The Presiding Officer’s Whisperer

Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

Even a novice parliamentarian can be of revered assistance to a presiding officer, if the novice parliamentarian will at least help to control debate, avoid wasted time, and assure that everyone has a fair opportunity to speak according to the rules.

PROBLEM

The parliamentarian has an obligation to assist the presiding officer in handling all business on the agenda productively and efficiently . The main obstacle to productive meetings, however, tends not to be simply unfamiliarity with the motions, but more commonly, brain-storming, free for all, pointless discussions . The parliamentarian must collaborate with the presiding officer to cure this common meeting malady .

VALID SOLUTION

Robert’s Rules recommends stand at ease, RONR (12th ed .) 8:2(4), or even recess to accommodate this collaboration . But stand at ease and recess are usually called too late into the deterioration of a parliamentary situation that could have been avoided if the parliamentarian had prepared the presiding officer before the meeting .

Some parliamentarians have tried showing a card that contains a script on how to handle a motion . Others have tried showing a card that reads, “Consult the parliamentarian .” Others interrupt the proceedings to provide an explanation to the presiding officer .

All of these approaches accomplish one thing—they interrupt the presiding officer’s train of thought . The presiding officer now has two problems—the deterioration of the situation and confusion in communicating with the assembly . This approach often spirals the presiding officer down a parliamentary quicksand .

BEST SOLUTION

What the presiding officer needs is a subtle prompt as the threat of chaos builds . This prompt could even be a brief whisper which would remind the presiding officer of their pre-meeting discussion covering these problems and their remedies . Ideally, the parliamentarian will supply the presiding officer this information on a single sheet for the presiding officer to reference during the meeting .

The phrase could be written on an unobtrusive card, or better still, delivered by means of a stealthy whisper that refers to the pre-meeting training . Note the following examples:

Whisper: Off topic

Meaning: The speaker is not confining his remarks to the merits of the pending motion . RONR (12th ed .) 43:20 .

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker to ask, “Do you have anything to say about the pending motion?” If the answer is in the negative, the chair then recognizes the next speaker . If the answer is in the affirmative, the speaker will know to then return to the pending motion .

Whisper: Repetitious

Meaning: The speaker is repeating himself or others . RONR (12th ed .) 2:14 .

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker to ask, “Do you have anything to add that we have not heard?” If the answer is in the negative, the chair then recognizes the next speaker . If the answer is in the affirmative, the speaker will know to then return to the pending motion .

Whisper: Has already spoken

Meaning: The speaker is attempting to monopolize the debate . RONR (12th ed .) 42:9(2), 43:13 .

Remedy: The chair does not recognize the speaker because the speaker seeks to speak a second time when others have not had an opportunity to speak their first time . The chair asks, “Is there anyone who has not spoken their first time?” The monopolizer can be recognized to speak only if no one else wishes to speak their first time .

Whisper: Too many speakers

Meaning: Several members are speaking, either interrupting each other or launching improper rebuttals . RONR (12th ed .) 3:30 . Remedy: The chair immediately interrupts everyone and states, “Member A has the floor . Member B, please wait to be recognized . ”

Whisper: Attacking a member’s motives

Meaning: The speaker is commenting on a member’s integrity, personality traits, or intentions . RONR (12th ed .) 43:21 .

Remedy: The chair interrupts this tirade and instructs the speaker by saying, “The speaker must confine his comments to the merits of the motion and not to the motives of any member; either that, or please be silent . ”

Whisper: Complaining

Meaning: The speaker is not offering productive debate . The speaker is offering destructive discourse . RONR (12th ed .) 43:21 .

Remedy: The chair immediately stops the speaker and asks the speaker to modulate his tone or propose a motion to amend, postpone or refer the motion that is bothering him .

Whisper: Direct comments to the chair

Meaning: The speaker is directing his comments to the previous speaker (or to the presenter, other members or non-members in the hall) . RONR (12th ed .) 43:22 .

Remedy: The chair interrupts this show of disrespect to the chair’s efforts to guarantee fair debate by insisting, “The speaker must direct his comments to the chair or be silent . ”

Whisper: Do we have a motion?

Meaning: The speaker is debating a topic before a motion has been proposed . RONR (12th ed .) 43:4 .

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker and asks, “Do you have a motion?” If the answer is in the negative, someone may then introduce a motion, or the speaker must be silent .

Whisper: Does the member wish to amend, refer, or postpone the motion? RONR (12th ed.) 10:30.

Meaning: The speaker is speaking mindlessly and pointlessly . The speaker appears dissatisfied with the current wording of the motion .

It is obvious that the speaker would be happier with a modification or a delay of the motion .

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker and offers to assist him in proposing an amendment or postponement .

Whisper: Was not recognized by the chair

Meaning: A speaker has started to speak or offer a rebuttal without being recognized by the chair .

RONR (12th ed .) 3:30 .

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker and requests that the speaker wait in turn to speak since someone else has the floor .

Whisper: Reading without permission

Meaning: A speaker is reading a long document instead of speaking from the heart to sway the vote .

RONR (12th ed .) 43:26 .

Remedy: The chair immediately stops the reading and asks the speaker if the speaker has anything else to say . If the answer is in the negative, the chair then recognizes the next speaker . If the answer is in the affirmative, the chair has succeeded in channeling the speaker’s comments .

Whisper: Exhausted speaking limits

Meaning: The speaker has exhausted the speaking limits on this motion . RONR (12th ed .) 4:29, 43:8, 43:12 .

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker, thanks the speaker for his comments, explaining the speaking limits, and then calls on the next speaker .

This set of whispered prompts is exactly what a Registered Parliamentarian needs to assist the presiding officer of a small and uncomplicated society or board . This approach requires a bold but diplomatic interruption by the chair in order to protect other members’ right to debate . I assure every inexperienced or failing presiding officer that if the presiding officer collaborates with the parliamentarian by using this whisper approach, not only will the meeting last less than half the typical meeting time, but productivity will double as well . NP

Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians. He has served as a parliamentarian for boards, conventions, and annual meetings in and beyond California for more than twenty years. He typically offers a three-hour interactive parliamentary procedure workshop that focuses on members’ rights and efficient meeting management.

&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 . 83, No . 1, Fall 2021, p . 18 .

Questions should be emailed to npquestions@nap2.org.

QQuESTION 5:

At the last monthly meeting of my club, a member had an issue with one of the votes taken. The motion was hotly debated, and the voice vote taken was inconclusive. The president then retook the voice vote as a rising vote. After the rising vote, the president was still in doubt as to the result, and so retook the vote as a counted rising vote; the results were announced as 50 in favor, and 49 opposed, and the president declared the motion adopted.

A member raised a point of order that they were outside of the meeting hall, and the doors were closed so the member could not get in to cast their vote on the motion—the member indicated that they would have voted in opposition which could have changed the result of the vote. The president ruled the point of order not well-taken, saying that it’s proper procedure for the doors to be closed during a vote, and moved on to the next item of business.

Was the president’s ruling correct even though the member was denied the right to vote? What else could the member have done?

ANSWER:

Yes, the president’s ruling was correct . The proper procedure was followed and the member was not really denied the right to vote .

It’s possible the member’s vote would not have affected the result either, since the president may have chosen to vote to cancel out the member’s vote and ensure that the motion was adopted .

RONR (12th ed .) 45:15 states in part: “In all but small assemblies, the doors should be closed and no one should enter or leave the hall while a count is being taken .” RONR (12th ed .) 25:11 indicates some

&Questions Answers continued

fundamental principles of parliamentary law, one of which is that the right to vote is limited to the members actually present at the time the vote is taken .

The member may have chosen to leave at some point during the debate, and had not returned by the time the president was taking the vote . Or the member may have arrived late to the meeting and missed the vote . Regardless of how the member happened to be outside when the doors were closed for the taking of the vote, the member was not present during the vote . Therefore, the member was not denied the right to vote .

At the meeting, the member could have raised an appeal of the president’s ruling on the point of order . RONR (12th ed .) 24:1 and 24:3 provide that any two members have the right to appeal the president’s ruling on a question of procedure, and a majority vote is needed to overturn that decision .

Or, at the meeting, the member could have convinced a member that voted in favor of the motion to make a motion to reconsider the vote on it as allowed by RONR (12th ed .) 37:10, as long as the motion was made before that meeting was adjourned .

Or, at the meeting, the member could have made a motion to retake the vote by another method, such as a ballot, as indicated by

RONR (12th ed .) 45:9 . This motion would have to have been made before any further business intervened .

Otherwise, the member could give notice to rescind the motion at the next meeting, or they could just make the motion to rescind at the next meeting . Per RONR (12th ed .) 35:2, if notice is given, a majority vote may rescind the original motion, and if there is no notice, either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership may rescind the original motion .

QQuESTION: 6

The corresponding secretary used a sign-in from the last in-person meeting (pre-COVID) to notify members of the upcoming Zoom meeting. One member protested and stated that her rights were violated when she did not receive a meeting notification for three months. The corresponding secretary stated that the member in question attends one meeting a year and didn’t think she wanted a notice. The member argued that all members in good standing must receive meeting notifications. Who is correct?

&Questions Answers continued

ANSWER:

The member is correct, members in good standing are entitled to full participation, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote…except through disciplinary proceedings . Refer to the bylaws to ensure that there are no exceptions to member rights and to see if members have the ability to waive notice of meetings . See RONR (12th ed .) 1:4

QQuESTION: 7

Thirty-one members were online via Zoom for an organization’s monthly meeting. The secretary stated a quorum was met.

A motion to have a speaker at each meeting was made and properly seconded. The president then proceeded to call on members and ask them how they wished to vote. She called members by name. After she received 17 ‘yes’ votes, she stopped taking votes and stated there was no need to see how the other members wished to vote as their votes were “intrinsically irrelevant”. No member protested. Did the president correctly process the vote?

ANSWER:

The president did not correctly process the vote . When the president has determined that there is no further debate, and has ensured that members understand what they are voting for, she should call for all who are in favor of the motion to raise the hand icon, or otherwise register their votes in a manner consistent with the technology being used (a voice vote is impractical in a Zoom meeting, since delays in transmission do not allow for a harmonious, simultaneous projection of verbal votes) and then she should have called for the negative vote in the same manner . Finally, she should have announced the outcome of the vote . RONR (12th ed .) 4:35 says “The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear, except that this rule is commonly relaxed in the case of non-controversial motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature; but even in such a case, if any member objects, the chair must call for the negative vote . A further exception arises when the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant, as, for example, when ‘a vote of one fifth of the members present’ is required . ”

&Questions Answers continued

A roll call vote consists of calling for the yeas and nays and is usually confined to representative bodies . “It should not be used in a mass meeting or in any assembly whose members are not responsible to a constituency .” RONR (12th ed .) 45:45 In this particular case, if the vote requirement was not based on the number of members present, the president should have called for the negative vote .

QQuESTION 8:

The treasurer of this organization feels the minutes should not contain any mention of finances. This organization has had financial irregularities spanning forty-five years. Many members have requested to have the treasurer provide a statement of the balance on hand each month and said balance to be recorded in the minutes.

The bylaws do not address a treasurer’s report. We do not use any book on meeting procedure. What can be done by the secretary so that the minutes reflect the organization’s financial status?

Are monthly financial statements adopted?

ANSWER:

Bylaws Principle of Interpretation four states, “If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited .” RONR (12th ed .) 56:68(4) . If the bylaws define the duties of the treasurer and don’t allow for the group to require additional duties, then the treasurer does not have to give a monthly report unless it is required by the bylaws . It may be recommended that the bylaws be amended to include a full description of the treasurer’s duties, or at the least to allow the group to assign additional requirements . Assume the bylaws require treasurer reports or that the group may assign additional duties . Considering alleged financial irregularities, a special rule of order can be adopted by the membership mandating the treasurer to include a treasurer’s report at each meeting until the bylaws are amended to include this requirement . Adoption or amendment of special rules of order requires either a) previous notice and a two-thirds vote or b) a vote of a majority of the entire membership . See RONR (12th ed .) 2:22 . A majority of the entire membership is a majority of the total number of those who are members of the voting body at the time of the vote . RONR (12th ed .) 44:9(b) . The motion to have the treasurer provide a statement of the balance on hand each month and said balance is to be recorded in the minutes

&Questions Answers continued

must be made by a member then seconded by another member, and finally voted on by the membership . The financial report should not be adopted unless it is sufficiently important, such as an annual report, to be referred to auditors—in this case, it would be the auditor’s report that would be adopted . See RONR (12th ed .) 48:24 “Reports by the Treasurer . At each meeting of a society, the chair may ask for a ‘Treasurer’s report,’ which may consist simply of a verbal statement of the cash balance on hand—or of this balance less outstanding obligations . Such a report requires no action by the assembly .” RONR (12th ed .) 48:20

QuESTION 9: A parliamentarian needs to review our bylaws to ensure that they reflect how to operationalize our mission. What is the difference between a review and revision of the bylaws? ANSWER:

A review of the bylaws will include a review of the governing documents, such as the articles of incorporation, special rules of order, standing rules, the parliamentary authority, and if applicable the bylaws of the parent organization . The bylaws are a contract between the organization and the members and should mean the same thing to each member . A reviewer should look for proper format, correct punctuation, and spelling . The reviewer should check for inconsistencies and duplication . The review may conclude with recommendations for spelling and punctuation, for revision or amendment or to follow the basic bylaws outline . A revision occurs when there are numerous changes in the bylaws and a new document is written because the changes are “so extensive and general that they are scattered throughout the bylaws .” RONR (12th ed .) 57:5

Q

Ann Homer, PRP, Editor

Questions & Answers Research Team

Rachel Glanstein, PRP Azella Collins, PRP

Timothy Wynn, PRP, Parliamentarian/Consultant

YEARS PLUS

Members’ Milestone Celebration at 2021 Biennial Convention

The fifty years-plus members’ milestone celebration held on September 10, 2021, during the 2021 biennial convention formally recognized and congratulated fifteen individuals who have been members of the National Association of Parliamentarians® for fifty years or longer .

Fifty Years Rollie Cox, PRP-Retired, Wisconsin, Madison Unit, (NAP President 1991-1993)

Fifty-One Years Rebecca McNamara, member, Maryland, member-at large Charlotte Smith, RP-Retired, Florida, member-at-large Elaine Staley, PRP-Retired, Wisconsin, Madison Unit Virginia Berg, member, Virginia, member-at-large Michael Wims, RP-Retired, Utah, member-at-large

Fifty-Two Years Ruby Roberts, member, Virginia, Golden Gavel Unit Elaine Fulton, RP-Retired, Missouri, Santa Fe Trail Unit Virginia Johanson, PRP-Retired, Texas, Martha Knowles Memorial Unit

Fifty-Three Years Ardith Inman, PRP-Retired, Illinois, Marjan Suburban Parliamentarians Unit Ruth Mulholland, member, Florida, Alpha Unit of Parliamentarians Melba Gee, PRP-Retired, California, member-at-large

Fifty-Six Years Virginia Berberick, PRP, Kansas, Leger Unit

Fifty-Seven Years Susan Nolte, member, Maryland, member-at-large

Sixty-Six Years (Longest Continuous Member) Claire Stein, PRP-Retired, Arizona, member-at-large

R EMEMBERIN g

Ruth Benton Mulholland

January 9, 1931-October 5, 2021

Florida State Association of Parliamentarians

Ruth Mulholland and daughter Kathy

Ruth was born in Palmetto, Florida on January 9, 1931, grew up in the Dover and Plant City areas, and settled in Tampa, Florida . She graduated from Turkey Creek High School and attended Hillsborough Community College . She joined the Florida Alpha Unit of Parliamentarians, Florida State Association of Parliamentarians and NAP in 1968 and maintained her membership from that time on .

Ruth was passionately involved in children’s issues, and served as president of the Hillsborough County Council of the Parents and Teachers Association from 1969-1970, and was later appointed as State Legislative Chairman for the P .T .A . She made good use of her parliamentary procedure knowledge in these organizations .

She was a leader in civic, community, and youth groups her entire life, always taking a keen interest in what was going on around her . While she went through a difficult time in the hospital, Ruth strived to live, and her mind stayed sharp, until the very end . She will be greatly missed .

R ESOLUTION IN M EMORY OF Betty F . Tunstall

Board of Directors Resolution

Whereas, Betty F . Tunstall was a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians® for forty-four years; Whereas, Mrs . Tunstall was a Professional Registered Parliamentarian®, earning that credential in 1989 and maintaining it for thirty-two years; Whereas, Mrs . Tunstall was a distinguished parliamentarian who perpetuated and exemplified the principles and ideals of parliamentary procedure; Whereas, Mrs . Tunstall was a leader, mentor, and master teacher for hundreds of students of parliamentary procedure; Whereas, Mrs . Tunstall served with integrity as chairman of the National Association of Parliamentarians’ Credentialing Appeals Committee, Parliamentary Research Editor of the National Parliamentarian®, the quarterly journal of the National Association of Parliamentarians®, and the 2001 Biennial Convention Coordinator; Whereas, Mrs . Tunstall served two-terms as the District Two Director, secretary, parliamentarian, and 12th president of the District of Columbia Association of Parliamentarians; Whereas, Mrs . Tunstall was the recipient of numerous awards from the National Association of Parliamentarians® and served as parliamentarian to various national, state, and local organizations; and Whereas, the Sartwell-Tunstall Unit of the National Association of Parliamentarians® was renamed in her honor in 2014; Resolved, That, on behalf of the National Association of Parliamentarians®, the Board of Directors conveys its deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Betty F . Tunstall regarding her passing; and Resolved, That a copy of this resolution shall be printed in the National Parliamentarian® .

Adopted by the NAP Board of Directors, presented this 12th day of November 2021.

___________________________________ Wanda M . Sims, President

NEW REgISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS*

NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians:

Hazel Cameron (MD) Jovan Cameron (NJ) Patricia Clark (GA) Sabine Eustache (PA) Anne Farley (NY) Novella Franklin (FL) Tisha Gieser (WA) Royston Gordon (OH) Richard Gordon (OH) Rachelle Hunt Russian (IA) Margaret Kelley (EL) Nichole Pressley (FL) Ellen Reaves (PA) Tonja Ringgold (MD) Ericka Shoulars (NJ) Lynae Spratley (DE) Crystal Staples (MD) Charlotte Taylor Powers (IL) Alichia WA (NJ) Christopher Wren (WI)

NEW PROFESSIONAL REgISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS*

NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians:

Janice Bush (MI) Lenita Jackie Compton Bunch (OH) Tamara Dunning (CA) Beverly Fields (DC) Kenneth Reed (AZ) Nancy Terpening (OH)

SILENT gAVELS*

NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace:

Betty Tunstall (DC)

NEW MEMBERS*

NP welcomes the following individuals as new members:

Joyce Akwaa (NY) Sherlly Alceus (NY) Christi Angel (NY) Anntionette Austin (IL) Patria Ayton (NJ) Bonita Ball (DE) Mumtaz Bari-Brown (NJ) Andrise Bernard (FL) Sharmaine Bisnauth (NY) Gail Black (PA) Andrew Branch (NY) Vicki Hill Brooks (IL) James Brown (HI) Rochelle Brown (NY) Yusef Burgess (NY) Christine Burnett (PA) Patricia Burnett (AR) Sandra Catchings (Virginia) Leona Chandler-Felton (FL) Tiffany Clemmons (MD) Sondra Cofield (FL) Alisa Collins (NEAP) Erlinda Colon (DE) Jeri Cook (TX) Yvette Cooper-Sullivan (DE) Tonia Dawson (NY) Wallace DesAmours (NY) Joyce Doakes Smith (OK) Sharon Doldron (NJ) Norma Drake (TN) Karen Drummond (DE) Kasey Edwards (MD) Justin Farrell (ON) Tenisha Fort (NJ) Carol Francum (FL) LaRhonda Gamble (MD) Katrina Ghazanfar (EL) James Gothard (FL) Angela Graham (IN) Jeffery Gray (KS) Danielle Green (MD) Shatara Grimsley (NEAP) Jo Ann Haedge (TX) Julie Harris (AR)

NEW MEMBERS* continued

Toya Harvey (IL) Robbin Haynes (NJ) Andrea Hazzard (NJ) Juli-Ann Heron (NY) Lanabeth Horgen (WA) Shirley Houston (NJ) Derbha Houston Jones (TX) Rosa Howze (DE) Laurie Huber (MI) Andrella Hurley (NY) Kiesha Ivey (NY) Susie Jackson (LA) Wendy James (NY) Joyce Jennings (GA) Debra Johnson (MO) Shawndra Johnson (PA) Debra Jones (FL) Dianne Jones (FL) Wilbur Jordan (GA) Vanessa Kauffman (NJ) Taryn Kennedy (PA) WyQuasia King-Thomas (NY) Amber LaRowe (FL) Jacqueline Lemon-Denton (NY) Brian Lester (AR) Aliyah Levin (CA) Sarah Lewis-Weaver (IL) Allison Li (NY) Bernardine Lowery-Crute (NY) Lorisia MacLeod (AB) Elise Mason (GA) Mark Massey (GA) Denise McKinney (PA) Danielle McNeil (NJ) Linda McNeil (NJ) Betty Middlebrooks (AL) Julianne Montes de Oca (MD) Karla Munden (NC) Joyce Nelson (IL) Ayesha Noel-Smith (NJ) Sheray Norfleet (NJ) Laura Odom (TX) Levette Okoro (NY) Tamra Perkins (MD) Jarrett Perlow (MD) Linda Peterson (FL) Richard Pinkston (OH) Tara Porcher (NJ) Benita Powell (NC) Shenetha Releford-Dickey (GA) Sabrina Riley (NJ) Tonja Ringgold (MD) Ruby Roberson (IL) Shanell Robinson (NY) Shirley Rowser (NY) Susan Sanders-Jackson (IL) Leslie Scamacca (NY) Brandon Seto (CA) Lynne Simpson (OK) Martha Sims-Wilson (DE) Jaya Singh (NJ) Jennifer Singleton (MD) Jodi Slattery (IL) Andrew Smith (NJ) Ben Smith (GA) Amber Smith-Bush (MS) Jesse Sopko (Alberta) Anuradha Spear (NJ) Lisa Spellman (DE) Ronald Stovall (OH) Nkong Tankeng (NY) Osama Tawi (FL) Daya Taylor (FL) Florence Taylor (VA) Theodosia Taylor (PA) Nyahalay Tucker (NY) Christian Vigil (CA) Jacqueline Watson (TX) Janell White (MD) Pamela White (NC) Tiffany Wicks (IL) Jacqueline Wilcher (MD) Regina Williams (NC) Candice Williams-Hickman (GA) Jeanine Young Merriman (DC)

Thank you instructors!

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Beverly Tatham Bonnie Murdah

Carolyn Stubbs David White

Deborah Underwood

Gloria Watson

James Lawson

James Stewart

Kay Crews Marian J. Martin

Nichole Wilson

Sharon Brooks

Ted Allman

Theodore Allman

Tommie Hill

Wanda Sims

* For the period October 8, 2021 through December 17, 2021

Soar to new heights. 2022 NAP Training Conference

Albuquerque, NM Sept. 8-10, 2022

2022 NTC

Save the date to join us in historical Albuquerque for the 2022 NAP Training Conference. Here’s what you can expect: • Learn from the experts in parliamentary procedure • Broaden your perspective through interactions with your peers • Make new friends with others who share your passion for parliamentary procedure • Experience the architecture, artwork, and cuisine that make Albuquerque the cultural capital of the Southwest

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