Volume 85, No. 2 | Winter 2024
NP
National Parliamentarian
Positive Thinking. Positive Change.
When Was the Bylaw Adopted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 6 So Moved? So What! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 16 44th NAP Biennial Convention – Photo Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 29
Parliamentary Resources at Your Fingertips
There is only one place to turn for your parliamentary resources: NAP. Browse our online store for • Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and In Brief – we offer spiral-bound versions not available anywhere else! • Parliamentary reference cards • Basic information handouts • Script samples • Leadership primers for officers • Credentialing study guides • Teaching resources • And so much more
Check us out today at
www.parliamentarians.org
NP 2023-2025 NAP Officers President Alison Wallis, PRP Vice-President Carl Nohr, PRP Secretary Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP Treasurer Robert Schuck, PRP Directors-at-Large Beth Sapp James, PRP Tamara Harris, PRP Steven Cook, PRP District Director Representatives Lucy H. Anderson, PRP Deborah A. Underwood, PRP Parliamentarian C.J. Cavin, PRP Legal Advisor Daniel Ivey-Soto, PRP Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh
National Parliamentarian Volume 85, No. 2 | Winter 2024
Contents From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 President’s Message Positive Thinking. Positive Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Features When Was the Bylaw Adopted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP Oxymoron! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 David Mezzera, PRP The How, Why and What Ifs of NAP Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Tannis Nelson, PRP So Moved? So What! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Ronald Reed, RP Departments Favorite Vintage Parliamentary Procedure 101 – Managing Debate . . . . . 18 Test Yourself What’s Wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Josh Martin, PRP Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Answer Key – What’s Wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 NAP Connections 44th NAP Biennial Convention – Photo Gallery . . . . . . . . 29 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
NAP’s Vision: To provide parliamentary leadership to the world
New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . 32 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 www.parliamentarians.org
1
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
Editor
Traci Bransford-Marquis, PRP npeditor@nap2.org
Assistant Editor Josh Martin, PRP
NP Review Committee
Ann Guiberson, PRP, Chair Lynna Gene Cook, PRP Kirk Overbey, PRP Nancy Sylvester, PRP
Parliamentary Research Committee
Michael Malamut, PRP, Chair Shannon Sun, PRP Michael C. Taeliciero, PRP Rachel Glanstein, PRP, Committee Advisor C.J. Cavin, PRP, NAP Parliamentarian/Consultant
NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN®
(Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592) Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians ©2024 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
NP Submission Guidelines National Parliamentarian generally publishes only original works that have not been published elsewhere. Articles will be edited to conform to The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.) and may be edited for content and length. Article text should be submitted in Microsoft Word or rich text format and transmitted via email. Illustrations, photographic prints and high-resolution photos are welcome. Materials submitted will not be returned unless special arrangements are made in advance with the editor. Contributors must include a completed “Assignment and Transfer of Copyright” form with their submission, granting NAP the copyright or permission to publish.
Submission Deadlines Volume 85, No. 3 (Spring 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 1, 2024 Volume 85, No. 4 (Summer 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2024 Volume 86, No. 1 (Fall 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2024 2
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
From the Editor The year 2024 stands to be a year of being present, and being our best self. And, knowing parliamentary procedure ensures that any individual’s moment in time—to be heard— is respected and not interrupted or silenced. So, where are the NP writers? I thank the writers of NP’s Fall and Winter issue for contributing. We are only as good as those who “pay it forward” and share with NAP collective ideas, thoughts, and knowledge about parliamentary procedure. Of note, I welcome a new NP writer, Tannis Nelson, who writes about units, the core of NAP. I also welcome another new NP writer, Ronald Reed, who writes about the annoying “So Moved.” David Mezzera is a frequent NP writer who has contributed to the Fall and now Winter issue. A look at the NP old publications shows his breadth of knowledge and his love (hopefully) of writing for the NP. Jonathan Jacobs is also a frequent NP writer, and we are grateful for his article, “When was the Bylaw Adopted?” Enjoy curated photos from the NAP 44th Biennial Convention included in this issue. Please use this link if you would like to order any of the photos taken during this time. parliamentarians.smugmug.com. I would love to know why NAP members love (or like) parliamentary procedure. Please send your thoughts (no longer than 30 words please) to npeditor@nap2.org. As always, please send article submissions to that address as well. All for now. Traci Bransford-Marquis, PRP Editor, npeditor@nap2.org
www.parliamentarians.org
3
President’s Message
Positive Thinking. Positive Change. “A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties.” — President Harry Truman
The National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) continues to provide a wonderful network of people working together in the democratic process. There is a tremendous need to share the benefits of our organization with others so that membership grows and our values are shared with greater numbers. For positive growth and participation, intelligent optimism, rather than negativity, provides the best assistance. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.) 10:11 cautions us on making negative motions: “A motion whose only effect is to propose that the assembly refrain from doing something should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by adopting no motion at all.” Our well-versed parliamentarians know that normally motions must be stated in an affirmative manner. Organizations too can benefit from members adopting a positive outlook when considering the objectives and work of the organization. Instead of considering only the dissenting voices that say, “You can’t do that,” “We never did that,” “We don’t have the money to do that,” and “That doesn’t work,” what if we consider ideas such as, “How can we make it work?,” “Let’s try it,” “How can we afford it?,” “How can we get help so we can do that?,” or “We haven’t done that lately, let’s try again.” Just as parliamentarians may tell you the negative vote seems louder than the affirmative, often the leadership hears the negative voices more than the positive ones, even when the negative is distinctly in the minority. In the same vein, it can be irksome to hear only complaints about “they” when the responsibility for improving our organization includes the speaker. All of us are ambassadors for the cause of parliamentary procedure. All of us should listen to our peers and share our own ideas and hard work.
4
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
As noted in our strategic plan, NAP celebrates the core values of professionalism, respect, integrity, continuous improvement, service, and community. Members may further all of these values at a personal level as well. One may become actively involved in so many ways, including: • volunteering for committees and events at all levels, • attending and teaching at unit events (as both a member and as a guest), • bringing guests to meetings and events, • sponsoring an educational offering, • contributing to the National Parliamentarian or district and association newsletter, • attending and teaching at unit, association, district, and national educational programs, • sharing positive comments on social media, • providing educational programs to the public, • obtaining credentials, • working as a parliamentarian if credentialed, • attending events in person as well as virtually, and, • above all, by evangelizing the benefits of all levels of NAP. Constructive comments from members are always welcome. And work toward NAP objectives by all members is most welcome as well. We can make our time productive and happy, by turning to positive thoughts and actions and by respecting our fellow parliamentarians. Let’s improve NAP—and ourselves—by eliminating non-productive actions and making opportunities of the challenges!
Alison Wallis, PRP 2023-2025 NAP President
www.parliamentarians.org
5
When Was the Bylaw Adopted? By Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP
Have you ever encountered a provision in bylaws that left you puzzled and scratching your head? Or maybe, after reading a section, you thought you knew what to do, but then, after reading a little further, you find a passage that seems to demand the opposite? Rest assured, you are not alone. Bylaws can be confusing and even contradictory, for several reasons. And this is why the rules for interpretation are included in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, (RONR, 12th edition). The Missing Detail of “When” The section on interpretation of bylaws, 56:68, is divided into eight subparts and continues for three pages, possibly the longest numbered section in RONR, 12 ed. The language of the section has been around, in some form, for a century; it was included by General Robert in his magnum opus, Parliamentary Law (pp. 380-83). It made it into the 6
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
9th edition of RONR (1990) for the first time (pp.581-4). This well-established section should tell everything about interpreting unclear and contradictory bylaws, but it does not. There is a very important detail that is not included in this section and could easily be missed by the parliamentarian (including the author). That detail may determine which of two, or more, contradictory bylaw provisions is binding on the assembly. The missing detail is when each bylaw provision was adopted. Where can we look, then, if we run into this problem? First, we can research other parliamentary situations that might be applicable. For example, there is a very important rule regarding when conflicting main motions exist. A main motion that conflicts with a previously adopted motion that is still in force is null and void; the motion that was adopted first remains in effect1. However, there is an important exception. RONR notes that the first
main motion is in effect “unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted main motion.” RONR (12th ed.) 23:6 b. A main motion, one that is adopted by the vote needed to rescind or adopt something previously adopted, will supersede a previously adopted main motion. This has applicability to our case because bylaw amendments are main motions, specifically “incidental main motions that are classed with motions that bring the question before the assembly. RONR (12 ed.) t8 #16.” These amendments are adopted with a vote needed to rescind or adopt something previously adopted. RONR (12th ed.) 35:2, #7. The most recently adopted bylaw provision, if properly adopted2, will always supersede a bylaw provision adopted earlier. The Practicality of “When” A slightly fictionalized set of bylaws for a state organization can be used as an example. In the section on meetings, the bylaws state that the society’s board shall “call a special convention within 45 days upon the call of the Board or when petitions are submitted by 10% of the current membership.” Another section says to select delegates to all conventions, “the Board shall issue a call to each state convention of all local affiliates no later than 60 days prior to the
scheduled date of the state convention.” The two bylaw provisions provide that 60 days’ notice must be provided for a meeting that must happen in 45 days. On June 1st, for example, the secretary would have to send out notice for a special meeting that has not even been scheduled yet. Only if the secretary has access to a time machine could both rules be obeyed; he would have to send the notice on June 15th, hop into his time-traveling DeLorean, and go back to June 1st to send notice to the affiliates. So, how should these conflicting bylaw provisions be interpreted? If the rules relating to interpretation are used, there are several possible interpretations. One interpretation is that the 45-day requirement for special meetings is a specific rule and that the general rule that 60 days’ notice be given to the local affiliate yields to it. RONR (12 ed.) 56:68, #3. Another interpretation is that the intent of the framers of the bylaw provision giving 60 days’ notice was to give the local affiliates the ability to meet and elect delegates. RONR (12th ed.) 56:68, #1. Failure to follow that rule would have the additional consequence of violating the rights of absentees and potentially disenfranchising entire local affiliates. Both are valid bylaw interpretations, using the principles of interpretation; both are also subjective interpretations. There can www.parliamentarians.org
7
be an objective answer. The bylaw provision that was most recently adopted is the one that should be followed if it can be determined. Assume that, upon checking old bylaws, the parliamentarian discovers that in 2015 the requirement that a special meeting must be held within 45 days of the call was adopted. The requirement for 60 days’ notice to the local affiliates was already in the bylaws (and had not been reincorporated after that point)3. The 45-day requirement was the most recently adopted bylaw amendment, and it was adopted by the vote needed to amend the bylaws. It is binding and supersedes the 60-day notice requirement so far as special meetings are concerned. Likewise, if it were the 60-day notice requirement that had been adopted after the 45-day requirement to hold a special meeting, the 60-day notice requirement would have superseded the earlier 45-day requirement. The Analysis of “When” Since knowing which bylaw provision was most recently adopted can determine which should be followed objectively, why is this not more widely discussed? In more than twenty years of practice, the author has never heard of looking at when clauses were incorporated into a set of bylaws. One of the reasons is the 8
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
availability of the evidence; often old sets of bylaws are not kept. Members, including the secretary, may not have the space to keep decades of documents that are superseded. Further, they may not want to run the legitimate risk of confusing old bylaws with current ones so the older set gets tossed out. The motions adopting the bylaw provisions should be in the minutes, but unfortunately, minutes can be lost. Further, a parliamentarian may have to look through several decades of minutes until he finds when a specific provision was adopted, assuming that the minutes are complete. While it may be possible to accomplish this as research for a written opinion, it is impossible for a parliamentarian to determine when asked for immediate advice in a meeting. An outside parliamentarian may not even be granted access to old minutes, even if they do exist. These factors, the lack of documentation and the lack of speedy access to existing documents, create a problem for the parliamentarian. Good News Due to technology, this situation might be changing. Many societies have their minutes digitized, making them both searchable and easily sent. Some even have old bylaws digitized; the organization on which this is
based actually has digitized copies of old bylaws online. In cases where there are potentially conflicting provisions of a bylaw, the first question that should be asked
is when each provision was adopted. It is a question that may now be less difficult to answer and one that might provide an objective answer to that bylaw interpretation question. NP
End Notes 1 This is not a universal standard in parliamentary procedure. The American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 2nd edition (AIPSC, 2nd ed.) provides that the most recently adopted main motion is binding where it conflicts a previously adopted motion. This is referred to as “repeal by implication” and would be accomplished by a majority vote without notice (9.33-34). However, AIPSC, 2nd ed. requires, in the absence of a bylaw provision, a two-thirds vote with previous notice. However, if that threshold was met, “repeal by implication” would apply (9:35). 2 Improper adoption would include, but not be limited to, things like failing to provide required notice or adopting the amendment at a meeting without a quorum. See RONR, 12th ed. 23:6. 3 It is possible that the clause could be effectively reincorporated in the bylaws, for example by striking the 45-day deadline at one place and reinserting it in another place. In such a case, that re-included clause would constitute the newer adoption. It is also possible that both could be adopted at the same instant. Both provisions could have been adopted at different times and included in a revised set of bylaws. The assembly did not catch the inconsistency and included the contradictory clauses in the revision, which was adopted as a whole new document. Neither clause would be the newer clause in that case.
Works Cited American Institute of Parliamentarians. AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Robert, Henry M., Parliamentary Law, 1923. New York: Irvington, 1991. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. 9th ed. Eds. Henry M. Robert, III, et al. Scott, Foresman, 1990. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition. Eds. Henry M. Robert, III, William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Daniel E. Seabold, Shmuel Gerber, New York: Public Affairs, 2020.
Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP, came out of retirement to handle a case, that might eventually be mentioned elsewhere. He is a frequent contributor to the National Parliamentarian.
www.parliamentarians.org
9
Oxymoron! By David Mezzera, PRP
During a workshop I recently presented here in California to a 7-member Commission on the subject of Small Board Rules, I was covering the topic of voting. The inevitable question was asked by a member of the Commission: “Do abstention votes count?” The easy answer is to refer the questioner to the FAQ chapter of RONR In Brief where that very question is answered in Question 61. I personally love the answer given there: “The phrase ‘abstention vote’ is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote.” But does an abstention ever “count” or make a difference? Let’s look into this a little deeper and consider some common voting circumstances. Situations A common situation occurs if a member is absent from a meeting while a vote is being taken (whether by non-attendance or stepping out of the room temporarily), that person has obviously no effect on the count of a vote. As RONR indicates, voting 1. RONR-In Brief (3rd ed.) p. 116 2. RONR (12th ed.) 1:6 3. RONR (12th ed.) 45:52 10
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
normally is based on those present and voting2. On the other hand, someone who is actually in the room but chooses not to vote has, in effect, mentally left the room. Thus, in the same way he is not part of the voting process. But is it that simple? Is there ever a time when an abstention does count for something? Consider the following circumstances. In another example, when a roll call vote (yeas and nays) is taken, one of the four options for voting (along with yes, no and pass) is “abstain” or “present.” What difference does this make? The difference, as RONR points out, is that if someone chooses to abstain, their presence is noted for the purpose of insuring that a quorum was present for the vote 3. In this case, someone expressing an abstention is significant and counts in the process but does not count in the voting tally for or against. This would be the case when a large group is voting using electronic voting and the software package shows an option to “abstain.” We parliamentarians must
probably just live with this as we have no control over the software design. Putting a √ next to “abstain” might help to know the total number of people who chose to record a ballot; but on the other hand, what if someone does not vote yes, no, or abstain? Is there some other choice? Not really; and other than “yes” or “no,” we know that anything else is moot as far as determining the result is concerned. What about the often made statement by non-parliamentarians that an abstention counts as a “no” vote? Believe it or not, there is an instance noted in RONR where this is actually the case, and here’s the example: If an organization’s rules require that consequential votes require a majority of those present at the meeting—or a majority of all members—then an abstention is other than a “yes” vote and has the same effect as a “no” vote4. If the commission noted above requires a majority of those present to pass any motion allocating funds and 7 members are present, then it would require 4 affirmative votes (a majority of those present which also in this case is a majority of the membership) to pass a particular motion. Whether the vote
is 3 to 4 with all voting or 3 to 2 with 2 abstentions, the motion would fail (even though 3 might be a majority of those voting in this latter instance) since a majority of those present (4) is required for its passage. This is not the general rule in RONR but has to be understood in the context of a particular assembly’s rules. In a sense, it is immaterial whether there are 4 “no” votes or some abstentions within that number; the motion would not pass and abstentions would be equivalent to “no” votes. In a similar vein, we’ve read multiple articles in the California Parliamentarian (CP) about when calling for a negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant, a term that even appears in RONR 5. Another question to pose is are there ever instances when a member is required to abstain on a vote? Here again, RONR provides us with some guidance on the subject of recusals. Although a member can never be compelled to abstain according to RONR 6, members should step aside and not cast a vote (i.e. abstain) on any matter in which they have a direct personal or pecuniary interest. Some legislative bodies (e.g. city councils or school boards) take this a step further
4. RONR (12th ed.) 44:9(a) 5. RONR (12th ed.) 4:35 6. RONR (12th ed.) 45:4 www.parliamentarians.org
11
and mandate that any member with a personal interest in a matter must abstain during the vote. But other legislative bodies totally disallow abstentions. Their rules indicate that it is the duty of members to vote since they represent constituents who deserve to have a vote cast without them abstaining 7. I’ve seen instances of such voting wherein members excuse themselves to go to the restroom and conveniently return only after a vote has been taken with them recorded as “absent.” Of course, as noted above, this would have the same effect as a “no” vote when a majority of members was called for in their rules since they did not vote in the affirmative; otherwise, the number of members present and voting determines the basis for a majority. To go even another step deeper, is there ever an instance when an
abstention can count as a “yes” vote? Not exactly, but in an abstract way, if a voter abstains and the motion ends up passing, the voter is in effect indicating that they are allowing the majority in the affirmative to make the decision for them on the matter. Not exactly having their abstention actually recorded as an “aye” vote, but conceptually, in this instance, it turns out to support the affirmative side when it is the winning side , by not advantaging the negative side, allowing the otherwise majority to prevail. So in the end, while an “abstention vote” may be an oxymoron, there are actually a few instances where an abstention makes a real difference in the outcome of a vote. You may be asked in the future to answer for yourself when someone asks, “Do abstention votes count?” So be prepared…. NP
7. RONR (12th ed.) 45:3
David Mezzera, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians and a past District 8 Director.
12
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
The How
WHY an d
What Ifs
of NAP Units By Tannis Nelson, PRP
“What we learn to do, we learn by doing.” — Thomas Jefferson
Do you want to become a Registered Parliamentarian or a Professional Registered Parliamentarian? Or, if you are already credentialed, do you want to improve your parliamentary knowledge and skills? Participating in a unit of the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) can assist you in continuously expanding your parliamentary knowledge and in your efforts to become and/or remain a credentialed member. Units of NAP provide excellent opportunities to increase your knowledge and understanding of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), meeting structure, bylaws, quorum, and other parliamentary topics. Units can address the special desires and specific needs of their members more frequently and more informally than larger state associations. To better understand NAP Units, this article will focus on how units are formed, reasons to join a unit, and when and how one may consider starting a unit. Often, a unit arises out of a group of individuals who have discovered they want to learn more about parliamentary procedure and begin holding study sessions. NAP Units may be chartered by at least five members of NAP. These units may meet in person or electronically as provided in NAP’s bylaws. Therefore, an NAP Unit gets to decide if they want to meet only in person, only want to meet electronically, or meet with the option of either in-person or electronically. For many individuals, an electronic unit is much more convenient both www.parliamentarians.org
13
How
WHY an d
What Ifs
in time and travel. An electronic unit can be for a specific community or extend membership to any NAP member. These are decisions the unit gets to make. Units may provide in their bylaws for individuals who have not yet joined NAP, these individuals are provisional members and are typically studying and trying to build their confidence to take the membership exam. The rights of provisional members may be limited by the unit’s bylaws; however, they may participate fully in all educational programs. Frequently, those who are already NAP members may join a unit to assist them in preparing for the registered or professional registered exam. Unit programs and educational offerings will be invaluable to the new credentialing requirements as of January 2024 for the Registered Parliamentarian (RP) and Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP) credentials. A unit offers the fellowship of others with like interests; however, members are expected to participate in the unit’s activities, and ultimately follow Jefferson’s advice, “we learn by doing”. Unit members can learn from each other and also strengthen their presentation skills. A unit can assist in nurturing and building the self-confidence of its members. While a member may feel intimidated presenting to large, state association meetings, a unit can offer an encouraging setting where the member feels supported and can enhance their knowledge and skills. Participating in a unit can build leadership since there are many more opportunities for service as a committee member, committee chair, or officer. Leadership in a unit prepares a member for additional service in their state association, district, and at the national level. Many of NAP’s associations and national leaders began their parliamentary journey by joining a unit in their community. Alison Wallis, PRP, President of NAP, emphasized during her remarks at the close of the 2023 Biennial Convention one of her priorities as we advance the principles and practice of democratic decision making is to increase NAP membership. Starting a Unit offers the opportunity to connect with 14
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
individuals who may have been elected to serve as an officer in a civic club, church, parent-teacher group, or other local organization. Suddenly, they realize they know very little about presiding, following the organization’s governing documents or the parliamentary authority, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR). These individuals are usually highly motivated to join a group that can support them in learning skills that will assist them in having successful meetings. More often than not, they will also encourage other members of their organizations to join. What if you’re unable to locate a NAP Unit in your area? Hopefully, you’ll consider starting one. You can begin by inviting individuals who are leaders in civic clubs, churches, parent-teacher groups, and others who may utilize RONR to gather for a study session. Contact your state association, as many associations have standing committees who will be happy to assist you in your efforts with the NAP membership exams and organizing to form a unit. NAP offers complete, detailed instructions on how to charter a unit. You may download the instructions from the NAP website Documents section, the New Unit Kit files, which will include the “Request for Approval of New Unit Bylaws”, “Application for Unit Charter” and “Sample Unit Bylaws”. You may access using the documents section of the website. If you want to follow Thomas Jefferson’s sage advice and “learn by doing” you may want to join and participate in a NAP Unit. In the words of Sir Ken Robinson, a renowned British author, speaker, and international advisor on education, “Most great learning happens in groups. Collaboration is the stuff of growth.” NP
Tannis F. Nelson, PRP, is President of the North Carolina Association of Parliamentarians and a member of the Tar Heel Electronic Unit. She has served on a number of NAP standing committees including the Professional Standards and Member Discipline Committee and is a current member of NAP’s Bylaws Committee. www.parliamentarians.org
15
SO MOVED? SO WHAT! By Ronald Reed, RP
While I have been in organizations for many years, I have heard one thing said time and time again that should never be said in a meeting! As a parliamentarian it makes my head want to explode when a member of the assembly, after another member has made a statement about something the organization should or should not do, shouts: “SO MOVED!” Whenever I hear someone say, “So Moved” in a meeting, it makes me want to shout back, “So What!” “So Moved” is a meaningless statement that does nothing to advance the organization’s agenda, it is out of order, and it slows down the democratic process. This frequently used statement does nothing to advance the agenda! Almost always, after someone yells out “So Moved” there is mass confusion centered around exactly what has just been moved. It usually takes a good amount of time to figure out what the statement of the motion is, which clearly takes the meeting off track and does not advance the agenda! 16
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
After thinking about this for a while, I wanted to know why people did this over and over again. The usual reply is, “We’ve always done it this way.” Custom is one of the biggest obstacles to overcome with organizations that use Robert’s as a guideline rather than a reference. Furthermore, shouting out, “So Moved” is out of order. It violates several rules found in Robert’s that apply to the motion making process. It violates the first rule of making a motion, which is to first obtain the floor. RONR (12th ed.) 4:4 states that the first part of making a motion is to seek recognition. Once you have recognition, you have the floor, and you begin with the first step in the six steps of processing a motion. That first step is that you actually state the specific motion that you want the body to consider. Because you state it specifically, your motion will get the attention it deserves from the entire assembly. Then the motion can move forward with a second. Shouting
“So Moved” is out of order and disruptive to the assembly. The second thing I have heard is “It speeds up the process.” That seems to be a very common misconception. Shouting out, “So Moved,” actually takes more time from the assembly than making the motion properly. The main reason that “So Moved” slows down a meeting is because a secretary is not a stenographer. The secretary now has to figure out who said, whatever was so moved, and then get the exact language of the motion so that it can be accurately restated by the chair for the motion to move forward. The words “I Move” do more than start the motion process. They let the body, and more importantly, the secretary know that new business is being introduced to the assembly. It allows another member to agree that she wants to take up the item by seconding the motion, and it speeds up the entire process.
When someone in your organization shouts out, “So Moved,” do not just reply “So What.” Teach them to simply say, “I Move that…” and state the motion they want to introduce properly after recognition by the chair. It advances the agenda, is in order, and speeds up the democratic process. NP
Six Steps of a Motion 1. A member makes the motion. 2. Another member seconds the motion. 3. The chair states the question on the motion. 4. Members debate the motion. 5. The chair puts the question to a vote. 6. The chair announces the results of the vote. — Robert’s 4:2 and 4:25
Ronald Reed, RP, is Vice-President of the Austin Parliamentarians and a member of the Green Gavel Electronic Unit of Parliamentarians and the fraternity, Omega Psi Phi. He has been a member of NAP since 1993 and can be reached at RonaldreedNAP@yahoo.com.
www.parliamentarians.org
17
Favorite Vintage
Parliamentary Procedure
1O1 Managing Debate
To be used as a quick reference for yourself, your friends, and your opponents. Reprinted Fall 2015.
> Member is recognized by the chair obtains the floor > Motion is made and seconded > No second if motion is made by a committee of more than one > Chair states motion and asks if there is any debate, or if assembly is ready for the question. > Maker of motion has option to speak first—in favor of the motion. > Other members alternate speaking “For” and “Against.” > Time allowed for speaking is 10 minutes each, per RONR (11th ed). • Can be modified—Change adopted in Agenda or Convention Rules. • Can be limited or extended with a subsidiary motion. • If another member has a question, the time is taken out of current speaker’s time; therefore, the member who has the floor need not yield his time and the question can be raised after the current speaker has finished debate. 18
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
Favorite Vintage
> Time allowed for Debate can be set with agenda, Convention Rules, or Special Rules. > Amendment to main motion—Made and seconded. • Debate on Amendment • Vote on Amendment • If not adopted, return to debate on Main Motion • If adopted, go back to main motion with amendment > Continue debate on Main Motion until debate is exhausted • Generally, cannot cut off debate • Requires 2/3 vote if member calls for Previous Question > Chair states motion as it will be voted on, which may be different from original stated motion > Time control—Use a timekeeper > Chair does not participate in debate—Remains impartial • Exception—Vacates chair until motion is handled, which is not advisable • Sits down during debate • Can participate and vote if in a committee • May clarify facts if misinformation is given to members during debate > Participant protocol • Wait to be recognized • Address the Chair, not the assembly • Be courteous • Do not use member’s names > Presiding officer asks—Ready for the Question • Cannot cut off debate if a member rises to debate • Unless the action is dilatory > Rights of debate cannot be transferred > Member can speak no more than twice on same motion on same day • Cannot speak a 2nd time until all have had an opportunity to speak once www.parliamentarians.org
19
Test Yourself
What’s Wrong? By Josh Martin, PRP
Can you spot the parliamentary blunders in the following stories? Blunder #1 In a March assembly, a controversial motion was on the floor to change the membership fee structure. After a heated debate, a member moved to lay the motion on the table, and the motion was promptly seconded. There was no other matter apparently requiring immediate attention. The chair immediately called for a vote. The motion to table was carried with a majority vote. The chair then moved on to the next item on the agenda. Where was the blunder? Blunder #2 During an April assembly, a motion was made to change the regular meeting time from 7 p.m. to 6 p.m. After a brief debate, a member proposed an amendment to change the time to 6:30 p.m. instead, and the motion maker agreed to this suggestion. The chair declared that this amendment was a ‘friendly amendment’ and accepted it without a vote, stating that since it was friendly, it didn’t require the assembly’s approval. The amended motion (for a 6:30 p.m. meeting time) was then put to a vote and passed. Where was the blunder? Blunder #3 At the annual meeting, the general membership lacked a quorum and was unable to conduct its elections. The organization’s bylaws provide that officers serve “until their successors are elected.” The chair declared the meeting adjourned and announced that the current board members would serve until the next annual meeting. Where was the blunder? Answers are on page 28. Josh Martin, PRP, is currently NP Assistant Editor. He joined NAP in 2009 and received the RP and PRP credentials in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Josh is also the current Treasurer and a past President and Vice President of the Minnesota State Association of Parliamentarians. He is a former member of the NAP Bylaws Committee and served as Technical Editor for the third and fourth editions of Robert’s Rules of Order for Dummies by Alan Jennings, PRP. 20
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
Test Yourself
&
Questions Answers The intent of this column is to provide general answers or advice (not formal, official opinions) about the questions asked. The answers are based on the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, unless otherwise indicated, and do not take into account such governing authorities as statutes, bylaws, adopted special rules of order, other parliamentary authorities, or earlier editions, except as specifically mentioned. The abbreviations used in these questions and answers are explained in National Parliamentarian Vol. 85, No. 1, Fall 2023, p. 30. Questions should be emailed to npquestions@nap2.org.
Propriety of Postponement to the Incoming Board
Q
Question: A controversial matter came up in our organization regarding internal governance structure. The organization’s principal governing body is a representative assembly structured similarly to the United States Senate. Members of the assembly serve three-year terms. One-third of the body is elected each fall to serve a term starting the January 1st after the election. The group meets four times a year: October, January, April, and July. The parliamentary authority is RONR. Some members want the body to switch to six-year terms with elections in even years, just like the U.S. Senate, arguing that continuity will aid institutional memory. Others want to retain the current structure, arguing that volunteer time is limited and longer terms could result in an unrepresentative assembly largely composed of retirees with more time on their hands. The Bylaws Committee studied the matter for a year and came up with majority and minority recommendations. After lengthy discussion at the October meeting, it was clear that the assembly was divided and the proponents of change had a majority, but not the two-thirds vote required to amend the bylaws. The sense of the members was that the issue had been studied sufficiently and in great detail by the Bylaws Committee and no further committee study was necessary. To keep the matter active and at the forefront, a member moved to postpone the motion to amend the bylaws to the January meeting. www.parliamentarians.org
21
Test Yourself
&
Questions Answers continued
The Chair ruled the motion to postpone out of order. The next meeting is within the next quarterly time interval. See RONR (12th ed.) 9:7-9. In fact, the illustration in RONR 9:7, specifically refers to postponement from an October 1 meeting to a meeting any time in the following January as being within a quarterly time interval. Was the Chair right? Answer: The questioner raises a significant question. One of the first technical rules in RONR that is taught to new students of parliamentary procedure is the quarterly time interval rule as referenced by RONR (12th ed.) 9:7–9. And, in fact, the proposed motion in this case would pass the quarterly time interval rule. Nevertheless, that is not the only restriction on postponement. Another, somewhat less well-known rule regarding the timing of motions to postpone is that a motion to postpone cannot postpone a motion beyond the next regular business meeting as provided by RONR (12th ed.) 14:6. Further, a motion to postpone cannot become, in effect, a motion to postpone indefinitely, by postponing beyond the time when the motion could possibly take effect. See RONR (12th ed.) 14:9. Another time-based rule is that an incidental main motion to postpone cannot postpone an item of business (such as election of officers or adoption of the budget) required by the bylaws to be addressed at a specific meeting as indicated by RONR (12th ed.) 14:12. If the bylaws-required business item is properly raised at the meeting, however, it may then be postponed by a subsidiary motion to postpone. Id. Another, somewhat less well-known time-based restriction on the motion to postpone is the one used in this case. A motion may not be continued to a new body, such as from convention to convention. The reason that the rule is somewhat obscure is that it is discussed in the section on board continuity, RONR (12th ed.) 49:22, rather than the section on the motion to postpone, (12th ed.) 14:1 et seq. Nevertheless, the rule is clear. RONR determines that a body with a periodic turnover in membership becomes a new body every time that the membership turns over. RONR (12th ed.) 49:22. The turnover need not be over a majority or more of the members. The illustration in the book is a turnover over one-third each year, as in this question. A turnover of a quarter, a fifth, or even a sixth would be sufficient to trigger the rule. All that is necessary is that a “specific portion” of the body must turnover 22
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
&
Test Yourself
Questions Answers continued
“periodically.” The rule provides that replacement of individual members is insufficient to trigger the rule. Id. When a deliberative body becomes a new body, whether because it is completely (or almost completely) newly elected, or because of substantial regular turnover under RONR (12th ed.) 49:22, no business carries over from the prior body unless it is carried over through a committee required to report to the new body. Any business temporarily but not finally disposed of under the prior body falls to the ground at the time that the prior body terminates and ceases to exist, before the new body comes into existence. This means that any motions (a) laid on the table by a prior meeting and not taken from the table, (b) make the subject of reconsideration and not timely taken up, or (c) listed as unfinished business or general orders and not reached at the final regular meeting of the body, RONR (12th ed.) 9:9, 38:8, “fall to the ground.” See RONR (12th ed.) 49:22. For the same reasons, a motion to postpone a motion from a meeting of the prior body to the new body would be out of order because such a motion would carry over business to the new body by a method other than consideration by a committee. Therefore, the Chair’s ruling is correct.
Parliamentarian as Presiding Officer
Q
Question: There is a special meeting coming up on a topic that has divided my organization. I suggested to our president that she hire a parliamentarian to chair the special meeting so that she can express her opinion on the topic, which most members want to hear, and so that all appropriate procedures are followed without bias (whether perceived or actual). The president told me that a hired parliamentarian is not allowed to preside under the bylaws, which require that “the president preside over all meetings which the president attends.” However, I have seen parliamentarians (both member parliamentarians and paid professionals) serve as presiding officers in other organizations with similar bylaws. Are parliamentarians allowed to preside or not? Answer: Bylaws often include the duty of the president to preside over meetings. However, since this rule is in the nature of a rule of order as defined in www.parliamentarians.org
23
Test Yourself
&
Questions Answers continued
RONR (12th ed.) 2:14, as relating to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and officers’ duties in that connection, it can be suspended even though the rule is placed in the bylaws. RONR (12th ed.) 2:21 provides that rules of order, regardless of where they are contained (parliamentary authority, special rules of order, or the bylaws), can generally be suspended by a two-thirds vote. Therefore, the rule providing that the president shall preside at meetings may be suspended. There is also a specific rule regarding a temporary presiding officer that allows for the suspension of the president’s duty to preside by a majority vote if neither the president nor vice-president objects. RONR (12th ed.) 47:13. Even if the president or vice-president do object, the rules can be suspended by a two-thirds vote to allow the appointment of a temporary presiding officer. Id. Additionally, if there is a matter that has divided an organization, it may be advisable to hire a non-member who is skilled in presiding, and that may describe some professional registered parliamentarians. See id. Parliamentary Law (PL) page 297 states, in part: “Sometimes, however, personal feeling has run so high in societies that no member could preserve order in a meeting, and it has been found advisable to invite a good presiding officer, who was in no way connected with the society, to preside at an adjourned or special meeting where an attempt was to be made to settle the difficulty in the organization.” Even though a parliamentarian is a consultant who advises the president and others on matters of parliamentary procedure, and RONR (12th ed.) 47:46 indicates that the parliamentarian’s role is mainly an advisory one, that only applies when serving as parliamentarian. When parliamentarians serve as a professional presiding officer, then the role is not advisory—instead the parliamentarian is chairing the meeting via a temporary appointment. In conclusion, parliamentarians are allowed to preside if the officers and members of an organization wish them to do so. Some might think that the rule would be different under the AIP Standard Code (AIPSC). AIPSC, as a general rule, does not recognize the RONR “rule in the bylaws in the nature of a rule of order” exception. Under AIPSC’s general principles regarding simplicity and straightforwardness, procedural rules in the bylaws may not be suspended. AIPSC-2nd 16.8.1. One might think, therefore, that under AIPSC-2nd, a professional presiding officer 24
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
&
Test Yourself
Questions Answers continued
cannot preside if the bylaws require the president to preside. The latest edition of AIPSC, however, does allow for a professional presiding officer over the opposition of the elected president and vice-president. Compare AIPSC (1st ed. 2012), pp. 86, 270–71 (parliamentarian may preside temporarily only by general consent, if bylaws require president to preside), with AIPSC-2nd 29.18 (parliamentarian may preside by majority vote). Therefore, under both RONR and AIPSC, the parliamentarian may preside against the wishes of the bylaws-designated presiding officer and any bylaws-designated temporary presider. RONR, however, requires a two-thirds vote to do so, while AIPSC-2nd requires only a majority vote.
Removal of Non-member Serving as a Committee Member— A Different Approach In the Fall 2023 National Parliamentarian (v. 85, no. 1), the previous Parliamentary Research Team addressed the question of how to remove a non-member who has been appointed to a committee by the president, with the approval of the assembly. The previous Team would require the approval of the assembly. The incoming Parliamentary Research Team thought thoroughly about this intriguing question, which is not clearly addressed in RONR. The incoming Team approached the issue from a different angle. It thought that presidential notification alone was sufficient to remove. The Team also thought that NAP members would appreciate an insight into the types of respectful discussions professional parliamentarians can have when RONR provides no clear answer.
Q
Question: An organization’s bylaws provide that the president appoints all committee members and is silent as to removal. The president received approval by the assembly (a convention of delegates) to appoint a non-member of the assembly to a committee per RONR (12th ed.) 13:15, 50:13, and 56:46, because the individual was a former well-respected leader. It turns out that the individual is overcommitted, but unwilling to resign. How can the non-member committee member be removed? Answer: The team together with the prior Team, the 2023–2025 Parliamentary Research Team believes that, since the president in this case has the power www.parliamentarians.org
25
Test Yourself
&
Questions Answers continued
to appoint committee members that are members of the organization, the president also has the power to remove those members so appointed. The president’s announcement of such removal should suffice (as it does for the appointment).The 2023-2025 Parliamentary Research Team departs from the prior Team, as it would apply the same rule if the president appoints non-members to committees subject to approval of the board or members, as the appointment power remains with the president. The qualification “subject to approval” is not recognized as a separate method of committee appointment. There are only five recognized methods of appointment to a committee under RONR (12th ed.) 50:13: (a) election by ballot, (b) nomination from the floor with voice vote election, (c) nomination by the chair with confirmation by voice vote, (d) appointment by the chair, and (e) adoption of a motion specifically naming the committee members. The current Team believe that this case (appointment of a non-member subject to approval) is only a qualification of (d), appointment by the chair. RONR (12th ed.) 50:14 (“If appointment was by the president acting alone under paragraph (d) [of 50:13], he may remove or replace committee members by his own act.”). See AIP O. 2001-463 (Appoint with Approval; Remove Without?), 42(2) PJ 55 (April 2001). The current Team believes that the language used in RONR (method (d) is a form of appointment by the chair) is important and suggests a process analogous to the process by which the United States President appoints cabinet secretaries with the approval of the Senate, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, ¶ 2, but may remove them by his sole action. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). The previous Team treated the situation as more closely analogous to method (c), nomination by the chair with confirmation by the assembly. The current Team highlights the distinction in wording between appointment subject to approval and nomination subject to election. This issue of removing a non-member appointed to a committee is similar to the federal procedure for cabinet secretaries, and the president can remove non-members appointed to a committee through the same procedure as removing members. According to RONR (12th ed.) 13:23 “[t]he appointing authority has the power to remove or replace members of the committee.” And under RONR (12th ed.) 50:12, all methods of committee appointment except (d) (appointment by chair), involve appointment by vote of the 26
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
&
Test Yourself
Questions Answers continued
assembly, directly or indirectly. Therefore, non-members may be appointed by those methods without any separate vote. If a non-member is appointed to a committee via a vote of the assembly under methods (a)-(c) or (e), then removal requires an appropriate motion by the assembly. RONR (12th ed.) 13:23. But if the president is appointing the committee member, under method (d), then the president (as the appointing authority) also has the power to remove that committee member. Whether or not the appointed committee member is a member of the organization does not change the underlying dynamic that the authority with the power to appoint also has the power to remove. With appointment by the chair of non-members to a committee, however, the assembly must first approve the method. See RONR (12th ed.) 13:15, 50:13 (d). The chair still makes the appointment. The assembly only approves the chair appointing non-members by that method. The assembly does not vote to approve whether the individual non-member should become a member of the committee or not, even though the names of proposed non-members must be disclosed at the time of the authorization motion if the assembly had not previously authorized appointment by the chair, per RONR (12th ed.) 13:15. Instead, the assembly votes on whether to confirm the president’s appointment. That is because this method of appointing non-members to committees is treated as appointment by method (d) whether the appointment of non-members is first addressed at the meeting when the appointment is announced, or if appointment of nonmembers to committees is approved in advance by the bylaws, the assembly rules, or the motion creating the committee (in which case non-members’ names cannot be announced in advance of assembly action approving non-member committee appointments). See RONR (12th ed.) 13:15, 50:15 (d), 56:46. Questions & Answers Research Team No Image Available Michael Malamut, PRP, Chair
Shannon Sun, PRP
Michael C. Taeliciero, PRP
Rachel Glanstein, PRP, Committee Advisor
C.J. Cavin, PRP, NAP Parliamentarian, Consultant
www.parliamentarians.org
27
Test Yourself
Answer Key What’s Wrong? from page 20
Answer #1 The chair should have asked for what purpose the member was moving to lay the motion on the table, to ensure that it was being used legitimately. When the motion to Lay on the Table is made and the purpose is not evident, it is required for the chair to request this information. In the scenario described, it seems plausible the motion to Lay on the Table was being used improperly for the purpose of killing the pending motion. See RONR (12th ed.) 17:13-16. Answer #2 After the question has been stated on the motion, it becomes the property of the assembly, not the motion maker, and any amendment requires a majority vote or unanimous consent for adoption, regardless of whether the motion maker views it as a “friendly” amendment. See RONR (12th ed.) 12:91. Answer #3 If the election cannot be completed at the scheduled time, the election should be completed as soon as possible at an adjourned meeting, at the next regular meeting, or at a special meeting called for the purpose. While the chair is correct that the current board members will continue to serve until the election is completed, the election cannot simply be abandoned until the following year. See RONR (12th ed.) 46:44-45.
Follow Us On https://twitter.com/ napparlypro https://fb.com/ parliamentarians/
28
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
P hoto G allery
44th
NAP Biennial Convention
Atlanta, Georgia • September 6-10, 2023
Photo Credit: Erica Aitken Photography (www.myatlantaphotographer.com) www.parliamentarians.org
29
Biennial 44th NAP Convention
30
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
P hoto G allery
Atlanta, Georgia • September 6-10, 2023
www.parliamentarians.org
31
NAP Connections
NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NAP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Jackilyn Capper (AB)
Audra Smith (TX)
NEW Professional REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NAP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians: Thomas Holmes (NEAP) Twylah Jenkins (PA) George McNeal (MD) Karen Odom (NJ)
Silent Gavels* NAP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Patricia Howard (OR) Donald Jacobberger (CA)
Dawn Kelley (MB) Carolyn Maupin (NV)
David Meigel (CA) Patricia Renau (FL)
New Members* NAP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Robin Adams-Massenburg (TX) Crystal-Ann Anderson (BC) Yessi Arce (WI) Lorna Atmore (NY) JoAnn Bonds (TX) Marcia Boyce (MI) Dan Brackmann (SC) Chenay Brown (GA) DeVita Bruce (CO) Katie Bulava (IL) Sullivan Butler (TX) Sheila Caldwell (NJ) Pamela Carpinello (IN) John Chandler (MD) William Curry (TX) Sherie Davis (VA) Jessica Dorman (BC) Karen Douglas (TX) Bobby Eberle (TX) LaDonna Finch (MO) Kim Fitzgerald (OH) Peggy Goods (CA)
Jenita Harris (AZ) Alexander Harrod (FL) Janet Harrod (FL) Brad Johnson (DC) Gary Johnson (AZ) Angela Jolivette (TX) Lillian Jones (TX) Autumn Kingsbury-Buck (TX) Jesi Lipp (KS) Frankie Lloyd (TX) Tonya Miller (MI) Vickie Montgomery (KY) Susan Norwood (VA) Kate Parker (WI) Tamara Pillipow (BC) Nichole Randall (MO) Gerri Reed-Harris (NJ) Janie Ricks (VA) Tammy Ross (OK) Matthew Sapp (TX) Dena Short (TX)
Robert Slattery (MI) Reece Smith (PA)
Thank you instructors! A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Valoree Althoff Constance Barron Alexis Bensberg Bennyfer Bridgewater Kay Crews Denise Gelinas Dan Grimm Marlene Lagoa William Lavezzi Edwin Miles Donna Mitchell Fashika McClelland Helen Popovich Eleanor Siewert Donna Simpson
* For the period September 20, 2023 through December 15, 2023 32
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
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
