National Parliamentarian (Vol 78, No. 1) by National Association of Parliamentarians

National Parliamentarian Volume 78, No. 1 | Fall 2016

Excellence in Education Pathway to the Future

National Parliamentarian Volume 78, No. 1 | Fall 2016

Contents 2015-2017 NAP Officers President Mary L. Randolph, PRP Vice-President James N. Jones, PRP Secretary Teresa Stone, PRP Treasurer Wanda M. Sims, PRP Directors-at-Large Darlene Allen, PRP Ann Rempel, PRP Alison Wallis, PRP District Director Representatives Kevin Connelly, PRP Joyce Brown-Watkins, PRP Parliamentarian Roger Hanshaw, PRP Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh

From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Letter to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 President’s Message NAP Is Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Features Many Meetings Should Just Be an Email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Membership Rights – How Do We Help Those Who Can’t Fully Exercise Them? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1st Person, 2nd Person, 3rd Person (and some new vocabulary terms!) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 De-Mystifying the Registered Parliamentarian Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Tri Counties of Southern Maryland Parliamentary Law Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Departments Test Yourself Parliamentary Procedure Vocabulary Builder . . . . . . . . 22 Quirky Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Answer Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 NAP Connections

NAP’s Vision: To provide parliamentary leadership to the world

NAP Wraps Up Another NTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 In Memoriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Parliamentary Resources at Your Fingertips . . . . . . . . . 29 www.parliamentarians.org

National Parliamentarian

From the Editor

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

Synergy: the result when parts combine producing a result greater than the sum of the individual parts.

Editor Martha Womack Haun, PhD, PRP mhaun@uh.edu

Assistant Editor Dana Dickson, RP

Parliamentary Research Committee Jonathan Jacobs, PRP Steve Britton, PRP George Mervosh, III, PRP Roger Hanshaw, PRP

Parliamentary Review Committee Betty Tunstall, PRP Dennis Clark, PRP Beverly Przybylski, PRP

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN®

(Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592) Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians ©2016 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 (16th 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 “Assign and Transfer Copyright” form with their submission, granting NAP the copyright or permission to publish.

Submission Deadlines

Here we are starting the second half of this biennium—next stop Chicago for the 2017 convention, and then Buffalo for the 2018 NTC. This past year has gone quickly. It has been such a pleasure to know so many of you better. The National Leadership Conference and the National Training Conference in Colorado were fantastic. Our planners and coordinators walked miles and spent endless hours double-checking and trouble-shooting. Some of the presenters doubled up on their workshops when family/personal emergencies called others away unexpectedly. Not only are we most excellent parliamentarians, we are a super group of people to know! The Omni hotel was attractive and accommodating. The mountains were still there as big and impressive as in the ten years I used to come for a week to summer camp. My 10th floor hotel room faced northwest so that I could start and end each day with a balcony open to fresh mountain air and a beautiful view. It was great to hug long-time friends, make new friends and even to get some new ideas for publications. My cheerful room attendant made sure I had plenty of extra K-cups to keep my caffeine supply strong. As is our standard, programs were diversified and of quality. The report of the credentialing committee was stimulating and challenging. More of that will be forthcoming. Thanks to all for far more than I can individually credit here. Articles in this issue are a bit shorter as folks had a busy summer. Nevertheless there are plenty of brain teasers and good study tips for the RP exam in this issue. Plan to study and re-register soon so your expiration date doesn’t slip up on you.

Martha Womack Haun, PhD, PRP, Editor

Volume 78, No. 2 (Winter 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1, 2016 Volume 78, No. 3 (Spring 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 1, 2017 Volume 78, No. 4 (Summer 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2017 2 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

www.parliamentarians.org

President’s Message

NAP Is Education Dear Editor, Letter to the

Editor

The Summer 2016 National Parliamentarian contained an article (author unnamed) that reviewed the ‘National Association of Parliamentarians 2013-2015 History’ (pages 22-29.) I believe the article is incomplete without inclusion of the accomplishments of the International Services Special Committee (ISSC). The committee represented NAP members from the countries of Japan, Africa, Canada, as well as the continental and Pacific Islands of the United States. It successfully worked at it’s charge: To explore, investigate, and introduce ‘international’ individuals for membership into the National Association of Parliamentarians, thus contributing to fulfil the NAP Vision “to provide parliamentary leadership to the world.” The accomplishments of the ISSC included: 1. translation of NAP parliamentary material into the Chinese, Hawaiian, and Spanish languages 2. the chartering the first parliamentary association in the country of China with 20+ members, and

Education is what the National Association of Parliamentarians is all about! The primary focus of the NAP is on education, in the United States and around the world. Committees are translating manuals and exams into multiple languages in order to provide parliamentary knowledge internationally. However, providing education on parliamentary procedure, effective meeting management, and democracy begins with NAP’s members. E stands for Excellence in Education in the fourth letter of the NAP President’s theme, R.I.S.E.S. Although critically important, it is not enough to say NAP provides education, It must be excellent education. The members attending the NAP Training Conference (NAPTC) this past August were provided to just such an educational experience—workshops offered in lecture, question and answer, interactive and role-playing formats—all to better serve their local units, associations, districts, and clients.

3. the attendance of Dan Zhu, the first elected vice-president of the China Association of Parliamentarians, to speak before the convention body in person urging the passage of the bylaw amendment (proposed by the ISSC that it become a STANDING committee) which was subsequently adopted. I respectfully request the author include this valuable, historical information in the article text, as well as any future chronicles of ‘official’ NAP history. Karen Watson, PRP 2013-2015 Chair International Services Special Committee Lincoln, NE, USA 4 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

R = Respect our heritage I = Integrity of leadership S = Service to members E = Excellence in education S = Stewardship of your finances www.parliamentarians.org

Excellence in Education is a two-way street. As a member driven Association, the members, are the ones who set the direction of the NAP. It is through your commitment and volunteerism that the organization functions, with the leadership taking direction from you. It is a sharing of the goals and vision of democratic meetings that brings us together. NAP members know that teaching and learning the fundamentals of parliamentary procedures and meeting management is the way to attain NAP’s vision of Educating leaders throughout the world in effective meeting management through the use of parliamentary procedure. The 2016 NAPTC provided something for everyone. Meeting new friends, and renewing old friendships were two of three special orders of the day. The other special order of the day? Excellence in education based on NAP’s Body of Knowledge—the true focus of the conference. Members had the opportunity to learn at their own pace, from beginner to advanced education in parliamentary procedures and meeting management. Members also had the opportunity to advance their professional education by maintaining or upgrading their certification status. Held in conjunction with the NTC, the NAP Annual Meeting included reports by President Randolph, and Treasurer, Wanda Sims. Also in an on-site plenary session, members had their first preview of NAP’s Commission on Credentialing’s critical work. The NTC closed with an all member roundtable discussion lead by the President that focused on the role of the parliamentarian, outreach and the availability of professional resources- with excellence in education the overarching component throughout the discussions. The letter E? Important indeed!

Mary Randolph, PRP, NAP President

6 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

Many Meetings Should Just Be an Email Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

I dare say that any 3-hour meeting involves no more than 45 minutes of actual productive handling of business. And any business meeting that lasts 30 minutes should have been a well worded email. Most associations have a vague idea of how a parliamentarian could assist their association, so they contact a parliamentarian complaining about a limited subset of their needs. However, when a parliamentarian attempts to assist an association, invariably, even before the requested benefits can be realized, the parliamentarian must correct an overlooked underperformance in the association—their debate protocol practices. Poor debate protocol leads to poor attendance at meetings, failed meetings, difficulty in recruiting new officers, members losing confidence in the officers, and early loss of quorum at meeting. Members learn to hate meetings and even blame parliamentary procedure. These consequences are critical reasons to obligate addressing poor debate protocol, even if the client may not recognize the foundation of the association’s problems. A parliamentarian would provide empowering assistance to the presiding officer if the parliamentarian would include the following information during the pre-meeting, or as written comments, after the meeting. A little training of the presiding officer on how to minimize the detrimental impact of the following four debate abusers can shorten a meeting significantly and double its productivity. www.parliamentarians.org

Four Debate Abusers and the Controlling Debate Protocol Statements

Parliamentary Peacocks Description: He is the member who constantly seeks an opportunity to claim to be citing obscure sections of Robert’s Rules of Order, or the association bylaws, or federal statutes. He will often wave his personal copy of Robert’s, brandishing it as if it were the irrefutable proof of his boundless knowledge. Solution: The chair must ask the Parliamentary Peacock for the exact page in question. If the Peacock cannot produce the page number, the presiding officer must insist on the information and resort to statements such as the following. “The speaker will please find the page number and get back to us, meanwhile the assembly will continue with the business at hand.” “Our professional parliamentarian will please comment on the rule as cited by the speaker.”

Spiraling Statesman Description: He is the individual who repeats himself endlessly, or introduces his comments by reciting a list of all the previous speakers he agrees with, and those he does not agree with. His thoughts are so disorganized that he spends most of his speech looking for a point to make. His ramblings cover several 8 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

important, but tangential, topics that are not germane to the assembly’s task of deciding how to vote. Solution: The presiding officer must be strong enough to interrupt the Spiraling Statesman the instant the Statesman takes a breath, and immediately inquire, “Do you have any information that this body has not heard yet?” “Are you speaking for or against the motion?” “Do you wish to amend (or postpone, or refer) the motion?” Any response that sounds in the negative should be followed by the presiding officer saying, “Thank you for your comments. The chair now recognizes…”

Pompous Historian Description: Typically, he is one of the Past Presidents. He can be recognized because he starts his comments with, “Just a couple of brief points…,” (but he never offers a ‘couple’, or ‘brief ’, or ‘points’.) He cannot understand how the association can survive without his divine voice. He is convinced that he is the conscience of the association. He devotes most of his comments to explaining how it was done in his time, and why it cannot be done in the

proposed manner. His explanations dwell into every aspect of ancient meetings that he can still recall regardless of relevancy. He seeks to control the decision making process, but does not wish to get his hands dirty with actual committee work. Solution: The presiding officer must have the confidence to break into the story telling of the Pompous Historian and inquire, “Since we do not have a motion on the floor, did you wish to make a motion?” “Do you have any specific comments to present on the immediate pending question?” “Would you prepare a written report on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed process?”

Monopolizing Loudmouth Description: He wishes to offer a rebuttal to every comment made by each of the other board members. He becomes the loudest when someone contradicts him, or if the chair does not allow him to defend his honor as a loudmouth. He controls the meeting with intimidation, volume, and egocentricity. Solution: The presiding officer must be brave enough to stop the barrage

of words from the Monopolizing Loudmouth by recognizing only any member who has not yet spoken, and by defending the new speaker’s right to be recognized. The presiding officer should employ a few effective controlling statements: “Please direct your comments to the chair and not to another board member.” “Did you wish to rescind the motion, (or give notice to rescind, or move to reconsider a vote)?” “Excuse me, but according to our rules, you have exhausted your debate times and debate length.” “We have a speaking queue, and you need to wait your turn on the queue.” A parliamentarian would truly serve his client if the parliamentarian would teach the presiding officer these few controlling statements that allow an association to handle business in a fair, efficient, and productive fashion. But the parliamentarian must continue to monitor the association’s debate protocol. Because it is torturous to continue cramming 45 minutes of business into 3 hours of discussion, the parliamentarian must retrain and support the presiding officer for several meetings until the members themselves recognize and insist on the benefits of proper debate protocol.

Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP, is the current President of the California State Association of Parliamentarians. He teaches interactive parliamentary workshops without PowerPoint or a shielding lectern. He is convinced that telling is not the same as teaching, and that listening is not the same as learning.” www.parliamentarians.org

Membership Rights

How Do We Help Those Who Can’t Fully Exercise Them?

e all know that a member of the assembly “in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote.” RONR (11th ed.), p. 3, lines 1-5. RONR goes on to say that individual members cannot be deprived of these rights except via the disciplinary process. While there is an obligation not to deprive a member of these rights other than through a disciplinary process, is there an unwritten obligation to help members fully exercise their rights when they may not be able to due to some form of disability? As parliamentarians, we do everything we can to help our group have the smoothest meeting possible, while following all of the rules the group is bound by, and understanding that no group gets it exactly right when it comes to following their 10 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

George Mervosh, III, PRP

rules. We spend 95% of our time getting ready for the meeting and the other 5% in the meeting itself. We’re prepared. Or are we? Did we forget something? We all worry about that. Now it’s meeting time and while dealing with a motion a member who wants to debate can’t go to one of the microphones because he can’t walk. He can’t make a motion because he can’t use his hands well enough to fill out a motion form or sign it. He can’t rise if a division of the assembly is called for. He can’t properly push the buttons when an audience response system is used. Just one of these things, if brought to the attention of the chair would have them in a panic because the last thing anyone wants, especially the chair, is a member who left the meeting saying he couldn’t exercise his basic rights of membership regardless of whether or not it could have affected the outcome of any motion. The presiding officer looks to you with a blank stare. “What should we do?”

What we should do is develop a plan. More precisely, additional rules to accommodate these members all the while understanding that even the largest assemblies have some limitations as to what they can do. The very first question that arises is how do we know ahead of time if a member needs help, and what help does this member or do other members need? We can’t help without some facts. For groups that use registration forms for their meetings we can solicit this information on the registration form itself.

Do you need assistance with: Making a motion in writing? Walking to a microphone to speak? Casting your vote by rising, raising a voting card, pushing a button on an automated keypad? Can you differentiate colors on a screen?

Tailor this assistance question to how your meeting will be run. If you’re not using a registration form for meetings, your group and

assembly are likely small enough that you probably already know that some of your members need assistance and what kind(s). Make further inquiries outside of your meeting if you need to. We have our information, so what’s next? For conventions and other assemblies that adopt a set rules at the outset that cover all of the meetings in the session, include the special assistance or accommodations needed as a part of the adopted standing rules. For other groups that meet frequently, a special rule of order can be adopted to cover the situation and those rules will stay in effect until they are amended or rescinded. Don’t make these rules complicated. The essence of such a rule or rules is simply—if a member needs assistance notify the chair or have someone notify the chair for them and all reasonable accommodations will be made to help the member make a motion, speak in debate, or cast their vote. The next time you’re called upon to be the parliamentarian for your group or for your next paid assignment, take a few extra minutes and go through each and every aspect of the upcoming meeting and look for ways to make it easier for all members to exercise their membership rights to the fullest. Nothing but good will come of it.

George Mervosh, III, PRP, resides in Pittsburgh PA and has held various offices in his state and district, and is currently serving on the NP’s Parliamentary Research Committee. He strives to learn more about parliamentary procedure each day and pass along some of what he’s learned to his clients. www.parliamentarians.org

1st 2nd 3rd Person Person

Person

(and some new vocabulary terms!) David Mezzera, PRP

Which of the following hopefully would never be heard during the meeting of a deliberative body? A. “I recognize Mr. Smith as the next speaker.” B. “You are mistaken in what you said.” C. “Mrs. Smith is mistaken in what she says.” D. “This member opposes the resolution.” E. “The previous speaker’s comments are false.” F. “The chair recognizes Ms. Smith as the next speaker.” We know that (F) is the preferred language for a presiding officer to utilize in recognizing a debate speaker, RONR (11th ed.), p. 377, and we can intuit by our familiarity with Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised that (A) through (E) should be avoided. 12 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

But what makes these five statements so avoidable? Let’s look at each of them—and their first, second and third person usage—and then spend some time on the sixth phrase. A. The proper verbiage for a chair to use is in the third person rather than the first person singular. Whether the chair is calling on a speaker (p. 377) or is making a ruling such as “The chair is in doubt and submits the question to the assembly,” (p. 254) or “If there is no objection, the chair suggests that…” (p. 179), we notice that the chair’s referral to him- or herself is never in the first person (“I”) but always in the third person (“the chair”). Other examples appear on pp. 55, 230, and 259. B. Although using the term “mistaken” may be appropriate, addressing another member directly as “You” (second person) is a no-no, as

all remarks should be directed through the chair (RONR, p. 392). C. In a similar vein, indicting a member directly and speaking about him or her by name should be avoided (RONR, p. 393). It is preferred to refer to an officer by title or to a member in some third person manner such as “the member who spoke last.” D. There is no need, however, to refer to oneself in the third person in debate, such as “this member” (RONR, p. 393). A member is expected to speak from a first person perspective and it is OK to show partiality and impassioned speech in his or her remarks. “I” is permissible speech as in “I oppose the resolution.” E. Although this does refer to a prior speaker in third person, the remark borders on attacking a member or the member’s motives. As found on p. 392, when the chair hears any such terms as false, lie, fraud or liar, the chair must immediately stop the speaker for indecorum. And now on to “The chair recognizes Ms. Smith as the next speaker.” Believe it or not, there is an actual term for the phenomenon of speaking about oneself in the third person as correctly exhibited in (F). This is not a common English word, but presents you with a new vocabulary word: ILLEISM.

Some examples of “illeism” from the non-parliamentary world • Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Act II, Scene 2. Caesar speaks of himself: “No, Caesar shall not. Danger knows full well.” • Richard Nixon’s statement to the press upon losing the governor’s race in California in 1962: “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any more.” • Sesame Street’s Elmo talking to the kids: “Elmo has a question.” • Dwayne Johnson, former pro wrestler and movie star (nicknamed “The Rock”), when interviewed would always proclaim: “The Rock says…”

This word comes from the Latin ille (“he” or “that man”) and refers to speaking of oneself in the third person. The word is modeled on “egoism,” whose root in Latin is ego (“I”). WorldWideWords.com proposes that the word “illeism” was coined by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1809 as the inverse of “egotism,” the mark of the overuse of the pronoun “I.” Henry M. Robert did not use the term “illeism” directly but its application is apparent in the verbiage that should be employed www.parliamentarians.org

by a presiding officer as correctly illustrated in (F). Linguists have posited that the chair’s use of “illeism” can make the speaker seem more objective, impart a sense of humility and, interestingly, create a feeling of esteem or respect from the listeners toward the speaker—all by the speaker’s own formality and lack of “egoism.” Speaking in all “I’s,” as in (A), may seem to the listeners that the presiding officer is being more elitist and less empathetic with the group (of which the chair is a member). If you’ve read this far, it might signify that you’re interested in linguistics and word etymologies. If so, here’s a related word and concept that your writer (notice I didn’t say “I”!) snuck in on you way back in (A) when it was written: we notice that the chair’s referral to

him- or herself is never in the first person (“I”) but always in the third person (“the chair”). The utilization of “we” in that sentence employs the use of another new vocabulary word: NOSISM. This word comes from the Latin nos (“we”) and is the practice of using the plural first person pronoun when expressing a singular personal opinion. This is frequently called using the “Royal We.” And it is also called the “Editorial We,” as when a writer attempts to be a spokesperson for the entire public or at least for all of the reading audience. Do we get the picture here? A bit far afield from RONR, so back to “illeism.” Just remember, when you preside at a meeting in the future and refer to yourself as “The Chair” or as “Your President,” harken back to this article and tell yourself that it’s OK to be an “illeist!”

David Mezzera, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians, past District VIII Director and currently chairs NAP’s Educational Resources Committee.

14 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

De-Mystifying

the Registered Parliamentarian Examination

Judith Reynolds, PRP

Many NAP members, myself included, have been baffled about how to prepare for the NAP Examination for Registration. While there were many detours along the way, eventually I passed with flying colors. During ten months of preparation, I concocted study schemes to increase efficiency and relieve boredom. This article summarizes many of these strategies.

Sequence Each part may now be taken separately, so consider taking the tests in this order: 1. Part V – Rules (shortest, 40 questions from 150) 2. Part IV – Members (or III, 80 questions from 300) 3. Part III – Meetings (or IV, 80 questions from 300) 4. Part II – Motions (hardest, 100 questions from 400) 5. Part I covers the whole book and is the section you have the least control. Only Part I is timed. To pass, you must find 4 out of 5 sentences within 30 minutes.

While studying Parts V, IV, and III, also study Part II. Then you should be ready to take Part II soon after taking Part III. Shortly thereafter take Part I, because at that point your book will be fully prepared and the hardest part will be fresh in your mind. Six-Twelve Months Before the Exam Purchase materials. Buy the 1200 question Study Guide, Nola’s Daily Doses, and A Simplified Guide to Motions from NAP. Some students purchase an extra Study Guide to write on. Tab RONR. Buy tabs from NAP or create your own. To make them, buy clear one inch tabs. Print each section www.parliamentarians.org

number and title on both sides of the insert. Then highlight to differentiate: • Part II – Motions: white, sections 5-7, 10-39. • Part III – Meetings: yellow, sections 3, 8, 9, 40-43, 52-55, 58-60. Section 3 is also covered in Part IV, so highlight half in each color. • Part IV – Members: blue, sections 3, 4, 44-51. • Part V – Rules: pink, sections 2, 56, 57, 61-63. • Miscellaneous: green, Preface, Introduction, Principles, Charts, Index. • Index: white, A-E, FGJI, JKL, M-P, QR, S, T, UVWY. Optimize your Study Guide. To curb unnecessary rifling, use binder clips to clip the pages together. Examine RONR’s Table of Contents. Note how it relates to whole book. Consider creating an expanded table of contents for Sections 1-12 with headings, subheadings, and numbered and bulleted items from the text. Research each question. For up to five minutes for each question, try to find the answer in RONR before looking up the answer in Appendix B. As you search: • Note keywords and look them up in the index. Add any missing keywords such as adjournment 16 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

•

• •

•

without day p. 83, rights p. 694; and minutes, approval p. 474. With pencil, underline the first two words of each sentence in RONR. (This was my mentor’s #1 tip. Try it, you’ll like it!) Highlight each heading in orange. Highlight in yellow or blue any sentence which answers one of the 1200 questions. Before taking Part I, check the entire book—that all headings are highlighted and the first two words in each sentence are underlined.

Mark your index. Print the appropriate letter on the top and bottom of each page. Highlight the letter heading each group. Skim the index; you may be surprised at how helpful this will be. Add any helpful notes. Consolidate. Collect all your study materials in a case or bag and take them with you—everywhere! Absorb three NP articles. Glean insights from Doris Abbate’s article “Basic Exam Cram” (2009 1st Quarter), and my two articles “RONR: The Big Picture” (2012 4th Quarter), and “Practice Charts of Parliamentary Basics” (2014 3rd Quarter). Memorize the mnemonics and charts. Purchase NAP’s Simplified Guide to Motions. Refer often to this pamphlet, particularly during Part II. Aim to understand the chart on the back. To separate ordinary deliberative assemblies (top five rows) from

conventions (bottom two rows), darken the horizontal line between them. Find a mentor and/or join a study group. There are many difficult questions including all the “exceptions to the rules,” so you will appreciate anyone with expertise. (I met with my mentor once a month.) A study group may help motivate and keep you on track, but don’t let the lack of either deter you. Practice, Practice, Practice. After going through a section the once— during which you research each question for up to five minutes and underline and highlight the text appropriately—speed through 50 to 100 questions each day, half from the part you are focused on and half from Part II. Make blank answer sheets, register for NAP’s online version, or purchase the ParlQuest® CD. Practice enough to guarantee at least 85% correct on exam day. To practice for Part I, search for groups of five sentences provided

in the Study Guide and Nola’s Daily Doses. Familiarity with the table of contents, your tabs, keywords, and the index will help. Keep track of your times and scores. For additional practice, ask your parli-pro associates to furnish five additional sentences.

Nitty Gritty You can find the details of studying, application, and testing in the 1200 question Study Guide (pages ii-iii and Appendix A, A1-A8); in Nola’s Daily Doses; on NAP’s Application for the Registration Exam and its instructions; and at www.parliamentarians.org/ services/accreditation/. Conclusion Passing the RP Exam is not easy. While it helps to have experience, a mentor, and a good study group, a disciplined amateur working alone can be successful. Happy studying!

Judith Reynolds, PRP, is a former high-school chemistry teacher, who became a PRP in 2008. She enjoys developing parliamentary study materials and coaching high-school parliamentary teams.

www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

T ri Counties of S outhern M aryland

Parliamentary Law Day Loreathea C. Fields, PRP

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 a team of Parliamentarians with the National Association of Parliamentarians® introduced a free Parliamentary Law Day to over thirty-five leaders who represented the Tri Counties of Southern Maryland’s local school board, non-profit organizations, fraternities, sororities, and home owners associations located in Calvert County, St. Mary’s County, and Charles County. The program, coordinated by Loreathea C. Fields, PRP, consisted of opening ceremonies led by John Tatum, PRP; a special greeting by NAP Treasurer, Wanda M. Sims, PRP; and a variety of workshops: • What Should Be Placed In An Organization’s Bylaws vs. Standing Rules, presented by Susan Eads Role, PRP; • Meeting Efficiency, presented by John D. Stackpole, RP; • The Secretary’s Role and Preparing Minutes, presented by Patricia A. Cauley, NAP Member; • Board Meeting Principles, presented by Michael L. Swift, PRP; • The Role of The Treasurer, presented by Wanda Sims, PRP; and • Introduction of National Association of Parliamentarians and How to Become a Member of NAP, presented by Beverly A. Fields, Esq. Those in attendance gave the event a very strong rating indicating that the handouts will be very useful. They appreciated the opportunity and requested that we conduct an annual Parliamentary Law Day for the Tri Counties.

18 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

NAP Wraps Up Another NTC The 2016 NAP National Training Conference (NTC) drew to a close August 28, at the Omni Interlocken Hotel in Broomfield, CO, nestled in the foothills between Denver and Boulder. Initial feedback indicates very high satisfaction levels from attendees with regards to the quality of the workshops, the networking, and the overall event. NAP welcomed 231 attendees at this year’s event. This is an increase of more than 10 percent over the previous two conferences. The number of first-time attendees (72) and nonmembers (31) also surpassed previous conferences. It was exciting to welcome so many new people to the conference. The educational workshops were the big draw, of course, but the beautiful location didn’t hurt either. As always, the attendees spent the weekend immersed in learning how to better manage meetings using parliamentary procedures. An exciting lineup of workshops presented by experts in parliamentary procedure covered a variety of topics including how to write better minutes; amending and drafting bylaws; managing elections; and ethics for nonprofit boards. One of the highlights of this year’s conference was a plenary session on the future of NAP’s credentialing process. The Commission on Credentialing, which was established last year, unveiled its initial report “Criteria for Credentialing.” The report details the separate criteria

for the knowledge and skills that will be required to obtain Registered Parliamentarian® and Professional Registered Parliamentarian® status. Attendees were welcome to voice their comments and ask questions during what turned out to be a lively discussion. The report is available on the NAP website’s home page. During the closing strategic planning-focused session, participants were asked to share their thoughts on the following questions: • What is the role of NAP and parliamentarians in today’s world? • How can NAP communicate relevance to organizations today? • How can NAP be more effective in outreach to organizations and associations? • Does NAP need to change its focus from “the rules in RONR” to a more general meeting effectiveness? • What resources does NAP need to provide for your work as a parliamentarian? • What products can NAP develop to encourage public involvement in NAP? The results are being compiled and analyzed, and will be shared at a later date. And now attention turns solidly to planning the 42nd Biennial Convention in Chicago, September 8-12, 2017. The next NTC will convene in the beautiful Buffalo/Niagara Falls area, September 7-9, 2018. www.parliamentarians.org

NAP Connections

2016 NAP

Training Conference The NTC in Pictures Get a feel for what went on at this year’s training conference. All of the photos taken at the 2016 NTC in Broomfield, Colorado, are available for viewing at https://parliamentarians.smugmug.com. Click on any picture to make it larger, or select the slide show option, sit back and watch the full-screen sized photos go by. You can also download pictures for free. Use the search box in the upper right corner to find photos of a given individual. You can also view the photo albums for past conventions and training conferences.

Attendees listen attentively to one of the workshop presenters.

A special thank you to NAP Photographer Bob Williams for helping to capture the many facets of NAP’s various events. If you have questions, you can contact Bob at rrw@prodigy.net.

Participants enjoyed small group discussions such as this one during the Leadership Conference.

President Mary Randolph recognizes NTC Coordinator Gayla Stone and Assistant Coordinator Dollie McPartlin for a job well done. 20 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

Our photographer, Bob Williams, packs up his camera stuff at the end of the NAPTC. Thanks to Julie Palm for taking this.

Workshop coordinators Patricia Simpson and Cynthia Bell.

President Mary Randolph (center) with a few of the 72 first-time attendees who joined us for this year’s event. www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

Quirky Quiz

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Vocabulary Builder

Use the underlined letters and the definition to complete the word, and then write the answer in the blank provided. EXAMPLE: men

A motion used to change the wording of another motion.

amend ____________________

1. men procedure A system of rules used to conduct business in an orderly fashion.

____________________

2. ye

An affirmative vote (Hint: the answer is not “yes”).

____________________

3. ess

A motion asking for a short intermission of the assembly immediately.

____________________

4. lec

The selection of a person or persons by vote.

____________________

5. ro

For; on the affirmative side.

____________________

6. ost motion

A motion rejected by vote of the assembly.

____________________

7. get

An itemized estimate of income and disbursements.

____________________

8. all to der

An announcement by the presiding officer to convene a meeting. Two answers.

____________________

9. hair

The presiding officer who conducts a meeting.

____________________

10. nut

The official record of what is done at a meeting.

____________________

1. Witan 2. Ephors

3. Hansard 4. Lacedaemonians 5. Witenagemot

6. Sthenelaïdas 7. Ealdormen Answers on page 28

David Mezzera, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians, past District VIII Director and currently chairs NAP’s Educational Resources Committee.

NAP Connections

New Registered Parliamentarians

Daniel Foster, Pennsylvania Bryan Griffin, Nevada ZhuoHua Liu, China JuanLing Ma, China Denise Perry, Kentucky Linda Sehrt, Missouri Patricia Titus, California

In Memoriam

NP commemorates the following members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Beth Hamilton, Nebraska William Shrecengost, New Mexico Marcia Sydor, RP-R, California

____________________

Answers on page 28 22 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

CRAZY LINGO. Are the following even words? Well, pick up your copy of RONR, open to a page, and believe it or not, you’ll find each of the following words in print—with the exception of one. Which one of the following will you not find in the pages of your book? Again, the others ARE found in RONR!

Join the Find us on facebook. conversation! www.facebook.com/parliamentarians www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

Questions Answers

Questions Answers continued

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 RONR (11th ed.), unless otherwise indicated, and do not take into account such governing authorities as statutes, bylaws, or adopted special rules of order. Questions should be mailed to NP Q&A Editor, 213 South Main Street, Independence, MO 64050, or emailed to npeditor@nap2.org.

would be depriving members of their right to vote at the next session, if they treated the election as a vacancy. If there was an adjourned meeting scheduled, or if the next regular meeting was within the quarterly time interval, the election is incomplete. It would be improper to use the vacancy clause to complete the election. In such a case, it would create an ongoing breach, as it would deprive anyone who might be absent at this meeting from voting in the election at the next meeting (p. 251, e).

If there is no adjourned meeting, and if the next session is beyond the quarterly time interval, the majority can no longer complete the election The ability to elect has passed beyond the control of the majority. This would be a true vacancy, as there is no way for the assembly to fill the position without violating the quarterly time interval rule (p. 90, lines 9-14). A vacancy would occur and would be filled as the bylaws provide for filling vacancies.

Question 40: “Filling a vacancy that doesn’t yet exist” The D.O.G. Club of Hudson NY held their annual elections in April at their annual meeting as prescribed by the bylaws. A vote by mail is the method used per their bylaws and the results are announced at the annual meeting. The nominating committee presented their candidates in March and nominations by petition were received for some offices via mail, again, all as permitted by the bylaws. One of the candidates who was nominated by petition wished to withdraw his name prior to the election but was not permitted to. That candidate won the election for office and subsequently declined at the April meeting. Instead of attempting to complete the election, the club determined a vacancy existed and filled the vacancy according to the provision in the bylaws. Is there an ongoing breach of the rules for filling the vacancy instead of completing the election and what should they have done, including, how should they have completed the election itself? Answer: In general, the proper way to complete an election is found in RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, lines 9-15. That method is to establish an adjourned meeting to complete the election or to postpone it until the next regular meeting if that regular meeting is within the quarterly time interval. As the club apparently requires elections by mail ballot, the best way to handle this would be to mail out the ballots after the current meeting and announce the results at an adjourned meeting or at the next regular meeting if within the quarterly time interval. The club decided not to follow this easier route. Much of the question of if this constitutes an ongoing breach, revolves around if that next session is within that quarterly time interval (see pp. 89-90 for the definition of a quarterly time interval). The majority could reach any motion, including a motion to elect that was postponed to the next session, if that session is within the quarterly time interval. The assembly

24 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

Some organizations, especially dog clubs, have a clause like this one: “If a nominee is unable to serve for any reason, such nominee shall not be elected and the vacancy so created shall be filled by the new Board of Directors in a manner provided by [the bylaws].” In such cases a vacancy would occur without regard to completing an election.

Question 41: A standing committee of nine members is elected by the membership at a biennial convention by majority vote; every two years they are elected to serve “for a term of two years.” The committee also has the authority to fill any vacancies in the committee on its own. The quorum for this committee is set in the bylaws at six members. At the last convention, in April, four members received a majority on the first ballot; while there were seven additional candidates none received a majority vote. The convention then adjourned sine die. The committee met in May, with the four members attending, and voted to appoint five members to the committee. At the June meeting of the committee, with eight of the nine members attending, the committee ratified the action of appointing those five members at the May meeting. Where those five members validly appointed? Answer: This is an extraordinary question. Under normal circumstance, without a quorum (six members), the committee cannot conduct its www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

business. That is, fundamentally, it is prohibited from filling the vacancies left by the convention when it left the election of the standing committee incomplete before adjourning sine die. However, it is plausible that under these circumstances, the makers of this organization’s bylaws did not foresee that under “normal” circumstances that the convention would adjourn sine die, prior to completing the committee election, leaving this standing committee unable to achieve a quorum and further rending it powerless to transact its business. Parliamentary Law, p. 452, in Q & A 107, discusses a similar situation, where a society, in its bylaws, provided for a voting threshold for amending its bylaws that became impractical for an assembly to carry-out. Under the answer to Question 107, Parliamentary Law acknowledges a circumstance where breaking the prohibition from conducting a mail ballot without a specific provision authorizing such a ballot provision in the society’s bylaws, but further noted the assembly’s obligation to do so in a manner as close as possible to what the bylaws provide, “in the spirit of the unwise bylaw.” Therefore, it is the opinion of this writer—similar to Answer 107 on p. 452 of Parliamentary Law, that in the spirit of the information provided, that under these circumstances that the committee quorum requirement stated in the bylaws is an unwise provision.

Questions Answers continued

Question 42: Our bylaws require that any proposed bylaw amendment be read at three different meetings before it can be considered. Can any motions, such as amend, commit, or postpone or any incidental motions be made during these readings, and if it is possible, do we need to start the three reading process over again? Answer: Firstly, there are no rules in RONR which contain a requirement for readings at multiple meetings before a proposed bylaw amendment can be considered, therefore, the book does not provide any specific rules regarding the implementation of this procedure. The rules in RONR regarding the motions to amend, commit, or postpone indicate that they must be applied to a pending motion, as do the rules for the incidental motions. A requirement of “readings” at multiple meetings seems to be more in the nature of giving previous notice and our opinion is the motion which is being read three times is not actually before the assembly for consideration until that requirement is met, therefore, it is also our opinion that no subsidiary or incidental motions may be applied during this three reading process. Those motions can only be made while the question itself is pending.

Further, it is in order for the committee to fill its first two vacancies without meeting its quorum requirement at an initial meeting, and then adjourn. This action provides the committee an opportunity to subsequently issue a new meeting notice, conduct a second meeting with its then six members present, ratify the action of filling the two vacancies and further allowing the committee to fill the remain three committee positions at the second meeting, while it adheres to its quorum obligations stated in the bylaws.

Questions & Answers Research Team

Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP

26 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

Test Yourself

Steve Britton, PRP

Roger Hanshaw, PRP

George Mervosh, III, PRP

www.parliamentarians.org

Test Yourself

Answer Key Vocabulary Builder from page 22

1. Parliamentary 2. Aye 3. Recess 4. Elect 5. Pro 6. Lost 7. Budget 8. Call (to) Order 9. Chair 10. Minutes

Parliamentary Resources at Your Fingertips There is only one place to turn for your parliamentary resources: NAP. Browse our online store for

Quirky Quiz from page 23

Number 3 is a parliamentary term but does not appear in RONR. Hansard is the traditional name of the written transcripts of Parliamentary debates in Britain and other Commonwealth countries. All of the other terms refer to legislative bodies or legislators in first millennium, pre-Parliament assemblies. These other six terms—believe it or not—may all be found by reading pages xxx-xxxii in the Introduction to RONR. You’ll also run across names of other assembly groups in your reading of those pages such as: Village-moot, Folk-moot, Hundred-moot and Shire-moot. Crazy lingo, eh?

• 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 28 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016

www.parliamentarians.org

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 30 National Parliamentarian • Fall 2016