To Advise or To Preside?

Eli Mina, PRP

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 1: “How can we get rid of both Removal Resolutions?”

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

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 membership 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 .

Conclusion

Serving as a meeting parliamentarian 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.

Are You a Peacemaker?

David Mezzera, PRP

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

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

Cancelling a Meeting?

Remember Absentee Rights

Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP-R

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.

Types of Meetings

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 hodgepodge . 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;

however, its conduct does not change the fact that the meeting would be regular or adjourned, respectively . An annual meeting may be the sole session of the year, or it may be a meeting established in the bylaws at which certain business, such as elections and the annual reports of officers, is conducted; it otherwise corresponds to a regular meeting (9:22) . An adjourned meeting is merely a continuation of one of these other types of meetings . Only the regular meeting, whether an annual meeting, special meeting, or adjourned meeting of either, is a deliberative assembly (1:1) . An executive session, public session, or electronic meeting is not, in itself, a deliberative assembly; each term describes how the deliberative 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)) .

Regular Meetings

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 the bylaws and relevant standing rule to determine when the meeting will be held . Unless the bylaws provide a method for cancelling a meeting, the only way to properly cancel a meeting is to amend the bylaws at a meeting scheduled according to the bylaws . This would also apply to meetings scheduled less often than quarterly, of which, additionally, notice is required to be sent (9:3) .

An organization may have chosen to schedule regular meetings by resolution (9:2) . This resolution could be amended, applying the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35:2(2)) . That motion could only be adopted at another meeting of which proper notice was sent . As a question 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

exercised in a properly called meeting, with a quorum present .

Special Meetings

Special meetings are of a different nature; they are usually called outside of a meeting (9:14 (1)) . Their call is an extra-cameral3 power granted by the bylaws, not to the assembly, but to some officer or group, outside of a properly called meeting . An exception is a special meeting, called by the assembly for a disciplinary trial, but without bylaw authorization (63:21n9) .

All special meetings require notice to be sent a specific number of days in advance of the meeting to be called (9:14(2)) . For example, the bylaws 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 . The member can plan to attend the meeting, but will not actually know what will happen at the meeting until the deadline has passed . The person or group calling the meeting could properly give notice of some other business that will be considered at the special meeting . 4 The notice does not necessarily become a complete description of what will be considered until that deadline has passed . Up until that point, the subject of that meeting may be changed . It may be cancelled completely, up until the deadline to mail out the notice; notice of the cancellation would have to be sent to the members . After that deadline has passed, it becomes 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

regular meetings, but the change may take place only within the meeting context and is effected by the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted . It is possible to cancel a special meeting, provided the cancellation does not violate the rule protecting absentees . The cancellation must be made before the deadline for notice is passed . NP

ENDNoTES

1 While the bylaws should prescribe the day of the meeting, the hour and place should be fixed by a standing rule (RONR (12th ed.) 9:1). If the meeting is held at least quarterly, no notice is required (9:3).

Nothing in RONR (12th ed.) indicates that the day of the meeting, e.g., “the second

Friday of each month,” must be established in the bylaws. If the bylaws were only to set the frequency of the meeting, e.g., monthly, a standing rule could set the day, e.g., “the first Thursday after the second Monday of each month.”

2 The term “quorate” means that a quorum is present; the term “inquorate” means that a quorum is not present. Both terms are more commonly used in the United Kingdom, but are used increasingly among parliamentarians in the United States.

3 The term “extra-cameral” refers to actions, usually procedural actions, that happen outside of the context of the meetings. For example, the secretary’s mailing of meeting 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.

WoRk CiTED

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.

For Want of a Leader

C. J. Mills, PRP

A subordinate unit of a national 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.

Here are a couple of suggestions 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

Cynthia Jean “C J” Mills, PRP, is the secretary of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians and a member of the Parliamentarians of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Unit.

RONR §62: Removing an Ineffective Presiding Officer John R. Berg, PRP 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.