process The foundation for these timely programs is NAP’s Body of Knowledge, which establishes expectations for parliamentary consultants, organizational leaders, and their members. These interactive sessions will be delivered electronically using Zoom on Saturday, September 11, 2021. They will be preceded by business meetings on September 9-10, 2021.

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

NAP

43rd

Biennial Convention

SCHEDULE AT A GLANCE

(subject to change)

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.

First Timers/ New Member Orientation

7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

NAP Board Meeting

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.

Opening/Silent Gavels

3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Bylaws Forum

5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.

NAPEF Annual Meeting

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 10:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.

Business Meeting Session

1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.

Presidents Luncheon

3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Business Meeting Session

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2021 10:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.

Business Meeting Session

1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.

Awards Luncheon

3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Business Meeting Session

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2021 10:00 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.

5 Concurrent Convention Workshops

11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

5 Concurrent Convention workshops

1:30 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.

5 Concurrent Convention workshops

3:15 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.

5 Concurrent Convention workshops

5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.

Installation of Officers

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2021 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.

2021-2023 NAP Board Meeting

www.parliamentarians.org www.parliamentarians.org

25 25

NAP

43rd

Biennial Convention

REGISTRATION FEES Full-convention registration fees include admission to all educational sessions and business meetings, and access to session recordings that will be available to attendees for a limited time following the convention.

MEMBER

NON-MEMBER STUDENT

Full Convention – Early

$239

$289

Full Convention – Regular

$279

$329

One-Day Education Only – Early

$199

$249

One-Day Education Only – Regular

$229

$279

$165

Early registration deadline is August 15, 2021.

CANCELLATION POLICY Refund requests must be received in writing by NAP Headquarters no later than August 31, 2021. A $75 cancellation fee will apply. No refunds will be issued for no-shows or cancellations received after August 31, 2021. A $30 handling fee will be assessed for all returned checks.

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

Test Yourself

Wild Guesses By David Mezzera, PRP

Have you yet begun the task of comparing the content of RONR 11th and 12th editions? Have you taken on the task of reading the new edition cover to cover? However you are using the “new book,” here are some questions to challenge yourself about the 12th edition. Correct answers apply just to the text pages (1 thru 633) and not the Introduction, tinted pages, or Appendix. Trying to answer these RONR questions will mostly involve some wild guesses! Maybe you’ll try some logical assumptions, but opening your Robert’s Rules 12th Edition to search the textual pages for correct answers (except possibly for questions 1 and 2) really won’t help. You’ll likely just need to make some reasonable deductions and take some shots in the dark. Once you have made your guess for each question, put your correct letter in the blank below that corresponds to the question number. If, by chance, your speculations are correct for all of the questions, the letters will spell out what you can do once you have finished this quiz Find the actual answers on page 33. David Mezzera, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians and past District 8 Director.

1. What is the very first word in the very first paragraph of text in RONR (1:1)? A. A B. You C. When 2. What is the very last word on the very last page of text in RONR (63:40)? D. trial. E. there. F. all. 3. Which of these phrases appears most often on the pages of text in RONR? G. Move (or Motion) to Amend H. Refer to Committee I. Lay on the Table J. Previous Question 4. Which of these Incidental Motions appears most often on the pages of text in RONR? K. Request for Information L. Appeal Chair’s Decision M. Suspend the Rules N. Point of Order 5. Which of these methods of voting appears most often on the pages of text in RONR? O. ballot vote P. voice vote or viva voce Q. unanimous consent 6. Which of these words (referring to classes of motions) appears most often on the pages of text in RONR? R. Subsidiary S. Privileged T. Incidental 7. Which of these parliamentary terms appears on the greatest number of pages of text in RONR? U. majority V. minority W. “aye” X. absentee Y. minutes Z. secondary ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 1 2 3 5 7 6 4 www.parliamentarians.org

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.

Vote Against Approving Minutes

QUESTION 20: Can a member vote against approving the minutes? Answer: RONR (12th ed.) 41:9-12 and 48:9-15 sets forth the procedures to approve the minutes. The chair will start the minutes approval process by calling for the secretary to read the minutes, or if the minutes are circulated ahead of time, the chair announces that fact. It is not necessary to make a formal motion to approve the minutes, although it’s not out of order; usually the chair asks, “Are there any corrections to the minutes?” Corrections are often handled by unanimous consent, but if there is an objection to a proposed correction, then the proposal is handled as an amendment to a main motion. Once all proposed corrections have been taken care of, and there is no further response to the chair asking for any (further) corrections, the chair declares the minutes approved as read or corrected. RONR (12th ed.) 41:11 provides that “the minutes are thus approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made,” and that the “only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary’s draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it.” In addition, in the table of rules relating to motions found on tinted page 18, # 47, it expressly states, under the vote required to adopt minutes, that such “is not voted on.” Furthermore, if a member feels that further investigation or revising to correct the minutes is needed, a motion to refer the minutes to a committee or to postpone the approval to a certain time could be adopted. A member who was absent from the meeting may still participate in the correction and approval of the minutes. RONR (12th ed.) 41:11. For these reasons, a member can’t vote against approving the minutes. Instead, he or she can offer a correction, make a motion to refer the minutes to a committee, or postpone their approval. Even if the member was not present at the meeting in question, he or she can’t vote against the approval of the minutes of that meeting. 28

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

Small Board Rules

QUESTION 21: We have a question about the application of small board rules. We have a board of twenty directors with a quorum of eleven. When all directors are present, we all agree that the more formal rules apply. When we have eleven or twelve directors present, some members would like the “small board” rules to apply while others feel we should have consistent meeting practices from meeting to meeting, regardless of attendance. We have experienced confusion from lack of consistent practices and, there have been disputes on the chair’s ability to speak in debate in some meetings but not others. Is there a best practice? Answer: Skillful application of parliamentary procedure can accommodate some flexibility along with consistency. One such practical application is the use of small board rules. RONR provides that at a board meeting with “not more than about a dozen members present, some of the formality that is necessary in a large assembly would hinder business.” RONR (12th ed.) 49:21. This language instructs that small board rules apply if attendance is “about a dozen.” As worded, small board rules apply if attendance is about a dozen. Use of the term “about a dozen” leaves some room for interpretation and individualization. The rules for small boards that differ from larger meetings include: 1. Members may raise a hand instead of rising when seeking recognition and may remain seated while speaking. 2. Motions need not be seconded. 3. There is no limit to the number of times a member may speak to a debatable motion. 4. Informal discussion of a motion can be made while no motion is pending. 5. When a proposal is clear to all, a vote can be taken without a formal motion. 6. The chairman need not rise when putting a question to a vote. 7. If the chairman is a member, he may speak in debate and vote. RONR (12th ed.) 49:21. A board may also adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules if they do not conflict with the society’s rules. RONR (12th ed.) 49:15. Henry M. Robert himself observed that, “How far the formalities of ordinary assemblies may be dispensed with to advantage is a question to be decided by the board or the executive committee itself.” Parliamentary Law, p. 251. Ultimately, the choice to use small board rules or more particular, special rules adopted by the board, rests with the board. In your case, it may be wise for the board to consider adopting special rules that apply to all meetings regardless of how many board members are in attendance. The National Association of Parliamentarians has a Special Rule of Order that the usual rules for small boards under the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall apply to board meetings. (NAP Operational Policies and Procedures Manual 10.1.02(A).) Adoption of such a rule would achieve consistency in practice between meetings. www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

As a practical matter, if no special rules are adopted for your board, a member may tactfully inquire if small board rules are being followed in the day’s meeting. Also, in opening the meeting, a wise chair may note that the meeting will be conducted under the rules for small boards. A brief refresher on what the small board rules are is very helpful, especially to new members, as well.

Online Chair

QUESTION 22: Our condominium association bylaws do not allow for electronic meetings of the association. However, we are located in an area that still has pandemic governmental orders in effect regarding capacity limits and mask usage for association meetings. The board has come up with a way for all owners to be able to watch and listen online from their apartments, and just come to the meeting room during any voting, or if they wish to make motions or speak in debate. In the past, the president and vice-president have usually agreed to have the parliamentarian chair the meeting, and the owners did not object to this procedure. For this year, it was asked if they could have the parliamentarian chair the meeting online from her office rather than coming to the building. Is this allowable by the rules? Answer: A meeting is a gathering of members in one room or area to transact business, per RONR (12th ed.) 8:2; additionally, RONR (12th ed.) 9:30 requires that electronic meetings must be authorized in the bylaws. Members must be present in order to transact business, and must be present to make motions, speak in debate, and vote. However, an invited temporary presiding officer who is not a member is not specifically required by the rules to be present in the meeting room; that non-member would not be making motions, speaking in debate, or voting. Therefore, that chair would not have to be present at the meeting as is required for members. RONR (12th ed.) 47:13 provides that if the president and vice-president do not object, the association can adopt an incidental main motion to have a non-member serve as presiding officer for all or part of a meeting (or they can suspend the rules to do so). It follows that the association could also approve the chair handling the meeting remotely. In conclusion, there is no rule that requires a non-member presiding officer to be present to chair the meeting, as long as the association approves the appointment (and it’s suggested to have the association approve that the chairing be done remotely as well). Questions & Answers Research Team

Alison Wallis, PRP Q&A Research Editor 30

Ann Homer, PRP Assistant Q&A Research Editor

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

Rachel Glanstein, PRP Parliamentary Consultant

Timothy Wynn, PRP Parliamentarian

NAP Connections

NAPEF: Creating a Firm Foundation for Education The NAP Educational Foundation’s (NAPEF) Fundraising Committee is dedicated to creatively raising funds to support parliamentary education. Today we ask you, “What can we do to support your Association’s education programs?” Think about the following questions: • Has your association been able to meet during the pandemic? • Are you meeting virtually, or have you been on hold? • Are you planning an association meeting this year? Virtually, or in person? • What has been most frustrating for your association during this time? Have you been sending newsletters or other communication to your members? Have your members been attending NAP virtual education events? Do you have a website? A Facebook page? Would you like an article for your newsletter? Some of the questions posed are relatively simple and some are a little more involved and might require additional resources. Are you aware that NAPEF provides grants for associations to present innovative educational programs? The foundation underwrote a multi-day presiding workshop in Hawaii. It backed a comprehensive program on governing documents for the San Antonio, Texas, Unit, and then later provided the same program for the 2019 NAP Convention.

Is this something your association might be interested in? Do you realize the foundation helped financially with the 2020 virtual NTC, and is now providing funds to bring a virtual NAP convention to you? NAPEF is providing funds for updates to RONR 12th Edition for NAP’s educational materials. Did you know that the foundation provides different NAP dues scholarships for students and younger members? We are always looking for associations and units to help us publicize these scholarships to encourage young people to study parliamentary procedure. Over the years, these student members have become leaders in state associations, and some at NAP level, as well. Congratulations to the recipients of NAP dues scholarships sponsored by NAPEF for 2021: Peter Klapes, recipient of the Alice Ragona Memorial Youth Scholarship; Bryan McDowell, recipient of the Young Professional Dues Scholarship; and, Cody McCain, PRP, recipient of the Young Professional Dues Scholarship. Testimonials from each winner, and scholarship and grant forms, are available at www.napef.org. The NAP Educational Foundation supports innovative parliamentary education. Make plans to apply for a grant to support your association’s education programs. And remember, NAPEF asks for your support. Give a donation today! www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

Mrs. Florence Motley, 1912-2021 By Kevin Connelly, PRP

Mary Randolph, Kevin Connelly, Mrs. Florence Motley

I first had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Florence Motley at the officer installation dinner of the Evergreen Research Unit of NAP in 2015. Before that time, all I knew of the unit’s most revered member was her name and her age. At that time, she had just celebrated her 103rd birthday. I had recently joined the unit, but had never met her, as her health did not permit her to travel to the unit’s regular meetings. I was really excited to be meeting her at this dinner! Although the focus of the dinner was supposed to be the installation of the unit’s new officers by then-NAP Vice-President Mary Randolph, PRP, it was Mrs. Motley who stole the show, regaling the members with stories about the unit’s history. She had been a member of NAP since 1977, and a member of the Evergreen Research Unit since that time! Despite her health issues in recent years, she maintained her NAP membership and kept up with her parliamentarian fellows, thoroughly reading every issue of the National Parliamentarian and state newsletters. And her unit members ensured that her unit dues would be paid every year; they were taking no chances that they would lose her! The following year, at Mrs. Motley’s 104th birthday party, an annual event attended by over fifty people, President Randolph and I, as District 7 Director, had the pleasure of interviewing Mrs. Motley for a story about her in the National Parliamentarian, entitled “Meet Mrs. Motley – Still Active After All These Years.” She spoke of her moving to Washington state in 1970, and being active in her Allen A.M.E. Church and various other religious and social organizations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the Helen B. Stafford Club, and the local and national Colored Women’s clubs. While she no longer could physically participate in these organizations, she remained involved as best as she could. Her mind and heart remained focused on these groups, and NAP. 32

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

NAP Connections

In 2018, Mrs. Motley was awarded the Trailblazer’s Award from NAP President Jim Jones for her “contributions to the advancement of the National Association of Parliamentarians; elevation of the profession of parliamentarian, promotion of good governance, parliamentary procedure and practice; and service as a role model and mentor to parliamentarians in general.” I had the distinct honor of personally presenting this award to Mrs. Motley. Sadly, Mrs. Florence Motley passed away on February 25, 2021, about a month prior to her 109th birthday. She will be dearly missed by so many. To honor Mrs. Motley, at its Annual Meeting on April 5, 2021, the members of the Evergreen Research Unit adopted a resolution of appreciation, and sent it to her family.

Kevin Connelly, PRP, has been a member of NAP since 2000, and a Professional Registered Parliamentarian since 2002. He currently serves as Secretary on the NAP Board of Directors.

Test Yourself

Answer Key Wild Guesses from page 27

1. A. A 2. D. trial. 3. J. Previous Question (126 pages); next closest: Refer to Committee (48 pages) 4. N. Point of Order (137 pages); next closest: Suspend the Rules (62 pages) 5. O. Ballot Vote (73 pages); next closest: Unanimous Consent (68 pages) 6. R. Subsidiary (96 pages); next closest: Incidental (78 pages) 7. U. Majority (158 pages); next closest: Minutes (83 pages) Putting the letters onto the correct lines tells you what you may now do since you have finished the quiz! ____ A ____ D ____ J ____ O ____ U ____ R ____ N 1 2 3 5 7 6 4 www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

Virtually Anything Is Possible

By Pamela Harmon, PRP

If you are determined to resume life as was usual pre-2020, please change your mind! 2021 is not looking much different than 2020, so Parliamentarians must make plans to continue to educate and promote the use of parliamentary procedure in the virtual environment. During 2020, the NAP Sounding Block Unit, Dallas, Texas, provided a virtual RP study for over 60 individuals, and held the first virtual Institute and Symposium in Texas. The success of the virtual Institute and Symposium can be attributed to four important steps: • Designing a game plan. • Identifying key players. • Holding practice sessions. • Executing the plan on event day, as designed and practiced. Game Plan Determine the chairman of the event and committee members. The chairman must be detail oriented, committed to seeing that the overall program takes place, and able to lead a large committee of other dedicated members. The committee must set goals, e.g., to provide training for over 300 persons interested in parliamentary procedure. Decide the date and time the event will take place. Keep in mind, we are all busy. We don’t want to take over the attendees’ entire day but do want to efficiently provide an event that will increase their parliamentary knowledge. Is there to be a cost for attendance? Is there a cost for 34

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

the technology used, such as Zoom? Does the technology offer everything you need in order to execute the event, like breakout rooms? Will thank you gifts be provided to the presenters? As with all events, develop a budget. The Players The players consist of subcommittees and presenters. Determine the types of subcommittees needed, such as technology, publicity, door prizes. Make sure the subcommittees have their own game plans, and are clear on their assignments. They should also work with other subcommittees that might overlap. For instance, the technology committee should work with the presentation committee to ensure final presentations are received, or that each presenter knows how to share their screen and unmute themselves. All subcommittees should have a plan that includes deadlines. The publicity committee should develop a flyer and distribute it to the community. Use of social media for event promotion can pay dividends in attracting virtual attendees from across the nation. Ask unit members for a list of names and email addresses for those that might be interested and benefit from learning parliamentary procedure. Determine who the presenters will be for the event. Ask Registered Parliamentarians and Professional Registered Parliamentarians in your unit if they will conduct a workshop.

NAP Connections

It might be helpful to determine the topics beforehand and let them choose. Give the presenters a deadline to give a draft of their presentation. It is helpful to ask a PRP to review all presentations and offer feedback to the presenters. Practice Every successful team must practice to win. Schedule a date and time for mandatory practice at least three times. It is amazing what you find out when you practice. Maybe you thought you knew how to share your screen, but when asked to do the task, something goes wrong. Develop a complete Run of Show. This means a detailed outline of who does what and the time that they will do it. The more details the better. Provide the Run of Show to each presenter and those working the media. Have one or two persons observe the Run of Show and give feedback. Remember, this is what the audience will see. A smooth, well run, timely event means just as much as the content being shared with the audience. Don’t do just one Run of Show, do three if necessary. Be open and patient to have one on one instruction with those who need it. Execute It’s time to win. You have planned and practiced. Everyone is in place, and you should be ready for a successful Institute and Symposium. The win involves all the steps you’ve done so

you can be confident it will be a success. It is important to start on time and end on time. The production crew of technology hosts should go online at least an hour before the event is to begin. Have the presenters ready and online at least 45 minutes before the event begins. Have all other participants online early as well, e.g., those doing the welcome, introducing presenters, providing music, giving out door prizes. Make sure to give all attendees an opportunity to provide feedback at the end of the event. Provide the link to the evaluation form or a QR code to scan and complete in real time. You will receive more feedback if you play music, and allow couple of minutes for completing the survey at the end of the event. In the end, there can be hiccups at the event. You can’t begin to think of every scenario but be prepared as much as possible. What will you do if the presenter loses internet connection and cannot log back in? Does the technology committee have a copy of the presentation and someone else to take over? Hopefully, that does not happen, but it is a good idea to be prepared. 2021 may not be much different than 2020 but we can continue to educate and increase parliamentary knowledge throughout our communities. The Sounding Block Unit’s 2020 Institute and Symposium was a success! Virtually anything is possible.

Pamela Harmon, PRP, is Secretary of The Sounding Block Unit in Dallas, Texas. She has served 35 years in federal service as Supervisory Accountant with the Department of Agriculture.

www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

Enhancing Engagement During the past year, many of us felt disconnected. We entered a new virtual world, and Zoom became a part of our everyday lives. Engagement has become a concern. Engagement is commonly defined as the nature of the relationship between an organization and its workers or members. Engaged people are those who are fully absorbed by and enthusiastic about their work. They have a positive attitude toward the organization, and take positive action to further the organization’s reputation and interests. An actively disengaged person may do the minimum amount of work or may actively damage the organization’s level of productivity and its reputation. In the past 10 years, workplace engagement has steadily improved. According to the most recent Gallup Poll, during the early phase of the pandemic engagement spiked to a surprising high of 40%, before declining to 38% just one year later. Currently, over 60% of the workforce is disengaged with 14% of those reporting that they are actively

By Anna Weselak

disengaged. (Gallup, Incorporated; release date February 26, 2021). The NAP Board of Directors have met virtually for the past year and the members are concerned with engagement. To strengthen the ability to work cohesively and efficiently as a team, the members of the Board of Directors recently held a retreat. I was given the opportunity to facilitate a portion of the retreat. The board members completed a survey to learn more about themselves, more about each other, and how to increase productivity in this new virtual environment. The board members became more aware of the similarities and differences among each other. Everyone was able to gain a deeper understanding of why members of the board respond as they do. Engagement within an organization continues to be of concern to those in leadership positions. Opportunities to enhance communication and relationship building among team members are two important strategies to strengthen engagement.

Anna Weselak is a seminar trainer, consultant and owner of Weselak & Associates in Lombard, IL. She is a member of the Association for Talent Development, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum and Development, the Oak Brook Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Lombard Chamber of Commerce. Weselak is the Northern Illinois University 2009 College of Education Outstanding Alumni, and was recognized as a 2014 Woman of Distinction in DuPage County by the Suburban Life Newspaper. 36

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

NAP Connections

So, You Want to Be a Commissioner A message from the NAP Commission on Credentialing There will be four individuals elected to Commission on Credentialing seats at the NAP Biennial Convention in September 2021. Of the four positions to be elected, three are for full four-year terms, and one, because the Board of Directors temporarily filled a vacancy, is for a partial term of two years. The commission would like to give those who are considering running for the commission a realistic idea of the commitment that entails. Since the 2020 NAP Training Conference, the commission met 30 times over Zoom, and currently, is meeting every Monday afternoon. Each of these meetings is two to four hours in duration, making a total of about 90 hours. The commission plans to continue this schedule until the convention, as well as have two face-to-face meetings in Las Vegas. At the face-to-face meetings, the commission meets from 9 to 5 each day, with additional work in the evenings, for four days. The first meeting is scheduled for July 1 to 6, including two travel days. And yes, commissioners are missing celebrating the 4th of July with our family and friends; this is that

important. The next meeting will be held August 26 to 31. Why Las Vegas? There are cheaper hotel rates there than elsewhere and flights aplenty from everywhere. While commissioners receive the same per diem and travel costs reimbursement as NAP committee members do, those do not cover the full cost. Each commissioner pays a few hundred dollars out of pocket for each face-to-face meeting. In addition to these meetings, each commissioner spends from two to 15 hours per week performing other commission work (varies with where the commission is in the process), such as evaluating candidate submissions (currently, evaluation of candidates’ submissions is done by the commissioners), drafting documents, reviewing proposals, analyzing psychometric test results data, and much more. It is hoped that having this information will assist those thinking of running for the commission in understanding the commitment of time and personal resources that is involved. www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

Zoom Meetings – via email Letter to the

Editor

Dear Editor, The article by Justin Schmid, “Best Practices for Zoom Meetings,” in the Spring NP was a useful collection of suggestions, but the author is mistaken when he says Zoom meetings should not be recorded. He misunderstands the reason that RONR says an organization secretary does not need to keep a record [of] what was said by the members— only what was done. It is impossible to transcribe human speech precisely. Even skilled court reporters cannot do it, though we can give them credit for trying. If only the motions are recorded, there is less chance for misinterpretation and little chance for a secretary’s prejudices to appear in the record. With smartphones, it is easy to record any meeting unobtrusively. Most states allow recordings of public communications, that is, statements made at meetings where the speakers do not expect secrecy, without notifying the attendees. Complete recordings of court proceedings help the cause of justice. In criminal cases, perjurers give inconsistent statements on the record, and prosecutors catch them. Trade unions and condo boards often record their membership meetings. In Florida, state law gives condo owners and homeowners in homeowner associations the right to record their board meetings. As a practical matter, you can’t stop someone from recording a Zoom meeting anyway. A film or recording of a meeting is the most complete record possible, but as a practical matter, the minutes will do for most purposes. Michael A. Van Dyk, RP Miami, FL

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Sandra Burton (TX) Kathleen Carter (TX) Peggy Jared (TX) Nelson Tuazon (TX) Roda Douglas-Simmons (NY) Trae Johnson (GA) Sandra Tullock (NY) Nichole Farrior (PA) Mary Nickson (TX) Jherel Saunders-Dittimus (NJ) Edna Burems (EL) Cynthia Gresham (NY) Corinne Rivers (NJ) Gregory Short (TX) Elton Smith (DE) Ramsey Cooper (EL)

Karla Gilchrist-Saunders (DC) Lewis Vetter (TX) Sybil Mimy Wells (NY) Doretha Christian (TX) Cora Stanley (TX) Brenda Watson-Ellis (FL) Constance Barron-Wilson (TX) Bahman Davani (TX) Tracey Howard (PA) Jacqueline AndersonVaughn (TX) I. Javette Hines (NY) Margarette Galloway (TX) Michele Lassiter-Ewell (TX) Karen Parson (TX) Marian Willard (TX)

Shu Hua Li (CHN)

Althea Hicks (NY)

Sonica Dixon (NY)

Marsha Turner (MD)

Judy Jones-Liptrot (FL)

Vanessa Smith (EL)

Donna Joseph (NY)

Katrina Brave (NY)

Valerie Mays (FL)

Frank Dookie (NJ)

Jamie Whitfield (NY)

Shaquana Pearson (NY)

Kamala Allen (PA)

Floria Colbert-Rodgers (PA)

Wanda Redmond (MI)

Debora West (NJ)

Omar Senior (NY)

Karen Odom (NJ)

Susie Wright (OH)

Lisa Radcliffe (NY)

Dawn Belton (EL)

Schniqua Roberts (DE)

Fletcher Bland (MI)

Judith Samuels (NJ)

Cassandra D. Mack (PA)

Tonya Cantlo (NY)

Deirdra Peterson (NJ)

Juanita Lewis (NJ)

Aidan Smith (DE)

Cheryl Locks (DE)

Curtis Watts (OK)

Crystal Lander (VA)

Janelle DeFrees (KS)

LeRoy Barr (NY)

NEW Professional REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians: Charles Bass (TX)

Deen Meloro (NJ)

Carmella Watkins (MD)

Silent Gavels* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Frank T. Fitzgerald, PRP-R (AZ) Orpha J. Harnish (OK)

Florence Motley (WA) Howard Schoen (NEAP) Larry H. Reynolds (IL) Lauretta L. Slaughter (OR) George V. Woolstrum (NE)

Beulah T. Sutherland (DC) Mona Vandever (NV)

New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: New Members Robert Acerra (NJ) Shashea Adams-Guess (TX) Jewel Allison (NY) Andrea Anderson (NY)

Victor Archie (VA) Venetta Armstrong (EL) Nazjah Bakarr (NJ) Andrea Banks (EL) Yasmin Barnes Jones (TX)

Paula Batiste (NY) David Bess (WV) Angelynn Bolden (FL) Lonzo Boles (MO) Michael Brothers (DE)

Kira Bryant (NY) Tara Buckner (EL) Robin Burgess (NY) Hasani Burton (TX) Ramonda Busby (TX)

* For the period March 17, 2021 through June 16, 2021 www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

New Members* Dante Campos (CA) LaTonja Carrera (MD) Kay Casanova (NY) Ruben Christie (PA) Nicole Collins (TX) Andrea Corpening (PA) Gene Council (EL) Iris Cross (EL) Antoinette Darden-Cintron (NY) Lisa Davis (FL) Mary Denila (TX) Margaret Desir (NY) Monetta DeWalt (EL) Christa Dicks (NS) Valerie DiPietro (NJ) Franchessca Dyer (PA) Gideon Elliott (WI) Maxine Engram (PA) Nichole Farrior (PA) Lesley Fisher (WI) Ashley Foster (NV) Shinair Francis (NY) Tammie Francisque (NY) LaTasha Fraser (NJ) Kristina Fripps (PA) Cynthia Frye (PA) Irether Gaines (TX) Quincy Gant (MD) Newton Gentry (EL) Pamela Gentry (EL) Laurie Gibson-Parker (NJ) Gregory Gilliam (MO) Lori Goodell (AK) Brandon Graves (IL) Sandra Green Shannon (FL) Jayme Hafner (OR) LaDonna Harris (TX) Robin Hendrix (PA) Leticia Hermosa (NEAP)

continued Dianne Hicks Rolle (FL) Leah Hill (IL) Jessica Hilts (OH) Ramona Hollie-Major (PA) Adrienne Hoy (DE) Denise Hunter (IN) Lisa Jackson (PA) Kevin Jones (NY) Peggy Jones (TX) Ramona Jones (PA) Angela Jourdain (NY) Stephen Katsurinis (NEAP) Vanessa Keith Garcia (EL) Rubye Kendrick (EL) Armanda Killingham (IL) Jeanna Kindle (CA) Matthew Kinsey (FL) Janis Knaupp (BC) Amber Koiner (NY) Carlesha Kyle (PA) Tierra Ladkin (TX) Meredith Laird (BC) Jean Lamothe (EL) Cheryl Lawrence (DC) Patricia Ledbetter (TX) Granville Lee (MI) Kamila Lopez-Avendano (WA) Lillian Lynn (SC) Dylan Martin (CA) Michael Mattocks (TX) Stefano McGhee (NEAP) Jonathan McNicholes (MN) Cynthia Merceron-Castro (PA) Charlotte Moore (TX) Leslie Moore (TX) Lisa Newman (EL) Linda Nichols (EL) Robin Robert Nichols (NY) Teri Northern (NY)

Ramona Parks (TX) Laura Passos (VA) Lorena Pate (SC) Austin Patience (NY) Andre Patrick (EL) Clarareather Perry Stewart (FL) Alona Phillips (NY) Brea Phipps (NJ) Cynthia Pruitt (LA) Rosalyn Pryor (TX) Khyana Pumphrey (WI) Stephanie Rainey (SC) Janet Reed (TX) Kelly Reid (PA) Dawn Reid-Green (NY) Shakera Robbins (NC) Juanita Roberson (TX) Kimberly Robinson (NJ) Elliott Rogers (TX) Sean Rowe (PA) Dave Sabatano (NJ) Norma Sanders (NC) Lani Shaw (MD) Karen Sheils (NY) Mildred Simmons (MO) Kenneth Skaggs (FL) Adrienne Starling (MI) Carla Stinnette-Miller (PA) Marla Suter (IA) Cilicia Thomas (NY) Jolanda Thomas (TX) Jordan Thomas (NY) Michelle Thompson (NY) Alphonso Times (SC) Misbrew Times (SC) Nelson Tuazon (TX) Lisa Vaughan (EL) Jenaba Waggy (MI) Alex Wang (CA)

Darien Ward (NY) Ortheia Ward (MI) Jermery Washington (EL) Charlene Weaver (TX) Scott Whaley (SC) Jacqueline White-Tolefree (TX) Genice Williams (SC) Jessica Williams (TX) Kevin Williams (EL) Sharon Williams-Douglas (LA) Donald Williford (PA) Rosalind Williford (PA) Carlet Wilson (NC) Betty Wilson-Jones (SC) Pamela Worthington (MI) Alexander Young (NE)

Thank you instructors! A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Valoree Althoff, PRP Edna Arrington, PRP Kianna Bolante, SRP Kay Crews, PRP Kimo Gandall, PRP Channelle James, RP Elizabeth James, PRP Tahir Thomas Kinsey Laura LeGrand, RP-R Edwin Miles, RP David Perez-Hurley Beverly Tatham, PRP Sharon Wells, RP David White, RP Fashika Willis, PRP Nichole Wilson Leonard Young, PRP

* For the period March 17, 2021 through June 16, 2021 40

National Parliamentarian • Summer 2021

Leadership 2O21

NAP Conference

August 27-28, 2021 • Virtual Meeting

Attention Association and Unit Leaders – Learn everything you need to know about being an association or unit leader in NAP but didn’t know who—or what—to ask.

2021 NAP Virtual Leadership Conference August 27-28, 2021 Register today for this virtual, interactive conference and get ready to learn from and share ideas with your fellow leaders.

Watch your email for details.

www.parliamentarians.org

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

National Parliamentarian (Vol.82, No. 4)

Articles inside

So, You Want to Be a Commissioner

Enhancing Engagement

Virtually Anything Is Possible

NAPEF: Creating a Firm Foundation for Education

2021 NAP 43nd Biennial Convention

Mrs. Florence Motley, 1912-2021

Answer Key – Wild Guesses

Questions & Answers

Democracy in Our Deliberations

In Defense of Committees

President’s Message It Begins as It Ends

“That’s What She Said,” A Review of the Cult of RONR

Pass It So We Can Find Out What’s in It

Abstain From Abstaining

From the Editor

The Chat Box: Boon or Boondoggle?

We Interrupt This Meeting