2021-2023
NAP Officers
President
Wanda M. Sims, PRP
Vice-President
Alison Wallis, PRP
Secretary
Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP
Treasurer
Henry C. Lawton, PRP
Directors-at-Large
Carl Nohr, PRP
Adam Hathaway, PRP Mary Q. Grant, PRP
District Director
Representatives
Lucy H. Anderson, PRP
Deborah A. Underwood, PRP
Parliamentarian
Timothy Wynn, PRP
Legal Advisor
Melanye Johnson, RP
Executive Director
Cynthia Launchbaugh
Volume 84, No . 1 | Fall 2022
From the Editor
NAP’s Vision:
To provide parliamentary leadership to the world
....................................... 3
President’s Message Education: The Road to Great 4
FEATURES
To Advise or To Preside?
............................... 5 Eli Mina, PRP
Are You a Peacemaker? 8 David Mezzera, PRP
Cancelling a Meeting? Remember Absentee Rights ..... 10 Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP-R
For Want of a Leader 14 C. J. Mills, PRP
RONR §62: Removing an Ineffective Presiding Officer .. 16 John R. Berg, PRP
Beyond Form and Example 19 Karen Watson, PRP
DEPARTMENTS
Test Yourself Questions & Answers 24
NAP Connections Candidates Wanted for the 2023-2025 Board of Directors
........................ 28
NAPEF Scholarships Available 30
NAP’s Photo Gallery
.................................. 31 2022 NTC Recap 32
In Remembrance – NAP Past President, Leonard M. Young, PRP
............................... 34
Call for NAP Bylaws Amendments 35 Steven D. Cook, PRP
New Registered Parliamentarians 35
New Professional Registered Parliamentarians ......... 35 Silent Gavels 35
New Members
........................................ 36
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
Rosalie H. Stroman, PRP npeditor@nap2.org Assistant Editor TennieBee Hall
Dana Dickson, RP-R, Chair Ronald Dupart, PRP Ferial Bishop, PRP
Parliamentary Research Committee
Ann Homer, PRP Rachel Glanstein, PRP Azella Collins, PRP Timothy Wynn, PRP, Parliamentarian/Consultant
NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN®
(Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592) Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians
©2022 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
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.
Volume 84, No. 2 (Winter 2023) November 1, 2022
Volume 84, No. 3 (Spring 2023) February 1, 2023
Volume 84, No. 4 (Summer 2023) May 1, 2023
As you read this issue of National Parliamentarian®, take note of the “Connections” section where you will find the guidelines and campaign policy for the 2023-2025 NAP Board of Directors to be elected during the 2023 convention in Atlanta, Georgia . The call for proposed amendments to the NAP bylaws is also included in this section .
The authors of the feature articles address several topics and share pertinent experiences gained serving as a parliamentarian . Dave Mezzera proposes that being a peacemaker, within the context of parliamentary law, is a role for parliamentarians . Jonathan Jacobs cautions that when considering to cancel a meeting remember absentee rights . Eli Mina shares his experience of when presiding is more effective than advising . C . J . Mills offers suggestions for using the society’s rules when no one wants to run for office . John Berg shares a first-hand account of the successful implementation of the provisions in section 62 of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) 12th Edition in removing an elected president from the right to preside at a meeting . And, Karen Watson discusses the Forms and Examples sections included in RONR and offers suggestions on how to advise the presiding officer on what to say when no Forms and Examples are provided .
Enjoy this issue .
Rosalie H . Stroman, PRP
https://twitter.com/ napparlypro https://fb.com/ parliamentarians/
Education is the keystone upon which our Association is founded. As parliamentarians, it is second nature for us to teach others and each other as a natural function of who we are as students and professionals.
The words in our mission announce that we are to teach parliamentary procedure to the world! It is for that reason that one of the main focuses of this biennium is education . We are good at educating our members at national meetings and conferences . For us to move from good to great, the offerings we make available and the platforms over which those offerings are distributed need to evolve to include both members and non-members .
NAP University will allow our members, non-members, credentialed and non-credentialed members alike, to take courses that are of particular interest to them . For example, a member or non-member who wants to become a better secretary or presiding officer will find such courses at NAP University . By the same token, the University will meet the needs of our members moving toward some level of professional credentialing . We conducted a soft launch of NAP University at the National Training Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and look forward to the full launch during parliamentary law month in April 2023, so be on the lookout!
Collaborating with other units and associations to create or share educational programs is another realm in which NAP wants to excel . The Educational Exchange programs seek to have local units exchange a popular or favorite program with another unit and vice versa . A unit in California may have a popular program dealing with minutes while another unit in Ohio could have a member’s favorite presentation addressing “What If?” scenarios frequently occurring in meetings . The units could swap programs by presenting to each other while meeting new parliamentarians and seeing new programs as well . Associations could have their education exchanges as well as Districts . The combinations are endless and the possibility of having premade, enjoyable programs available is an exciting prospect .
If you have suggestions or comments on this subject, reach out to any member of the Educational Resource committee, any district director, or member of the Board of Directors . We always welcome new ideas and ways to expand our educational offerings .
Dr . Martin Luther King wrote that “Education should equip us with the power to think effectively and objectively . To think is one of the hardest things in the world, and to think objectively is still harder . Yet this is the job of education . Education should cause us to rise beyond the horizon of legions of half-truth, prejudices, and propaganda . ” Let us rededicate ourselves to meet this grand challenge—to teach others and each other how to think objectively and rise beyond the horizon .
Wanda M . Sims, PRP
2021-2023 NAP President
As a fully credentialed member of the National Association of Parliamentarians® and American Institute of Parliamentarians, I have enjoyed being in the parliamentary business since 1982 . I serve my clients as a meeting parliamentarian, professional presiding officer, opinion writer, and seminar leader . I feel truly blessed by the confidence placed in me by a wide variety of clients from local governments, school boards, indigenous communities, labor unions, and non-profit organizations .
Although I enjoy both my advising and presiding assignments, I wanted to share three examples of when presiding was more effective and efficient than advising .
Example
I was presiding over a special membership meeting of a not-for-profit society, as requested by its deeply divided board . The agenda had two resolutions: one was that four board members be removed from office . The second was that the remaining three board members be removed from office . Sound scary?
Before the meeting was called to order, one person asked me what
would happen if both resolutions passed . My answer was that we’d cross that bridge if and when we got to it, but for the time being my focus had to be on keeping the debate orderly, focused, efficient, fair and equal, and as civilized and respectful as possible .
To that end, I presented a proposed set of standing rules . They were approved after minimal debate and without any objections .
Then debate on the first resolution began . It was intense and emotional, but members followed the rules .
After about an hour, a member was recognized to speak and said this: “Mr. Mina, as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, you are an expert on rules of order. I need your advice: What motion can I make in order to get rid of these two removal motions and to request that our board retain a mediator to resolve their dispute in a rational, measured and responsible manner?”
My reply was that, for the time being, he could move that the pending removal motion be postponed indefinitely . I explained that, after debating the motion to postpone indefinitely, the assembly would vote on it, and that a majority vote
1: “How can we get rid of both Removal Resolutions?”
was necessary `to get rid’ of the first removal motion . The second removal motion would then be introduced, at which time the motion to postpone it indefinitely could be introduced . He proceeded in this manner and, in less than 10 minutes, both removal resolutions were “gotten rid of”.
Had I been advising instead of presiding, this process would have required me to educate the chair on the procedural complexities, and would have required more time .
Example 2: “Can we divide the budget into two segments?”
I was chairing an annual member ship meeting of a golf club . The most contentious issue was the annual budget, specifically the increases to the playing fees that were proposed by the board .
Here again I prepared standing rules that were quickly approved at the start of the meeting . We then processed a few items, and then came the big one: the annual budget . After lengthy debate about the proposed playing fee increases (which, altogether, formed only a small portion of the overall budget), a member was at the microphone with a question: “I was just wondering. I am not hearing any objections to 95% of the budget. The only item that we’ve been arguing about is the playing fees. Is there a way we can divide the motion into two parts, approve the
non-contentious 95%, and then send the playing fees portion back to the board, to consider the input that was shared at this meeting and present a revised motion at a subsequent membership meeting?”
My reply was that he could move to divide the budget in the manner that he proposed . The motion to divide was moved and seconded and adopted . As the next step, the assembly voted swiftly to approve the non-contentious 95% of the budget . It then voted to refer the playing fees portion to the board, with instructions to integrate the membership’s input into a revised fee structure and present it at a subsequent membership meeting . All is well that ends well . Here too, being in the presiding role made it natural and quick for me to explain the rules for the motion to divide and to provide the correct terminology .
Example 3: “I wish the two groups could just meet informally…”
This membership meeting had several contentious bylaw amendments to consider, each requiring a 2/3 vote to adopt . As the hired presiding officer, I established my impartiality with these opening comments: “Thank you very much for inviting me to preside over this meeting. I am honored to do this work for your organization. Before we proceed, I need to note that the issues coming before
you seem to be contentious and that there appears be a division of opinions in this room. It is therefore essential that I emphasize that, as I chair your meeting, my role is to be strictly impartial. I must not do anything that could favor one outcome over another, or any one group over another. I am here solely to look after the meeting and your decision-making process. The positions you take and how you vote are entirely up to you.”
I then introduced standing rules for the group’s consideration and adoption . Then the first proposed bylaw amendment was placed before the assembly . Debate began, and, after an hour, the vote was taken . The voting result surprised some and upset others: 60% of the votes were in the affirmative, and 40% were in the negative . So, there was a majority in favor of the bylaw amendment, but that was not enough to meet or exceed the 2/3 vote threshold .
Given this unexpected outcome, proponents of the resolutions needed some reflection time, and an informal discussion unfolded at the various microphones . At some point, a
member of the minority group spoke and said this: “It would be just great if we could somehow get 5 or so representatives from each of our two groups to meet informally and talk to each other, instead of talking about each other.” She headed to her seat, but I stopped her and asked: “Are you making a motion to refer the remaining bylaw amendments to a task force, made up of 5 representatives from each group, to gather informally, with the mandate of forming and proposing a path forward for this organization?” She seemed surprised: “Can I do that?” I said yes and, within five minutes, a taskforce of ten members was hard at work .
Serving as a meeting parliamen tarian and serving as a professional presiding officer are both enjoyable and rewarding experiences . However, there are occasions when serving as an impartial presiding officer provides greater nimbleness and quicker responsiveness to the group’s needs . NP
Eli Mina, M.Sc., PRP, is a Vancouver-based board effectiveness consultant. Since 1984, he has advised clients on demystifying the rules of order; chairing contentious meetings; preventing and dealing with disputes and boardroom problems; achieving informed decisions; and, minute taking standards. His clients come from local governments, school boards, indigenous communities, labor unions, and the non-profit sector. He is the author of five published books, including 101 Boardroom Problems & How to Solve Them and Mina’s Guide to Minute Taking. His Web site is www.elimina.com
What role(s) have you filled in your “career” as an NAP member? Student of parliamentary procedure? Teacher of parliamentary workshops? President (or temporary presiding officer) of an organization? Another officer, such as secretary? Chair (or member) of a committee? Board member? Consulting parliamentarian? Bylaw advisor? All-around RONR maven? Here’s a role you’ve probably never thought you might fill: that of being a peacemaker within the context of parliamentary law! Have you ever thought of “The General” himself as being a peacemaker? Does this seem strange when his career was in the military? Well, that’s exactly what Ralph C . Smedley, founder of Toastmasters International, thought of Henry Martyn Robert . He even titled his 1955 biographical work about Gen . Robert The Great Peacemaker, subtitled “General Henry Martyn Robert, U .S . Army Corps of Engineers . Study of the most distinguished and least known man . Author of ‘Robert’s Rules of Order’ . ” Why should Gen . Robert be called a peacemaker? In Smedley’s own words: It is impossible even to guess how many disputes have been dissolved, how many arguments have been settled, how much time has been saved, how much transaction of business has been made possible by reference to that familiar little book Robert’s Rules of Order . 1
Smedley’s point was that the antithesis of being combative during a meeting is working together to achieve a common goal . Smedley wrote, “He (Robert) brought out of his own confusion an orderly, systematic method of working together . ” 2 ¶
Smedley’s point was that the antithesis of being combative during a meeting is working together to achieve a common goal . Smedley wrote, “He (Robert) brought out of his own confusion an orderly, systematic method of working together . ” 2 Following Robert’s death, the Minneapolis News (May 14, 1923) published an editorial tribute which included the commendatory sentence: It is hardly too much to say that this title volume (Robert’s Rules of Order) has preserved the possibility of sanity in debate and it is certain that it has preserved the possibility of social amenities amidst argument . 3
Smedley directly quotes from Robert’s own definition of “peacemaking” found in Parliamentary Law (page 4):
Where there is a radical difference of opinion in an organization, one side must yield . The great lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization . 4
In this author’s personal opinion, when an adversarial situation presents itself during any meeting or assembly, it is first and foremost a series of pre-agreed-upon rules that will reconcile any conflicts,—and that is exactly what RONR is designed to bring about . RONR introduces the antithesis of “win at all costs” or “might makes right . ” RONR’s condition to “play by the rules” forces the participants to be diplomatic,
sympathetic, and peaceable if the goals of a deliberative assembly are to be reached . An example of such diplomacy, and thus of peacemaking, was shared during a recent NAP Zoom Webinar . It was pointed out that one of the members of the RONR authorship team never uses a Point of Order in a combative manner . Instead, he uses a Point of Information (or Request for Information) to ask if possibly a rule may have been broken—(a much more diplomatic way of enforcing rules without putting others down or being challenging or combative) .
An additional perspective of Gen . Robert as a peacemaker was presented to us in the book Henry Martyn Robert: Writer of the Rules, An American Hero, compiled, edited, and expanded by Dr . Leonard M . Young, PRP, [RIP] and recently reviewed in the National Parliamentarian (Summer 2022, “A Book Review,” Elizabeth Wong) . One merely needs to turn to pages 155-156 of that book to find an explanation of how Robert adapted his manual to be applicable in the non-legislative world:
In Congress the two-party system requires the opposing factors to be in constant opposition, but in ordinary societies this is exactly what must be avoided . In Congress there are two distinct parties that do not try to conciliate one another, but rather stand in an attitude of warfare with one another . In the majority of societies not legislative, one of the most important considerations is to prevent a state of warfare that would destroy the usefulness of the society . 5
So, the answer to the title’s question should be, “Yes, of course I am . There is no place in a parliamentarian’s world for strife or conflict . ” Whether as a leader, a consultant, or a participant in a meeting or committee session, we should all be peacemakers . Yes, we must help to enforce parliamentary rules and guarantee that the principles underlying parliamentary law are followed;6 but at times, we must “pick our battles” and not be overly authoritarian or dogmatic and picky . At times, we must work to help a group come to a workable agreement between two opposing views . And at times, we must be sensitive to others so as not to provoke or frustrate them by not using a diplomatic approach . At all times we must be peacemakers first and disciplinarians second . Peace out! NP
1 Smedley, Ralph C., The Great Peacemaker (Los Angeles: Borden Publishing Company, 1955), 9
2 IBID, 13
3 IBID, 69
4 IBID, 75
5 O’Brien, Professor Joseph F., Henry Martyn Robert: Writer of the Rules, An American Hero (Independence, MO: National Association of Parliamentarians, 2019), 155-156
6 RONR (12th ed.) xlix
There are a number of reasons why a society or subgroup within the society might wish to cancel a previously scheduled meeting. Some may be very good reasons, e.g., a pandemic, riot, weather event, or unsuitable meeting location. Some may be very poor reasons. For instance, a president about to be removed from office may try to cancel a meeting where charges against him are going to be brought. In another case, a majority of a board of directors that thinks it will lose the election may attempt to have the board cancel an election meeting. There are many situations in which a scheduled meeting cannot be canceled. In circumstances where a meeting can be cancelled, it must be cancelled in a manner that protects absentee rights.
Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed .) (RONR) describes various types of meetings . These are regular meetings (9:1-12), special meetings (9:13-16), adjourned meetings (9:17-19), annual meetings (9:20-23), executive sessions (9:24-27), public sessions (9:28-29), and electronic meetings (9:30-36) .
This list is somewhat of a hodge podge . An executive session, public session, and electronic meeting describe how a meeting of the assembly may be conducted, but none of these is a specific type of meeting . A regular monthly meeting might be conducted as an electronic meeting, or an adjourned meeting might be conducted in executive session;
each term describes how the delibera tive assembly conducts business . Only the regular meeting and the special meeting require some form of notice (9:3 and 9:13) . Notification of either of these meetings protects absentees (25:10) . Any action taken in violation of the rule protecting absentees is null and void (23:6(e)) .
All regular meetings require notice, even meetings held more frequently than quarterly . In some cases, however, notice need not be sent to each member . If the assembly meets at least quarterly and the bylaws establish a specific day for regular meeting,1 notice need not be sent . Any member, however, may consult
of semantics, amending the previously adopted resolution could be regarded as either changing the rules for holding a future meeting(s) or canceling a future meeting .
As a practical matter, under RONR, it is impossible to cancel a regular meeting, except within a properly held meeting; any attempt violates the rules and is usually void . If the president, for example, were to decide to cancel a regular meeting, outside of a meeting, the president would be violating the rule protecting absentees . A regular meeting could be validly held, and provided the meeting was quorate,2 could conduct business . In amending either the bylaws or resolution, the power to cancel a meeting is a power belonging to the assembly that may be
may require a 15-day notice of special meetings . The notice will also specify what business will be transacted (9:15) . As previously indicated, that rule requiring notice protects absentees and, as such, any action taken in violation of these rights is null and void . So, would cancelling a special meeting violate the rule protecting absentees? The answer is yes, but only in some circumstances .
Notice of a special meeting informs members of the meeting and the business that will be transacted at that meeting . Any member knows that, once the specific deadline for notice is passed, the meeting will take place on the date specified and only the business mentioned in the notice may be transacted at the meeting .
a violation of the rule protecting absentees to cancel the meeting .
Even if a special meeting could not be cancelled, nothing would prevent the assembly from immediately adjourning that special meeting when it is held . For example, assume that the bylaws require a 15-day notice to hold a special meeting, and that on June 1st, notice is properly given to hold a special meeting on June 20th to buy a new building . On June 12th, the building that was being considered for purchase burns to the ground . The meeting could not then be cancelled in advance, but it could be adjourned immediately after being called to order .
In summary, it is possible for the assembly to change the schedule for
notices is an extra-cameral act. The author prefers this term to “extra meeting,” a term used by some groups to describe special meetings.
4 This is especially true when several different individuals and/or groups in the organization can call a special meeting.
For example, the bylaws may provide that the president can call a meeting, but also provide that the board can call a special meeting, with a required 30-day notice. On September 1st, the president calls for a special meeting, to be held on October 20th, to consider buying a new building. On September 5th, the board adopts a resolution to consider buying new accounting software at the same special meeting. Neither the president nor the board could individually cancel that meeting after September 20th.
Robert, Henry M., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition). Eds. Sarah Corbin Robert, Henry M. Robert, III, William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Daniel E. Seabold, and Shmuel Gerber, New York: Public Affairs; 2020.
Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP-R, has the unusual, and possibly unique, distinction of having contributed articles to National Parliamentarian® as a regular member, Registered Parliamentarian, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, and now as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian-Retired.
association has closed. The primary reason cited was that no one wanted to be an officer. The unit had a long and proud history and well over one hundred members (considered good by association standards). However, after several years of incomplete elections, vacancies, and prevailing on incumbents to continue to serve, the unit closed in accordance with the association’s rules. Size did not matter. Without leaders, no society— large or small—will last.
for using the society’s rules when no one wants to run for office.
First, find out why the members don’t want to be officers . Conduct interviews or administer a survey where members have the opportunity to provide their opinions . If the society has a nominating committee, as provided in the bylaws, have the committee determine not just whether members accept a nomination, but why members decline a nomination . Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 12th edition (RONR 12th ed .) suggests “It is desirable policy for the nominating committee…to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination—that is, his assurance that he will serve in the specified office if elected . The bylaws can make such a practice mandatory . ”
RONR (12th ed .) 46:13 . Whatever method is used to find out why members don’t want to be officers, take note of reasons given that have a “too” in them . For example, members who feel the terms of office are too long, that there are too many meetings, or the positions require too much work . These are starting points for possible changes to the bylaws that will remove barriers and encourage members to run for office .
Next, review each office and its duties as provided in the bylaws . Reassess what officers are required, how they shall be elected or appointed, their term of office, and any qualifications for holding office . RONR (12th ed .) 47:1 . In some societies, the national association prescribes how a subordinate unit should structure and implement its officer positions . For example, the superior body may require subordinate units to have specific elected officer positions with the ability to add others as it pleases . It may require specific accreditation to qualify for certain elected offices . “If the unit…is subject to a parent organization or superior body… the bylaws governing at these higher levels should be studied for provisions
which are binding upon subordinate units in a way that must be taken into account . ” RONR (12th ed .) 56:7 . Use all available latitude to relieve the society of local obligations it cannot meet . An available tool, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, is to use nonmembers as officers RONR (12th ed .) 47:2 .
Develop a succession plan in the bylaws to ensure that the office of president is filled . RONR (12th ed .) 56:32 . The method of filling vacancies may also be provided RONR (12th ed .) 47:57–58 . The plan will only be as good as there are members in the positions to succeed and move up . In the absence of officers, a presiding officer and secretary, elected pro tem for each meeting, will enable the society to conduct business during meetings . RONR (12th ed .) 47:11(3) . This stopgap measure addresses what happens during meetings and not any administrative responsibilities of the president .
Finally, look in the mirror . While rules don’t make the leaders, they do reflect the will of the members . It is the members who can make their society amenable to leadership, or susceptible to closure . NP
Section 62 of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.) (RONR) contains provisions for members to enforce their rights when their presiding officer neglects their duty to be fair, and attempts to “abuse their authority, or engage in other misconduct that calls into question their fitness for office” (RONR 62:1). The following is a first-hand account of the successful implementation of those provisions in removing an elected president from the right to preside at a meeting:
The organization was an incorporated 2200-member state society of a larger national 36,000-member organization . Conflict and contention had been brewing for some time in the state society . The meeting of the board of directors could only be called by its president (a flaw in the bylaws) and the president refused to convene a meeting of either the board of directors or the executive committee, preferring to rely upon a cadre of advisors . The president also set up a website purporting to be the official website of the state organization in competition with the website maintained by the society’s elected Webmaster .
The society’s national convention was scheduled to be hosted 14 months after the annual meeting of the state society to be described later . The state president was the chairman of the convention planning committee and could only be removed by action of the state board of directors . There was dysfunction on the committee .
The bylaws had been amended the previous year by inserting “Electronic meetings according to the requirements in the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order are permitted” in both the articles on annual membership meetings and on the board of directors . The state law governing nonprofit corporations, however, provided that electronic meetings of the membership must be authorized by the board of directors and subject to those procedures established by the board . Since the president refused to call a meeting of the board of directors, there was no board action authorizing any electronic meeting and voting . The president, with advisors and a non-credentialed parliamentarian, attempted to set up procedures for a hybrid in-person and electronic annual meeting and contracted with a vendor for online voting with plans to combine the results of the online voting with the ballot voting at the in-person portion of the meeting . The instructions for such a meeting and voting kept changing weekly up to the days before the annual meeting and the email list for such notifications was not coordinated with the secretary of the online voting vendor .
When it was announced that the president intended to run from the floor for reelection, hundreds of members reportedly threatened to resign if the president was reelected . The leadership of the national organization became concerned that the conflict both in the state society and the dysfunction in the convention planning committee could threaten to derail the coming national convention plans .
The national society’s parliamentarian was both a member of the national society and a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, and is hereafter referred to as the PRP. The national bylaws provided chartered state societies autonomy in their own government, subject only to the national bylaws . The PRP was granted membership in that state society and a local unit a few weeks before the annual meeting and was invited to come and advise those members concerned about their president’s leadership . Two of the top three officers of the national society attended the state’s annual meeting, with only the national president unable to attend due to COVID exposure . As provided in the state bylaws, the PRP actually qualified as an ex-officio member of the state society’s board of directors because of other offices held and awards received previously in the national organization .
The annual board of directors meeting was scheduled immediately before the annual membership meeting . The PRP met with the group of concerned members prior to those meetings and went through Section 62 of RONR in great detail . Plans were made as to who would do what at the meetings . The president, in anticipation of members planning to “disrupt the meeting”, arranged for hotel security to be there to eject troublemakers . In response, plans were in place to have the PRP surrounded by members who were retired military and law enforcement if there was any attempt to have him improperly ejected from the meeting . Ejecting a member from a meeting requires a majority vote, and the chair has no authority to order it without the assembly’s consent (RONR 61:17) .
At the opening of the board of directors meeting, the president announced that it would be in executive session and anyone who was not a member of the board of directors must leave, and that any troublemakers “disrupting the meeting” would be ejected from the meeting . The president had previously attempted to have the PRP disqualified but the state secretary confirmed that the PRP was a member in good standing and was qualified to be at the board of directors meeting . Apparently, the president’s non-credentialed parliamentarian was not familiar with RONR 62 or simply advised that all that was necessary was to bluff and rule “out of order” anyone with whom the chair disagreed and to eject them from the meeting . The president’s stonewalling strategy became immediately apparent at the onset of the board of directors meeting . When any point of order was raised, it was not even entertained by the chair but met with only “You are out of order”, and “sit down or you will be removed from the meeting”.
One of the state officers rose and said “I appeal from the decision of the chair . ” The chair told him he was out of order . The appeal was repeated two more times, followed by the appellant addressing the assembly and putting the question, “Shall the decision
of the chair sustained?” The decision of the chair was not sustained . The officer then followed with, “I move to suspend the rules and replace the chair with [a named and respected former president]”. The chair continued to protest that such action was out of order . While the vote was taken viva-voce rather than with a division for a motion requiring two-thirds affirmative (RONR 25:2, 44:5), the vote was overwhelming in the affirmative and no one called for a division .
As was expected, there was a brief transitional period of anarchy as the former chair continued to protest the “insurrection”. The hotel manager was summoned and told that the security was not needed and that the organization would not be paying for it . The former chair left the meeting, along with his non-credentialed parliamentarian .
The temporary chair then appointed the PRP as parliamentarian for the meeting . The PRP had done nothing so far during the meeting, but was then allowed to address the assembly . The PRP explained exactly what had happened and how it was all in accordance with the Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised provisions to ensure the members rights, and that RONR is not a set of dirty tricks used to bully a group by a minority, by a majority, or even by a president officer, but constitutes the members’ Bill of Rights to protect the members from any such bullying .
The annual membership meeting convened a few minutes late and was opened by the vice president, as the president had not returned to the room . The president may not have known that the elected state president still had the right and duty to preside at the membership meeting, at least until deposed by the membership . (By that point, remote members were already attempting to vote online, even though the nominating committee report had not been presented and there had not yet been any nominations from the floor .) There was a point of order raised at the membership meeting that the online participation at the annual membership meeting had not been authorized by the board of directors in accordance with the requirements of the state law and should not be recognized . The point of order was ruled well taken and the ruling was not appealed .
(While there were some disenfranchised members who were led to believe that they would be able to attend and vote remotely, they had no one to blame but the president who made promises without the authority to deliver . There would still be a healing process for the organization .)
The installation banquet that evening had a celebratory tone . When the PRP was introduced at the banquet, there was a substantial ovation that parliamentarians are not accustomed to receiving . The members had the power to remedy a bad situation, but they only needed to be educated in the proper application of parliamentary procedure . 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.
Parliamentarians are consultants who expeditiously advise the chair what to say . Much of the advice provided is based on verbatim Form and Example in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition) (RONR (12th ed .)) . 1 Yet, what happens when a situation is encountered for which no Form and Example is provided? How does the parliamentarian advise the chair when RONR doesn’t say what to say?
“. . . in each of the succeeding sections covering the different motions of parliamentary law (11-37), is a subsection headed Form and Example giving a script showing the words to be spoken by a member making the motion and by the chair in stating and putting the question on it . . .” RONR (12th ed.) 10:37
There are numerous subsections labeled Form and Example scattered throughout RONR . A parliamentarian must be familiar with Form and Example and be prepared to help both the presiding chair and any members who lack familiarity with this format . Verbatim Form and Example headings are in quotes . An example for the chair is, “Are there any further nominations?” (46:8) For members, the nicely condensed and alphabetized tinted pages, starting on p . t34, provide the exact words to be spoken when making motions .
Form and Example is implied when Robert’s doesn’t say what to say . For a presiding chair, an example of an implied Form and Example is, “…each ballot should be folded in a manner announced in advance or stated on the ballot itself . ” (45:27) What the chair should say is implied, but no verbatim Form and Example is given .
When a situation is encountered for which no Form and Example is provided, a parliamentarian must draw from his or her parliamentary compendium built on foundational knowledge and experience . Foundational knowledge comes from knowing the underlying principles of parliamentary procedure gained through study and research in the reference books of our profession and credentialing issued by the National Association of Parliamentarians® . Experience can be acquired from having personally served as a parliamentarian in a situation without verbatim Form and Example and/or from other parliamentarians who willingly share their experiences to broaden ours .
Below are true meeting situations . There is no verbatim Form and Example . Draw from implied Form and Example in RONR, your foundational knowledge, and experience to expeditiously formulate advice for the chair . Following each scenario is the advice given to the presiding chair at the meeting with the RONR reference and some tips For the Future to advert these situations from happening in the first place!
1 . Scenario . After the ballot count has begun, a member seeks recognition, then tells the presiding chair that one teller is best friends with one of the candidates and therefore is disqualified to serve as a teller . Advice. CHAIR: An individual is not disqualified to serve as a teller except for a direct personal involvement in the question or in the result of the vote to the extent that they should refrain from voting . Moreover, frequently, tellers chosen to protect the interests of each opposing side . (45:26)
2 . Scenario . A ballot contains pre-printed names of nominees running for office . When the chair states, “Are there any further nominations?”, a member shouts, “Objection!” Advice. CHAIR: Will the member state the reason for the objection? [If the objection pertains to the procedure (pre-printed names on the ballot)] CHAIR: According to RONR (12th ed .) 46:28-29, the procedure is allowed . An objection cannot be made because any eligible individual can be nominated, and elected, even though the individual’s name is not pre-printed on the ballot . The member may make a motion for debate on the nominations, at which time he can speak against (using decorum) the candidacy of any nominee .
3 . Scenario . A member accepts appointment as a teller . The meeting proceeds to other business during the counting . The teller stops counting, seeks recognition of the chair, and makes a complaint that he is missing business during the meeting . Advice. CHAIR: Does the member request to be excused from his duty as teller? [If yes,] If there is no objection, the member is excused . The chair now appoints [name of member] as teller . [If no,] Until such time as the member requests to be excused from his duty, he shall continue to serve as teller . For the Future, before appointing tellers, the chair can emphasize that serving as a teller may take the individual away from business should the assembly vote to continue the meeting while ballots are counted . (45:30)
4 . Scenario . In a large room, the sound system infrequently cuts in and out . Balloting has begun . During the recess, a candidate confronts the chair, “I have been told by another member that my speech was barely intelligible due to the sporadic audio of the speakers . I want to give my nominating speech again . ” Advice. There is no simple answer in this situation . The parliamentarian might inquire of legal counsel if there are any grounds in this situation to warrant cessation of the vote . Otherwise, the chair should inform the member that the voting has begun and should not be interrupted (46:6) and that no Question of Privilege was raised by any member at the time of the “offense . ”
For the Future, prior to the meeting, the chair can inquire of sound technicians to ensure the sound system is properly functioning . Once the meeting is called to order, the chair can ascertain (by raising a question of privilege) if the audio is clear for all members simply by asking . (19:1-13)
5 . Scenario . When the results of the election are read, the candidate, who withdrew his name, was announced as elected . A member shouts, “Objection!”
Advice. In this situation, the chair has an opportunity to educate the members . [After referring to the organization’s bylaws], CHAIR: There can be no objection . The individual has met the qualifications of the office and received a majority vote . The individual is declared elected regardless of his withdrawal . (46:31) Then, the chair should expeditiously ascertain if the elected individual either declines to hold the office (since he withdrew his name) or accepts . (32:3 and 32:4)
6 . Scenario . One of the tellers informs the chair that the other teller refuses to sign the Tellers’ Report .
Advice. In a meeting, the appointment of tellers may be the most important of all . “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how . ”2
While it might be preferred that all tellers agree with the Tellers’ Report, in RONR (12th ed .), there is no requirement for tellers to do so . The Chair might inquire the reason(s) for a teller’s refusal to sign and work toward a resolution . Reasons might include (a) the method or procedure of counting, (b) the tools being used (calculator, laptop, computer program), (c) lack of understanding the kinds of votes (e .g ., difference between quorum and vote requirements), or (d) lack of understanding the difference of the ballots .
For the Future, before appointing tellers, the chair can diligently instruct tellers what is expected from them . The chair can stress the benefit of tellers being in agreement with the Tellers’ Report . This will include informing them that they should immediately stop at any time they think the counting is being done in error in order that adjustments may be made to correct any suspected error or discrepancy . The goal is an “unchallenged” election . (23:6, 45:26, and 46:49)
In preparation for serving an organization, the parliamentarian should review governing documents including state statutes . If, as in this situation, the state law requires tellers’ signatures to be on the Tellers’ Report, the chair can submit a request to the assembly to excuse the “refusing” teller from duty, then, appoint another teller . (45:10)
7 . Scenario . The annual meeting of an organization that allows proxies has adjourned . After adjournment, an owner, who possessed a significant number of proxies, raises a Point of Order . He believes his candidate did not win because his proxies were not counted .
Advice. Every parliamentarian must be prepared to explain voting issues, including a member’s right to change his vote up to a certain time (excluding a vote by a method that provides secrecy) . (4:42 and 45:8) This situation was subsequently referred to higher management and may be pending with legal counsel at this time . Even though the Point of Order was not made during the meeting (it was made after the vote was announced and the meeting adjourned), the owner’s right, according to state law, made his point a valid “continuing breach . ” (45:50 and 23:6) Both the verbal recording of the meeting and the contemporaneous script of the chair confirmed that the chair announced that proxyholders should check at the tally desk during the recess . For the Future, the chair can be adamant to emphasize the instructions for proxies/proxyholders .
8 . Scenario . A highly-charged election is being conducted that will determine the future direction of an organization . Nominees are in two camps and their speeches mostly complain about ‘the other side’. Before the ballots are collected, a member states he could not tell on which ‘side’ nominees were, and therefore, he wants the candidates to give their speeches again . Advice. Depending on time and the sufferance of the organization, there are at least four ways to address this situation . CHAIR: Speeches will not be given again because (choosing any of the following):
1) The meeting rules regarding nomination speeches were adopted and followed (if applicable) .
2) Instructions regarding content of nominating speeches were given to nominees (if applicable) .
3) Each nominee had equal time for his/her nominating speech .
4) The content of each nominee’s speech was his/her choice .
This does not preclude a member from making a motion to suspend or amend the meetings rules, thus allowing nominees to give speeches again, provided no balloting has yet begun . (25:14-15, 2:16-24, and 59:27-27)
For the Future, the chair can emphasize the instructions for giving nominating speeches . (46:27)
9 . Scenario . Immediately after the first nominating speech, members erupt into cheering and clapping . Advice. The author’s prior personal experience with this situation and foundational knowledge produced the following compendium for advice for her next chair when the situation surfaced at yet another organization’s election .
• “The chair is supposed to look out for the interests of the assembly and to see that this liberty is not abused so as to interfere with business . ” (Parliamentary Practice, Henry M . Robert, p . 154)
• The Chair is responsible “. . . to assist the carrying on of debate in a smooth and orderly manner . ” (43:19)
• “During debate, during remarks by the chair to the assembly, and during voting, no member should be permitted to disturb the assembly by whispering, walking across the floor, or in any other way . The key words here are disturb the assembly . ” (43:28)
• Slight breach of order (first warning) . “Chair simply raps lightly, points out the fault, advises member(s) to avoid it . ” (61:10)
• Dealing with Discipline in a Meeting . After first warning, call the member to order . (61:11)
CHAIR: The members’ passion in the election is appreciated and enthusiasm for their candidates is acknowledged . Yet, the Chair’s responsibility it to ensure the purpose of this meeting is to conduct official business of the organization in a manner that is as efficient and effective as possible . Therefore, the Chair is compelled to advise members to act accordingly with appropriate debate decorum . This is your first warning .
The author is happy to report that the remainder of the meeting was civil and peaceful .
As parliamentarians, we must be familiar with and utilize verbatim Form and Example in RONR to advise the chair expeditiously and accurately what to say . Then, for situations when there is only implied Form and Example, we will do well to draw on foundational knowledge and experience, our own personal experience as well as the collective experience from among our colleagues, when advising our chairs . Have you served as a parliamentarian in situations such as these? If yes, please share your experience! Please email KarenWatsonLincolng@gmail.com so your insight may be added to her compendium of advice for chairs when Robert’s doesn’t say what to say . NP
1 In this article, the 12th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised is cited. References are as follows: section:paragraph.
2 Boris Bazhanov, The Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary, 1992.
karen Watson, PRP, earned the PRP credential in 2010 and started her business the next year. She has experience serving a wide-range of clients in over 100 different meetings. This year marks the third time she has been awarded Nebraska Parliamentarian of the Year (2013, 2018, 2022). She has presented at NAP national conferences and serves as parliamentarian for the Nebraska Department AMVETS Ladies Auxiliary. Her favorite service as a parliamentarian is training non-profit, newly-elected, board members. Currently, she is a member of a parliamentary Masters Group with colleagues from Canada, the East Coast, Mid-West, and Hawaii.
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.
Our club’s bylaws require notice to be given of any proposed bylaw amendment. I gave previous notice at my club’s last regular monthly meeting in July that I would be proposing an amendment to our bylaws to allow for electronic meetings. I didn’t have the full text of the amendment ready yet and didn’t specify where the amendment would be placed, but I thought that I provided enough to properly inform members of the proposal. That July meeting had no quorum but there were members there who heard me give notice of my plan to propose the amendment at the next meeting in August. However, when I arrived at the August regular meeting, the president refused to allow me to bring up the amendment. Was this correct? Is it true that previous notice can’t be given if there is no quorum? And couldn’t the secretary have placed my proposal into the call of the meeting so that we could consider and vote on it at the August meeting?
RONR (12th ed .) 10:44-51 explains previous notice of motions, when it may be needed, and provides examples of how it can be given . “Previous notice” is an announcement that a motion will be introduced in the future . It may be required for the adoption of some motions, such as bylaw amendments, or it can be used to lower the vote required to adopt certain motions . Previous notice may be given orally, at a meeting, unless an organization’s rules require it in writing . If the rules require the notice to be given in writing, it could be required either in writing at a previous meeting or in writing in the call of the meeting . Usually the full text isn’t required, just an accurate statement of purpose .
A member may give previous notice of a motion when nothing is pending, or the member may be able to interrupt pending business, although they can’t interrupt a person actually speaking . It’s still in order to give previous notice after the assembly has voted to adjourn, as long as the chair hasn’t declared the meeting adjourned . When previous notice is given at a meeting, the chair should repeat the information, and the secretary should record it in the minutes .
Instead of being given at a meeting, previous notice may also be provided to each member by the secretary with the call of the meeting at which the motion is to come up for action . RONR (12th ed .) 10:51 notes that this sort of previous notice may be placed in the call of a meeting, especially in cases where there is a duty or established custom of providing notice in this manner . In this example, the member requests the secretary to provide the previous notice with the call of the meeting, and it’s done at the expense of the organization .
When previous notice is given orally at a meeting, there must be a quorum for it to be valid . RONR (12th ed .) 40:9 states in part that: “The prohibition against transacting business in the absence of a quorum cannot be waived even by unanimous consent, and a notice (10:44-51) cannot be validly given . ”
At the August meeting referred to in the question, the president was correct to disallow the member from proposing the bylaw amendment, since notice had not been properly provided, due to there being no quorum at the July meeting . The president should have informed the member at the July meeting that previous notice could not be properly given because there was no quorum, and instructed them to either: (a) request the secretary include the information with the call to the August meeting (if allowable by the organization’s rules or custom); or (b) to attempt to give the notice at the August meeting to propose the bylaw amendment at the September meeting . If it is acceptable for previous notice to be provided in the call of the meeting of the club, then the member could have requested the secretary to place the information in the call of the August meeting so that the bylaw amendment could be considered and voted upon at that meeting .
At our club’s last regular monthly meeting, we took a ballot vote on a certain motion. Every member had received a ballot package upon check-in with four ballots, labeled A-D. The chair explained that all members were to use Ballot A on the vote on the certain motion, mark
continued
either the YES or NO box, and place it in the ballot box. No other ballots were to be placed in the ballot box.
There were 25 votes cast using Ballot A, and 2 votes cast using Ballot B (both marked “NO”). The tellers included the 2 votes cast using Ballot B as illegal votes, and declared that there were 27 votes cast. The tellers’ report stated that since there were 27 votes cast, 14 were needed for the motion’s adoption, and that 14 votes were cast in favor, 11 votes in opposition, and 2 illegal votes.
I realize it didn’t affect the result, but I’m confused as to what should be done regarding illegal votes. Should the 2 illegal votes have been counted toward the majority vote requirement?
RONR (12th ed .) 45:32-38 and t52 provide guidance on what ballots to count, what makes a ballot illegal and/or not part of the total, and how the tellers’ report should state the counts .
If a ballot is unintelligible or includes a vote for an ineligible choice, then it is treated as an illegal vote, and is counted in the votes cast, although it cannot be credited to any specific choice . An example of an unintelligible ballot is if both YES and NO boxes are marked . An example of a vote for an ineligible choice is if someone writes in the word “maybe” instead of marking the YES or NO box . Unintelligible ballots or ballots with ineligible choices are counted in the votes cast, and so they affect the number needed to achieve the voting requirement .
If a member circles the YES or NO box instead of marking it, that would be considered a technical error, and would not make the vote illegal, since the meaning is clear—that vote would still be counted toward the YES or NO totals .
Ballots cast by one or more persons not entitled to vote can be classified into 2 categories: whether the ballot is identifiable or unidentifiable as cast by a person not entitled to vote . An identifiable ballot cast by a person not entitled to vote should not be included in the total number of votes cast for computing the majority vote . If unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and there is a chance they could affect the result, the first ballot vote is null and void and a new ballot vote must be taken .
In this particular case, the 2 ballots were identifiable because they used the wrong ballot (Ballot B instead of Ballot A) . It can be argued that they were
continued
identifiable ballots cast by a person not entitled to vote, since every member was entitled to vote once (using Ballot A only), but not twice (using Ballot B or any other ballot) . Using Ballot B may have been a member trying to vote an extra time . Or a member could have used Ballot B because they simply spoiled their Ballot A . The reason the Ballot B votes were cast is immaterial— it only matters that those 2 ballots should not be included in the total number of votes cast or in the majority vote computation . Therefore, the tellers’ report should have stated that 25 votes were cast, 13 votes in favor were needed for the motion’s adoption, 14 votes were cast in favor, and 11 were cast in opposition . RONR (12th ed .) doesn’t have any guidance on how to record the 2 illegal votes that are not counted in the votes cast total but it seems appropriate to note them as illegal or invalid votes cast using the wrong ballot .
If the 2 votes cast using Ballot B were counted in the total number of votes cast, then it follows that members could destroy the possibility of achieving a majority vote by casting all of their additionally lettered Ballots to make the majority vote number impossible to reach . It is worth noting that RONR (12th ed .) 45:29 states in part that: “In collecting the ballots, it is the tellers’ responsibility to see that no member votes more than once—for the assurance of which the assembly should adopt some reasonable and orderly method . ” The tellers are ultimately responsible, but they are human and they could miss someone sneaking in a second ballot, someone using the wrong ballot, or a non-voting member casting a ballot, etc ., and if a questionable situation happens, the club may need to adopt specific rules regarding how ballot votes are cast and counted to ensure accuracy . One group chose to call the roll to have each voting member, one by one, put their vote into the ballot box, to ensure that no one voted more than once .
The 2023-2025 NAP Board of Directors will be elected during the 2023 convention in Atlanta . All nominations are essentially self-nominations . The requirements for declaring your candidacy are stated in the campaign policy found in the NAP Operational Policies and Procedures Manual, which is available on the NAP website in the Documents section . Candidates must submit a consent-to-serve form to NAP HQ; this form is also available at www .parliamentarians .org/documents, or by contacting HQ .
Candidates who have declared their candidacy prior to convention may submit their information, including a high-resolution photo and statement, for publication in the Spring 2023 issue of National Parliamentarian® magazine. Since members have limited opportunity to learn about candidates before the election it is strongly recommended for all those running to submit this information for publication.
Statements are limited to 200 words and must be submitted to Rosalie H. Stroman, PRP, npeditor@nap2.org by February 1, 2023.
7.1.01 NAP’s Campaign Policy shall be:
A. Printed in the fourth quarter National Parliamentarian® of even-numbered years.
B. Provided to any member upon request.
C. Available on the NAP website in the members only section.
7.1.02 Under the NAP Campaign Policy, a candidate is defined as a member who has declared his or her candidacy for an office listed in Article V.1 or Article X.1 of the NAP Bylaws by submitting a signed NAP Consent Form to Serve to headquarters prior to publication in the National Parliamentarian® or to the secretary within 30 minutes of closing of nominations.
7.1.03 All election campaigns shall be conducted with professionalism as the fundamental Guidance. This includes, but is not limited to, the following principles which apply to all members as well as districts, associations, and units:
A. All campaigning shall be conducted in a spirit of fairness and honesty.
B. There shall be no personal attacks or impugning of any candidate’s character.
7.1.04
A. NAP Headquarters shall not provide membership lists, event registrations, or delegate lists or labels for the purpose of campaigning.
B. No NAP funds or staff time, other than that set forth elsewhere in these guidelines, may be expended for the purpose of facilitating any campaign activities.
C. A photo and statement from each candidate shall be printed in the spring issue of the National Parliamentarian® in the election year. Any qualified candidate who submits his or her Consent to Serve form to NAP Headquarters by the submission deadline of the spring issue of the National Parliamentarian® (NP) may have a statement and picture published in that issue. The NP editor may establish format requirements for the submission. (See NAP Standing Rule 7.)
The NAP Educational Foundation (NAPEF) offers several scholarships that pay NAP national and association dues.
Two of these scholarships are: The Alice Ragona Memorial Scholarship –for students age 23 years and younger. The Young Professional Dues Scholarship –for young professionals ages 24 to 35.
The deadline to apply for these two scholarships is November 1 for the following year’s dues.
Another scholarship, the Student intern Scholarship, is an award for interns who participate in the NAP Biennial Convention and pass the NAP membership exam. This scholarship funds the first year of NAP national and association dues for an intern from a student partner organization (FBLA/PBL, FCCLA, HOSA, and SkillsUSA). The deadline to apply for this scholarship is 30 days following the end of the biennial convention.
The newest scholarship is the Viola Brannen Scholarship. It is an award given to NAP members to attend in person the NAP Training Conference (NTC) or the NAP Biennial Convention. This scholarship funds registration fees ONLY for attendance at the NTC or the Biennial Convention. Any member who has been a member of NAP for at least one full year and who plans to attend the NTC or the Biennial Convention may apply for this scholarship. The scholarship will be awarded to a member one time. The deadline to apply for this scholarship is August 1 of each year, applying to the NAPEF Scholarship Committee Chairman. If an applicant is selected, NAPEF will reimburse the registration fee when the applicant sends proof of attendance at the NTC or Biennial Convention.
information and application forms are available at www.napef.org.
if you have any questions please contact Carol Habgood, PRP, at carolhabgood@sbcglobal.net
It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. That’s certainly true when it comes to memorializing NAP’s biennial conventions and training conferences.
All photographs are available for viewing and downloading (at no charge— what a great membership benefit!) at parliamentarians.smugmug.com . No log in is required . There is a unique album for each event . Double click on the album photo to view the photos for that event; for example, click on the picture of the 2022 NAPTC Albuquerque to see the pictures from the recent national training conference . If you are looking for a picture of a specific individual, you can enter the last name in the search box in the upper right-hand corner next to the magnifying glass, and all photos captioned with that name will be displayed . Using the search feature works for an individual album or to search all albums . For example, if you are on the main page and haven’t clicked on a specific album, type “fitzgerald” (Frank “Hugs” Fitzgerald), and 41 images will appear .
Every effort is made to accurately caption each photo using a unique camera image number . If the committee does not know the name of an individual, “who” is listed in the photograph . Type “who” in the search box to find all photos that have unidentified individuals . Who knows? You may find a picture of yourself or a friend that is not identified . If you find a picture that needs correcting (typos and other errors happen), please contact Bob Williams at rrw@prodigy.net; identify the album number and image number (img_xxxx)_and he will fix the error .
Photos can be downloaded for free, and all downloads are full resolution . Click on the down arrow below the picture and to the extreme right of the picture number .
If you want to just sit back and see all the photos full screen as a slide show, click the triangle over the picture . Hit the “esc” key to stop the slide show . This may be useful for unit, association, or district meetings .
Districts, associations, and units are encouraged to use the photos in newsletters . The NAP Board of Directors has adopted a policy regarding the use of NAP photos; the NAP Operating Policies and Procedures document is available on the NAP home page under “documents,” “governing documents . ” Enjoy!
Albuquerque, NM Sept. 8-11, 2022
These are a few of the words of praise participants used to describe the 2022 NAP Training Conference, September 8-10, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The energy was high as parliamentarians from throughout North America came together in person for the first time since 2019. This year’s event, however, was not the training conference of old. In addition to the 185 registrants who attended in person, more than 350 registrants attended virtually. NAP’s first hybrid event posed some challenges as well as some incredible opportunities and the response from in-person and online attendees has been overwhelmingly positive. Eighty-two percent of the attendees said the conference met or exceeded their expectations (eleven percent were not sure what to expect).
“The workshops were excellent!! Re-enforced what I know and taught me new ways of applying RONR,” wrote one participant.
“I love the fact that the conference was hybrid,” stated another. By all accounts the new format was very well received and preferred for future events. The NTC team navigated the new technical aspects of running more than thirty-five workshops with both in-person and online attendees. We are excited to take what we learned to provide an unequaled experience at the 2023 Biennial Convention in Atlanta, Georgia, September 6-10.
NAP thanks all the volunteers, presenters, and everyone who attended for helping to make the 2022 Hybrid NAP Training Conference a success.
“Excellent.”
“From a technology standpoint, the NTC was superb.
The content sessions were exemplary. Having a Hybrid conference was a WIN, WIN in my opinion.”
“I’m grateful to be able to take advantage of virtual learning.”
On July 20, 2022, NAP and the parliamentary community lost one of its most dynamic and accomplished leaders: NAP Past President Leonard M. Young Jr., Ed.D., PRP.
Leonard started his parliamentary career in 1982 by becoming a member of NAP as part of his ministerial training . Within a year he had advanced to Professional Registered Parliamentarian . He immersed himself in parliamentary procedure . He sought out and attended meetings wherever he traveled—often volunteering to teach as well . Teaching parliamentary procedure was one of his passions .
Through the years, Leonard served NAP at all levels and in numerous ways . He founded units in Michigan and Missouri and served as a leader in both state associations . At the national level, Leonard participated at the committee level and on the Board of Directors . While on the board, he facilitated the purchase of the organization’s permanent headquarters in Independence, Missouri .
Leonard was elected President in 1999 . His 2001 convention was memorable, marked by a revision of the bylaws to change the governance structure and a new Code of Ethics . One of the workshops was conducted in the well of the U .S . House of Representatives and participants met the parliamentarians of the House and the U .S . Senate . (The convention closed September 10, just hours before planes crashed into New York’s Twin Towers and the nearby Pentagon .) Several years later, he was named Executive Director of NAP, the only person to have served in both capacities .
Leonard’s accomplishments and contributions to the NAP community are too many to list . He will be fondly and long remembered as a valued mentor, educator, historian, and friend of parliamentarians around the world .
“The thing I remember best about Len is his obvious delight in what he was doing,” said NAP Past President Ann Guiberson . “He just loved what he was doing, and that love shone forth like a lighthouse . It was the foundation of how he served . We were all a part of him, and he will always be a part of us . ”
Pursuant to Article XVI, Section 1A2 of the NAP Bylaws, anyone (that is, other than the NAP Bylaws Committee) wishing to propose amendments to the NAP Bylaws must submit the proposed amendments to the bylaws committee no later than February 1 of the convention year (February 1, 2023, for amendments to be considered at the 2023 NAP Convention) . As provided in Article XVI, Section 1A1, proposed amendments may be submitted by the bylaws committee, the NAP Board of Directors, a standing or special committee, a district conference, two associations or their boards of directors, three units, or at least ten NAP members-at-large .
When submitting amendments, please use proper RONR terminology and format, and include all applicable conforming amendments, the rationale, and identification of the submitter(s) .
This will be the only notice for bylaw amendments published in the National Parliamentarian (NP) .
Proposed amendments must be submitted only using the online form on NAP’s website: (www.parliamentarians.org/documents/proposed-amendment).
Any questions pertaining to this subject should be emailed to the Bylaws Committee Chairman at bylaws@nap2.org.
NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: David Beckworth (TX) Penelope Boehm (NY)
Gene Council (EL) Barbara Davis (FL)
Norma Evans (NJ)
Irether Gaines (TX)
James Gothard (FL)
Aisha Hilliard (MD)
Yoshida Kirkwood (TX) Carol Prahinski (MI) Imogen Shakespeare (AB) Edna Sheridan (AL)
NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians:
Brian Pelkie (FL) Larry Randle (AB) Vicki Walter (CA)
NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace:
Vera Chernecki (MB) Charles Foster (OH)
Odessa Huff (GA)
Ardith Inman (IL)
Maggie Moore (GA) Joy Myers (OH)
Anuradha Spear (NJ) Linda Nichols (EL) Jacqueline White-Tolefree (TX)
Buena Reese (VA) Leonard Young (MO)
Steven D . Cook, PRP, NAP Bylaws Committee Chairman * For
NP welcomes the following individuals as new members:
Emily Arneson (WA)
Brendan Baldree (VA)
Ankush Bansal (FL)
Casey Barkan (VA)
Latarsha Beacham (FL)
Amy Blondell (VA)
Tanya Blue-Duplessis (IL)
Jamie Blustein (NS)
Baileigh Borna (GA)
Kimberley Borna (GA)
DawnMarie Brittingham (VA)
Edra Bush (TX)
Larry Campbell (VA)
Jin Hui Cao (CHN)
LaToshia Chism (TN)
Deborah Coleman Calhoun (SC)
Sheryl Collins (TX)
John Doyle (WV)
Elizabeth Eden-Maguire (OR)
Vanessa Elkins-Rogers (GA)
Teresa Evans Anderson (VA)
Kieran Francke (PA)
Daniel Fulton (WV)
Peri Gallucci (WA)
John Ginther (BC)
Signe Godfrey (HI)
Charlyn Grate Jones (TX)
Tara Graves (TX)
David Gray (MB)
Dana Gray (HI)
Victoria Guiton (VA)
Mackenzie Halterman (WV)
Robyn Hardeman (FL)
Constance Harris (KS)
Rhonda Harris (TX)
Jenita Harris (AZ)
Milton Harris (TX)
Deborah Hillman (VA)
La’Toya Hines (VA)
Amy Hjerstedt (VA)
Dorothy Hughes (MD)
Daniel Ireton (KS)
Monica Isgren (TX)
Vanessa Jackson (DC)
Colton Jensen (FL)
Contisa Jessie (GA)
Sharon Johnson Lake (GA)
Charles Kasin (NC)
Brad Kesler (AK)
Alaina King Benford (TX)
Yara Kirkwood (TX)
Stefanie Lewis (MI)
Kimberly Lissade (GA)
Aniqua Lower (WV)
Marque Malan (VA)
Crystal Malone (IL)
Delores McClain (EL)
Reginald McClendon (GA)
Marsha Meekins Cheatham (VA)
Lillian Melton (TX)
Jason Michener (MI)
Joseph Miles (VA)
Timothy Miller (MN)
JoNel Newman (FL)
Robert Newsome (LA)
Jennifer Nickel (CA)
Daniel Ninan (AZ)
Wanda Patterson (GA)
Aurora Perkins (TX)
Josephine Pete (AZ)
David Prichard (VA)
Evelyn Roig (FL)
Willie Sands (GA)
Halcyon Shao (CHN)
Mhakeda Shillingford (TX)
Shannon Smith (ON)
Halley Stewart (VA)
Rhonda Stout Edwards (MD) Brandon Tenn (CA)
Vickie Thornton (LA) Shane Tilton (OH)
LaTanya Tyson (NC)
VaShawn Veal (VA) Cynthia Vigil (NM)
Jacqueline Ward Williams (GA)
Sheila Washington (GA)
Rebecca Wheeler (VA) Carla Whitlock (TX) Cherlyn Williams (OH) Keshuna Williams (AZ) Mitzie Wright (VA)
A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members:
Beverly Przybylski, PRP
Beverly Tatham, PRP
Cynthia Mayo, PRP
Deborah Underwood, PRP
Eleanor Siewert, PRP
Joy Jackson-Guilford Kay Crews, PRP
Liza Burton
Lucy Anderson, PRP
Martha Rollins, PRP Mary Grant, PRP
Shanda Ross
Sharon Brooks Sheryl Womble, PRP Tonja Stokes, PRP
Wylene Bridgeman
* For the period June 6, 2022 through September 15, 2022
