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.

Questions should be emailed to npquestions@nap2.org.

In responses to questions, the following abbreviations are used: RONR Henry M. Robert et al., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed. 2020) PL Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Law (1923) PP Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Practice (1921) Q&AII NAP Questions & Answers II (1970) Q&AIII NAP Questions & Answers III (1997) Q&AIV NAP Questions & Answers IV (2010) AIPSC American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (2012) Demeter George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure (Blue Book ed. 1969) Keesey Ray E. Keesey, Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed. 2018) Mason Paul Mason, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure (2010 ed.) Riddick Floyd M. Riddick & Miriam M. Butcher, Riddick’s Rules of Procedure (1985) POI AIP Parliamentary Opinions (1982) POII AIP Parliamentary Opinions II (1992) POIII AIP Parliamentary Opinions III (2008) (electronic only)

Citations to earlier versions of Henry M. Robert’s rules of order are abbreviated as follows: RO Editions 1-3, Robert’s Rules of Order ROR Editions 4-6, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised

&Questions Answers continued

QQuESTION 1:

What is a courtesy resolution? When is one needed? How can we get suggested language for such a resolution?

ANSWER:

A courtesy resolution is a formal expression of thanks to those who made physical arrangements or who rendered service to the convention. RONR (12th ed.) 59:58. It is commonly prepared by the resolutions committee, by a special convention committee, or by appointment. A great advantage of courtesy resolutions is that those who worked for the convention are thanked before adjournment, with the minutes perpetuating this gratitude by including the resolution.

One source for sample language is to consult past minutes of the organization. Minutes of NAP’s conventions also (available to the membership from the website, www.parliamentarians.org) usually contain a courtesy resolution that can be modified as desired. It is essential that preparation of a courtesy resolution be completed prior to its formal introduction.

Note that the rule that the negative vote is called for is usually relaxed for motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature. RONR (12th ed.) 4:35.

QQuESTION 2:

At our last convention, we were voting on a controversial bylaw amendment. After the affirmative vote was taken, a member moved to adjourn. After a second, the chair processed the motion and the body voted to adjourn. The chair then quickly announced that the assembly was adjourned. Was this correct and how could the members have best handled this motion?

ANSWER:

The motion to adjourn was not in order during the vote. The presiding officer should have informed the member that the motion to adjourn is not in order while the assembly is engaged in voting or verifying a vote, or before the result of a vote has been announced by the chair, except that, in the case of a vote taken by ballot, a motion to Adjourn is in order after the ballots have been collected by the tellers and before the result has been announced (if the assembly has already set a time for the next meeting).” RONR (12th ed.) 21:6.1. After declaring the motion to adjourn out of order, the chair should have continued, taking the negative vote and then announcing the outcome of the vote. If the chair did not handle the motion properly, a member should have immediately raised a Point of Order, to be followed by an Appeal if necessary.

&Questions Answers continued

QQuESTION 3:

We are an active parliamentary study unit. We have two issues: some members are too casual in their approach to parliamentary procedure, while others are too strict. How can we be sure standards are high but the meeting is friendly and efficient?

ANSWER:

Both approaches can drive attendees away from meetings. Units provide a valuable function for formal and observational study of parliamentary procedure. Units are required to promote the study of parliamentary procedure and the educational programs of NAP on a local level. NAP Bylaws, Art. IV, §5(c). As to the concern of sloppy practices, it may be worthwhile to spend time discussing how to teach and exhibit proper parliamentary procedure. A few helpful tips include sharing a meeting script that follows the correct order of business and uses correct language with incoming presidents, reminding attendees in a friendly manner that the unit meetings will demonstrate proper parliamentary procedure, and enlisting a respected and knowledgeable member to provide a meeting critique after business is completed. This critique can, kindly, make suggestions to the presiding officer, to those giving reports, and to the making motions. The critique should be genuinely helpful and respectful. Members may assist a lax presiding officer by tactfully urging adherence to the rules. For example, a member may make a Parliamentary Inquiry to ask if a motion can be postponed more than a quarter or a member may ask that the motion being considered be repeated. Members should develop the ability to make all appropriate motions in a respectful, calm manner. If a member disagrees with a ruling of the chair affecting any substantial question, he should not hesitate to appeal. RONR (12th ed.) 24:4. As to the concern of a pedantic or domineering approach to the rules, there are several cautionary quotations that can be cited. For one thing, “any presiding officer will do well to bear in mind that no rules can take the part of tact and common sense on the part of the chairman.” RONR (12th ed.) 47:6. A president may wish to ponder how to involve members who frequently seek to show off their knowledge. The president may ask for a citation to the rules, may ask the individual to teach a lesson on the topic, and may ask if the member is making a motion. If the member replies that he has no motion, the president will return to the business at hand.

&Questions Answers continued

QQuESTION 4:

Our club elected delegates to a national convention and paid registration fees. We have learned that the delegates did not attend the business meetings or workshops. Can we mandate in the future that our delegates attend business meetings? We also were disappointed that the delegates did not vote in the manner desired by the unit—what can we do in the future regarding voting?

ANSWER:

Regardless of financial contributions to delegates as provided in the bylaws or adopted motions, delegates have an obligation to attend the convention and to be present at the business meetings, and to be prepared to provide the unit with an informational report of what transpired. RONR (12th ed.) 58:18. A wise president will remind the delegates of their obligation to provide the informational report, before departure and after their return (if necessary). Also, in the future, it is wise to summarize the duties of delegates and obtain their promise to fulfill these duties. A common practice if financial support is provided is that the delegate will provide a report and a workshop on a topic from the convention. As to mandating that unit delegates vote a specific manner, a “delegate is free to vote as he sees fit on questions at the convention, except as his constituent unit may have instructed him in regard to particular matters scheduled for consideration.” RONR (12th ed.) 58:18. Delegates are free to vote as they wish except where an instruction has been given. See RONR (12th ed.) 58:21 for further comments. A caucus may be held before or during the convention for the group to decide how they will act on a certain matter to come before the convention. RONR (12th ed.) 58:19.

Ann Homer, PRP, Editor

Questions & Answers Research Team

Rachel Glanstein, PRP Azella Collins, PRP Timothy Wynn, PRP, Parliamentarian