National Parliamentarian (Vol. 75 No. 4)

National Parliamentarian

FEATURES

Volume 75, No. 4 | Fourth Quarter 2014

Annual Meeting as Recruitment Tool — p. 9 Parliamentary Competition — p. 13

Keep Your Parliamentary Spirit Growing GROW THROUGH EDUCATION Online courses, webinars, books, CDs, and handy pamphlets, provide you an array of self-study and group-learning options.

EARN CREDIBILITY WITH CREDENTIALS Your credentialing programs enhanced by a strong code of ethics provide you the opportunity to serve others with confidence and pride.

NETWORK WITH EXPERTS You can problem solve, share tips, programs, and ideas, and build referrals with an extensive network of experts in parliamentary law. Connect online or in person in units and conferences.

ACCESS INFORMATION You’ll continue to receive the National Parliamentarian and the NAP Newsflash to stay in touch and the website, www.parliamentarians.org, has all the resources you need available around the clock.

OBTAIN RESOURCES A wealth of supplies for you are available in the NAP store, readily accessible through the website or by phone.

Renew Your Membership Today!

• P ay online with your credit card at http://bit.ly/nap-renew, just login and click on “Pay Open Orders” • Mail check to NAP, 213 South Main Street, Independence, MO 64050-3808 • Call NAP Headquarters at 888-627-2929 with your credit card information

National Parliamentarian Volume 75, No. 4 | Fourth Quarter 2014

Contents 3 President’s Message 7 From the Editor

News and Information from NAP 8 Motion Spotlight 10 Quick Quiz 14 Two Minutes of Procedure 18 Mystery Motion 20 What’s Wrong?

22 Ordering Materials From NAP 24 Answer Key

Articles and Features 9 Annual Meeting as Recruitment Tool Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP 11 Point of “I Want to Say Something” Paul McDonald 13 Parliamentary Competition

Abigail Lee Hood 25 Questions and Answers (14–17)

National Parliamentarian®

Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 South Main Street • Independence, MO 64050-3808 Phone 816.833.3892 (Toll-free 888.627.2929) • Fax 816.833.3893 E-mail: hq@nap2.org • Web: http://parliamentarians.org

2014–2015 National Officers President Vice-President Secretary Treasurer Directors-at-Large

Ann Guiberson, PRP Mary L. Randolph, PRP Ann L. Rempel, PRP Evan A. Lemoine, PRP Steve Glanstein, PRP James N. Jones, RP Jim Stewart, PRP

Editor

Tim Wynn, PRP P.O. Box 54 Lake Helen, FL 32744 NPeditor@PerfectRules.com

Assistant Editor

District Director Representatives Denise Irminger, PRP Daniel Ivey-Soto, PRP

Parliamentarian Leonard M. Young, PRP Executive Director Mike Chamberlain, CAE

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 on CD or via e-mail attachment in Microsoft Word or RTF format. Illustrations, photographic prints and high quality digital photos are welcome. Materials submitted cannot be returned unless special arrangements are made in advance with the editor.

Contributors must submit an “assignment and transfer of copyright” form granting to NAP copyright in the work or the right to publish it.

Submission Deadlines First Quarter 2015 Second Quarter 2015 Third Quarter 2015 Fourth Quarter 2015

December March June September

1, 1, 1, 1,

2014 2015 2015 2015

Carol A. Henselder, RP

Parliamentary Review Committee

John Rempel, PRP, Chairman Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP Sharon Reed, PRP

National Parliamentarian

Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592. Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians. ©2014. 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 endorsed by NAP. First publication, January 1938.

Subscription and change-of-address requests should be directed to NAP headquarters at the address above.

Subscription rates: $30/year or single copy $8.

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

President’s Message

new directions prepared the asCreate the Future sociation to eduThrough Knowledge cate and equip members to meet Ann Guiberson, PRP the challenges It seems last quarter’s President’s coming their way.

Message resonated with many It was critical members. I was very encouraged to ensure that the to hear from so many of you. Even decision-making Ann Guiberson, PRP though I have not been able to process of the NAP President respond to you personally, please board and the know that I take what you have membership was based on data and to say very seriously. Many of the empirical facts. It drives me crazy proposals shared could actually be when deliberative assemblies (boards and membership) are opinion rich and knowledge “Most of my work … was to think poor. Guesswork, feelings, about and plan for the future.” and the experience of one person often do not lead to implemented right at your local good decision making. level. Why not give your own good Decision making for NAP is no ideas a try? different. We need to have good inMany of you may not know that formation and solid data before we I was employed as an association design the programs and products executive for more than thirty years that are supposed to help members. with professional and trade associa- This is why the education and cretions as their chief staff officer. Most dentialing committee has been holdof my work, besides managing “…to make sure members would be the day-to-day work of the assuccessful in their work, it was necessary sociation, was to to stay one step ahead…” think about and plan for the future. In order to make sure the mem- ing forums and web meetings and bers would be successful in their conducting surveys. The committee work, it was necessary to stay one step is learning what is actually happenahead, to know what trends and is- ing in the real world. Although a picsues were looming that would impact ture is forming about NAP members them. Looking ahead and proposing and how they use and practice parFourth Quarter 2014

3

President’s Message (continued from previous page)

liamentary procedure, very little is known about the clients and organizations our members serve. This is a very important component of know-

ing how to prepare the membership to be the best members, leaders, and consultants they can be.

This quarter I want to share with you some of the key points learned

through the surveys and other datagathering efforts:

Chart 1 (below) shows the top fifteen services provided by members. The survey was confirmed by what members say about their activities. Any decisions made about education and credentialing programs should take into consideration how we serve the organizations we belong to as well as clients.

Meeting Parl-Member Teach Seminar/Workshop Amend/Revise Bylaws Interpret Bylaws Coaching Meeting Parl-Client Provide Written Opinions Write Partial Scripts Write or Review Minutes Write Full Meeting Scripts Advise Bylaws Committee Draft New Bylaws Teach Series of Classes Draft Special/Standing Rules Serve as Presiding Officer Serve as Mentor 0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Chart 2 (on right) shows how frequently various motions are used by the groups that parliamentarians serve. Although this is an indirect method of determining what serves organizations, it is still valuable information. While all motions are important, knowing the likelihood that a certain motion will be used can help us define how to prepare to become more proficient.

4

National Parliamentarian

2%

Previous Question…

Adjourn…

Amend by Inserting…

Amend by Striking Out and Inserting…

Amend by Striking Out… Commit or Refer…

Request for Information…

Point of Order…

Amend and Amendment…

Recess…

Postpone to a Certain Time…

Parliamentary Inquiry…

Limit of Extend Limits of Debate…

Amend by Substitution…

Amend Something Previously Adopted…

Division of the Assembly…

Raise a Question of Privilege…

Motion Related to Voting…

Suspend the Rules…

Rescind…

Reconsider…

Request to Modify a Motion…

Request to Withdraw a Motion…

Lay on the Table…

Motions Related to Nominations…

Consider by Paragraph or Seriatim…

Appeal…

Divide a Question…

Motions Related to Opening or Closing Polls…

Call for the Orders of the Day… Creating and filling blanks…

Request for Other privileges…

Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn…

Take From the Table…

Postpone Indefinitely…

Discharge a Committee…

Object to the Consideration of a Question…

Request to Read Papers…

Request to be Excused From a Duty…

Indicate How Frequently Your Clients Use the Following Motions

1

1.5

2

Fourth Quarter 2014

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5

President’s Message (continued from previous page) We know that members join and renew their memberships primarily to learn and to practice using parliamentary procedure. Chart 3 (below) gives us the indication that NAP, associations, and units would do well to meet those needs.

Learn Parliamentary Procedure Practice Parliamentary Skills Have Better Meetings Help the Profession Grow and…

Access Books and Materials Participate in Meetings Meets Experts in the Field Earn a Credential Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

These surveys provide insight into what NAP and the associated organizations should be taking into account in designing programs, products, and services that meet members’ needs and, beyond members’ needs, the needs of the organizations we serve and in which we participate.

This is not just “good to know” information. It is a call to action. Use what we know to add value to your

programs and activities. Conduct research of your own. Find out what your clients and the organizations you belong to think. What do they need? What do they use? What are their greatest points of pain when it comes to managing their meetings?

Then share that information with NAP, so we can develop a picture that enables parliamentarians to be evermore relevant and evermore prepared.

Ann Guiberson, PRP NAP President

6

National Parliamentarian

From the Editor In this issue, we feature three articles from three different perspectives. There is Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP—the seasoned state-association president— who writes about innovative ways to increase membership and liven annual meetings. Then there is Paul McDonald—a newcomer, eager to analyze his Tim Wynn, PRP own mistakes for the benefit of the readers—whose experiences and path to greater knowledge will strike a cord with many of our NAP members. Finally, there’s Abigail Lee Hood—a college student and award-winning parliamentary-procedure competitor— who gives first-hand insight into the role parliamentary procedure plays in the lives of today’s youth.

%

On a personal note, I am excited to announce that my brother and I have finished our first novel, “Trespassers,” which we released in October 2014.

Tim Wynn, PRP NAP Editor

New Registered Parliamentarians!

NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Registered Parliamentarian:

Todd W. Crowder, Georgia Richard L. Weaver, Colorado Margie R. Booker, Virginia

Fourth Quarter 2014

7

Motion Spotlight Objection to the Consideration of a Question This is an incidental motion that allows an assembly to avoid considering a particular main motion. It

can be useful for dismissing a matter that only a small fraction of the assembly wants to consider.

When is the motion made?

The motion can only be applied to an original main motion—or to petitions and communications that are not from a superior body—and it must be made before there has been

any debate on the main motion and before any subsidiary motion, except Lay on the Table, has been stated by the chair.

How is the motion made?

Any member has the right to make the motion and does so by rising and saying, “Mr. President, I object to the consideration of the

question.” Even the presiding officer, on his own initiative, can make the motion and submit it to a vote.

How is the motion made?

When a member has objected to But if more than a third of the votes the consideration of the question— are in favor of the consideration, the since no second is required and since it is “If at least two-thirds of the votes neither debatable nor are against consideration, the amendable—the chair immediately puts to motion is dismissed…” a vote the question of whether the original motion shall be consideration of the original motion considered. Members are asked to proceeds as if there had been no vote for or against the consideration objection. of the motion to which the member has objected. If at least two-thirds of Learn more about this time-saving motion the votes are against consideration, in RONR (11th ed.), section 26. the motion is dismissed and will not be considered in that session.

8

National Parliamentarian

Annual Meeting as Recruitment Tool Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP I have been presenting a three-hour, interactive workshop on parliamentary procedure to communitycollege, student-government groups for many years.

I find that they replenish my energy to do more for my clients.

Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP

But this also created a productive help promote the upcoming Annual accident. On several occasions, Meeting of the Californian State students who moved on to Association of Parliamentarians other organizations found those (CSAP). organizations to be dysfunctional As President of CSAP, I boldly and suggested that a parliamentary promised something I had no workshop was needed to turn them authority to deliver. I assured all stuaround. My name was mentioned, dent-government students that if and within a few weeks, I had they attended the five parliamentary another teaching engagement. Even workshops and two business meetif groups like these don’t contact ings at the two-day Annual Meeting, a parliamentarian right away, at I would waive their $140 registration least the members know there is a fee and cover their $35 buffet. solution to ineffective meetings.

I was confident I could convince And eventually, the group will come the CSAP board to cover these around. costs in the name of membership An obvious goal is to have young recruitment and community service. people promote parliamentary I was hoping for five students procedure. We need to bring youth into our study units.

“An obvious goal is to have But the question is how to engage them in meetings, young people promote parliaso that they can observe mentary procedure.” parliamentary principles at work. Here is what I did recently: I sought the assistance of to attend; instead, we received one of the student leaders, Sandeep thirteen students. The CSAP board Singh of Sacramento City College, accepted the deal with unmitigated and his advisor, Kimberlee Beyrer. I (continued on page 19) asked Mr. Singh and Ms. Beyrer to Fourth Quarter 2014

9

Quick Quiz It’s time for a Quick Quiz, to refresh your knowledge and sharpen your skills. Answers are found in the back of this publication. Be careful; some of these are tricky.

1. Do Local Chapters have to follow the National Bylaws? a. b. c. d.

es, always Y No, never Only the rules that apply to the local chapter Only if the local bylaws say so

2. What is a revision? a. Any change to the bylaws b. A change where one section is replaced by new language c. A drafting of an entirely new document to replace the current one

d. A thorough review of the bylaws which may or may not result in a change 3. Unless the bylaws say otherwise, a member who is in arrears on membership dues can do how many of the following? a. b. c. d.

Vote Make motions Attend meetings Serve in office

4. Unless the bylaws say otherwise, who is on the executive board? a. All the officers, except the directors b. All the officers, including the directors c. All the officers, including the directors, and the committee chairs d. Nobody

10

National Parliamentarian

Point of “I Want to Say Something” Paul McDonald As I have said many times, everyone can serve society in some way. Before I began studying parliamentary procedure, I, myself, served as a bad example. Some would argue I still do!

On one occasion, some longtime friends of my parents were visiting from another state and we were having a discussion around the dinner table. During one of my more profound points, our friend Jerry poked me in the arm and said, “Point of order!” He then proceeded to talk about what he wanted to talk about.

I thought that sounded cool.

Then I tried it in a meeting. It wasn’t so cool.

I had learned an incorrect meaning of Point of Order from someone who was well meaning but misinformed. And if you learn from someone who is incorrect, you will be incorrect. Be careful whom you hold as an authority.

Well, I was in trouble because I did not properly use Point of Order in a meeting. Point of Order does not mean “Point of I Want to Say Something.” More accurately, the rest of the people in the meeting were in trouble because they had to listen to me blather, until someone stepped in and politely stopped me.

I was glad to learn that I wasn’t the only person to make this mistake.

Paul McDonald Several moree xp e r i e n ce d parliamentarians have told me tales of how they were at a meeting of several hundred people when someone made a “Point of Order” and then entered into a lengthy, extemporaneous speech that was not pertinent to the parliamentary situation.

I witnessed this happening twice at a recent meeting of parliamentarians. It seems that this mistake is committed not only by me, but by some of my esteemed colleagues as well! I was too timid in the moment, but I felt like saying, “Point of order! That’s not a point of order!”

Proper Use

What’s the proper use of Point of Order? When a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated, he can make a Point of Order, thereby calling upon the chair for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 247, ll. 3-7. This is done without obtaining the floor and can even interrupt a speaker.

Fourth Quarter 2014

11

Point of “I Want to Say Something” (continued from previous page)

There are other times when it is completely proper to speak without having obtained the floor or even to interrupt a speaker. Division of the Assembly (RONR, section 29), Appeal (Section 24), and Requests and Inquiries (section 33), such as a Parliamentary Inquiry (p. 293), and a Request for Information (p. 294), and are some examples.

Desire to Address the Assembly

But what if you really feel the need to say something? I’ve learned it helps to remember the following advice: a wise man has something to say, a fool has to say something.

If you are in a meeting and have something to say, remember that, until a matter has been brought before the assembly in the form of a motion proposing a specific action, it cannot be debated. See RONR 11th ed.), p. 386, ll. 6-8. So, make the motion first. You can then impress the assembly with your wisdom in debate … unless no one seconds your motion.

How to Fix It

Order probably has grown out of a large number of people learning an incorrect usage—just as I did—and then teaching it to others.

The solution to this problem is simple: hold public parliamentary workshops and invite as many people as you can! I’m a member of two parliamentary units. One held a workshop recently with over 30 guests in attendance. The fee? Eight bucks at the door. The lessons were solid and the audience was attentive.

Most people stayed afterward to learn all they could.

There is no reason that you cannot do the same thing with your parliamentary unit!

Summary

Generally, it is a bad idea to jump up and start talking without being recognized by the chair. This would be out of order—which is why we have rules of order in the first place!

However, there are certain times that it is okay to do so.

I challenge all readers to learn from my mistakes! To my advanced readers—remember what it was like to be new: we all need help! 

My recent experience has taught me that this error in using Point of

Paul D. McDonald is a member of the Jacomo and Santa Fe Units in Independence, Missouri. He is working toward his RP and PRP designations. You can learn more about Paul at http://www.speakerpaul.com.

12

National Parliamentarian

Parliamentary Competition Abigail Lee Hood There is a difference in the way parliamentary procedure (aka parli-pro) is used in different situations. Sometimes it’s informal, such as in small business meetings. Sometimes it’s used professionally to take care of business in large meetings. And other times, parli-pro is used to win.

Abigail Lee Hood

Community Leaders of America (FCCLA); and SkillsUSA, to name a few. Each competition is judged a bit differently, and each organization has its own customs, but there are similarities. No matter which organization the teams represent, there are some qualities the judges will be looking for. Solid “No matter which organization parliamentary knowledge is a must, but it is an enthe teams represent, there tirely different animal from are some qualities the judges practical procedure. It’s applied very differently, bewill be looking for.” cause there is such a short amount of time for the order to recreate a business meeting. members to prove they can handle a Each team generally consists of six or meeting professionally. There is also seven students, with one member as a rigorous knowledge test to prepare the presiding officer, one as the sec- for. To be truly competitive at these retary, and other team members as events, members must prepare for voting members at the meeting. The both parts: the presentation and the team works together to make mo- test. tions, debate, and transact business.

There are dozens of organizations The Test As mentioned before, a solid base that hold parli-pro events: Future Farmers of America (FFA); Health of knowledge is key. This is because competitions usually Occupations Students of America parli-pro (HOSA); Technology Student As(continued on page 16) sociation (TSA); Family, Career and Many student organizations hold leadership competitions at district, state, and national levels. These events help students gain publicspeaking experience, build resumes, and network. One of the best of these events is parli-pro competition.

This is where students form teams in

Fourth Quarter 2014

13

Two Minutes of Procedure Absentee Voting Questions about absentee voting are quite common: How do I vote by proxy? Do proxies count toward the quorum? How do we initiate an e-mail vote?

Fortunately, the answer is simple: It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that voting is limited to those members present in a meeting at the time the vote is taken. Therefore, any form of absentee voting is out of order, unless specifically authorized in the bylaws or a higher governing document. So, unless a written rule specifically allows your organization to participate in some form of absentee voting (e.g. voting by proxy, voting by mail, voting online, etc.), your members MUST be present in a meeting to exercise their voting rights.

Robert’s Rules of Order does NOT authorize absentee voting of any kind. Any such authorization would have to come from an organization’s bylaws or a higher governing document. If such authorization does exist, the organization should adopt rules to govern the process and to determine how those details affect other matters of procedure.

So let’s take a closer look at some of those common questions:

How do I vote by proxy?

Check the specific rules of your organization. If voting by proxy is not authorized in the bylaws or a higher governing document, you cannot vote by proxy. If proxy voting is authorized, you will have to follow the rules that govern your organization.

Do proxies count toward the quorum?

The quorum is the number of members who must be present in order that business can be validly transacted. Note that this refers specifically to members, not to proxies. Any deviation from this would have to be spelled out in the bylaws or a higher governing document.

14

National Parliamentarian

Can we vote by e-mail?

It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to those members present in a meeting.

Therefore voting by e-mail, which is a form of absentee voting, is a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. For voting by e-mail to be allowed, it must be specifically authorized in the bylaws or a higher governing document.

Isn’t proxy voting a good idea?

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition has this to say, “Ordinarily, it should neither be allowed nor required, because proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly in which membership is individual, personal, and nontransferable.” See RONR (11th ed.), p. 428, l. 34 - p. 429, l. 2.

Does Robert’s Rules of Order prohibit proxy voting if state law says we can vote by proxy?

From a parliamentary standpoint, procedural rules contained in state law supersede the rules adopted by the organization, including the organization’s parliamentary authority, such as Robert’s Rules of Order. However, Robert’s Rules of Order says, “If the law under which an organization is incorporated allows proxy voting to be prohibited by a provision of the bylaws, the adoption of this book as parliamentary authority by prescription in the bylaws should be treated as sufficient provision to accomplish that result.” See RONR (11th ed.), p. 429, ll. 10-14. Of course this is solely from a parliamentary perspective, and any legal questions should be addressed to an attorney.

Fourth Quarter 2014

15

Parliamentary Competition (continued from page 13)

include knowledge tests before the preliminary round. Sometimes the test scores are used as tiebreakers, and other times, they are figured into the teams’ scores. To study for the test, find out what kind of test you will be taking. For example, SkillsUSA

know. This part looks very different from a real business meeting. After all, there are usually no more than six or seven people on a team, and they must recreate an entire business meeting in just a few minutes!

Again, the rules differ for the competitions, and it is a good idea to request a judging rubric “A student who passes the test ahead of time. automatically qualifies to become During the presentaeach motion on the a member of NAP. ” tion, floor needs to be debated thoroughly. This is not acuses the NAP Membership Exam at complished by merely saying, “I like national competition. A student who this motion, so it should pass!” Plan passes the test automatically qualifies debate points ahead of time. There to become a member of NAP. This is usually time given before each also means that study materials presentation to prepare, so use that are readily available through NAP. time wisely, and decide whether each Most student organizations have motion will pass or fail, and then information about their events plan debate accordingly. Construct online, so be sure to check there to the arguments clearly, using specific find out what kind of test will be given at the event.

“Another point about debate is If no information is to remember to speak loudly available, it is still a good idea to use the NAP Memand to articulate…” bership Exam, because it covers all the basic information re- reasons why the motion should pass quired to conduct a business meet- or fail. This is the time to get creative ing, including the ranking motions, and do a little acting. Just rememthe order of business, and the types ber to only speak about the pending motion, or the judges may deduct of meetings. points. For example, never debate the The Presentation main motion when an amendment to The presentations part of the the main motion is pending. competition is where team members Another point about debate is show judges they can apply what they to remember to speak loudly and to 16

National Parliamentarian

articulate. The judges will deduct points for not being able to hear the presentation.

One of the most important details is the chair’s ability to preside. This member may be judged more closely than any other. The chair will need to

to, as each organization will have its own custom.

One final point is that a team will do well to train a second member as the presiding officer. This is not the same thing as having a vice-president, as many competitions do not require them. I once saw a completely lose her “The chair will need to stay calm chair voice during a presentation and poised at all times and retain and continue to preside. entire team suffered control of the meeting. ” The as a result. Ideally, another team member could have stay calm and poised at all times and taken over for her. retain control of the meeting. The Parliamentary-procedure compresident should avoid using a con- petitions can be fun and exciting. versational tone and should correct They give students a lot of great opany mistakes made, using a profes- portunities to travel, network, and sional manner. Not doing so can cost build confidence. If a team properly the team valuable points! Also, dou- prepares for an event, its members ble check the kind of gavel use that can take those experiences with them is acceptable for each organization. for the rest of their lives. So it is beneFor example, FFA makes frequent use ficial for students to learn parliamenof the gavel during competition, but tary procedure and use it to expand I have never once used a gavel while their knowledge, and just possibly, presiding for SKillsUSA. This is one their futures.  of the minute details to pay attention Abby Lee Hood is a journalism student at Columbia College Chicago and a member of the Illinois Association of Parliamentarians. She was on the national award-winning parliamentary procedure team for SkillsUSA in 2011. She is an avid yogi, fiction writer, musician, and vegetarian.

Fourth Quarter 2014

17

Mystery Motion See if you can uncover the identity of the mystery motions below by reviewing the clues. Report to the back of this issue to find out if you nabbed the right suspect.

 Mystery Motion 31 (easy) I can be used to create a picnic, buy a computer, or paint a building; I am divided into two types: original and incidental.

Mystery Motion 32 (easy) I’m not debatable, and I’m used to set the pending question aside temporarily in order to attend to a more urgent matter.

Mystery Motion 33 (easy) I am the lowest-ranking Privileged Motion.

Mystery Motion 34 (intermediate) I would be very helpful to a member who wanted the assembly’s permission to read from a book in debate.





Mystery Motion 37 (intermediate) I can be applied to some rules in the bylaws.

Mystery Motion 38 (intermediate) I have a different vote requirement in ordinary committees.

Mystery Motion 39 (difficult) I require a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

Mystery Motion 40 (difficult) I am in order when another has the floor, unless debate has begun or a subsidiary motion other than lay on the table has been stated by the chair; I require a two-thirds vote in the negative to sustain me.

Mystery Motion 35 (intermediate) I can be primary or secondary.

Mystery Motion 36 (intermediate) I am sometimes used by members who oppose the pending motion in order to test their strength.

18

National Parliamentarian

Annual Meeting as Recruitment Tool (continued from page 9)

enthusiasm. They were ready to participation by the students, the adopt my budget request before I Annual Meeting was energizing and had finished explaining the deal. refreshing.

At the Annual Meeting I asked Afterward, the students posted on each student to come to the social media about their experiences, microphone, identify himself, and I had their photograph and and explain his role in student a summary of their participation government. The regular attendees published in the college newspaper were impressed with the students’ and on the NAP website. experiences and responsibilities.

Every NAP parliamentarian Student government is not a frivolous either belongs to or serves other game. The students have a larger organizations. It stands to reason budget and a greater constituency than “With so much active participation my state association.

I arranged for by the students, the Annual Meeting each student to was energizing and refreshing.” perform a significant role during the twoday meeting. Some were pages; that any parliamentarian can bring some helped the attendees at in members of other professions, the registration desk; and some include them in an institute or participated in a humorous script. convention, and offer them free The students were actually more workshops and maybe a meal. The comfortable and confident than the return on this small investment average association member. makes it well worth it. NAP can During the advanced workshops, be more visible and more relevant the students impressed the regular in the community if we stop waiting attendees by asking compelling for new members to come to us.  questions. With so much active

Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP is the President of the California Association of Parliamentarians. He has been training community-college student governments and community special district for 15 years. Lorenzo lives in Sacramento, CA. (http://www.roberts-rules.com).

Fourth Quarter 2014

19

What’s wrong

Can you spot the parliamentary blunders in the following stories?

Answers are located at the back of this issue.

 Blunder #7



With debate having been limited to one speech of two minutes per speaker, per question, Mr. Douglas ran through his time before he knew it. When the chair informed Mr. Douglas that he had exhausted his right to speak on the pending question, Mr. Douglas asked the chair if he could have a little more time to make his point. The chair announced, “If there is no objection, Mr. Douglas’s time will be extended by one minute.” Several members shouted objections, causing Mr. Douglas to take his seat.

Several speakers later, Mrs. Douglas obtained the floor and relinquished her time to her husband, Mr. Douglas, who was finally able to make his point. After several more speeches, Mr. Douglas obtained the floor again to make an amendment to the pending motion. A member quickly rose with a parliamentary inquiry, asking the chair whether this was allowed. The chair ruled that, even though the member (Mr. Douglas) had exhausted his right to speak in debate, he still had a right to obtain the floor for the purpose of making an amendment and he still had the right to make the amendment.

When the amendment was made 20



and seconded, the chair recognized Mr. Douglas to speak. Where was the blunder?

Blunder #8

During the annual meeting, the chair recognized the member of the nominating committee who had been selected by the committee to present its report, since the chairman of the committee didn’t feel comfortable presenting the report, since the report names him as a nominee. When the reporting member finished reading the report of the nominating committee, the chair repeated the names of the nominees. The chair then put each office to a vote in the order listed in the bylaws, except that when there was only one candidate for an office, the chair simply declared the candidate elected, since a ballot vote was not required by the bylaws. Where was the blunder?

Blunder #9

Shortly after an election for treasurer, and before the installation ceremony, a small group of members arrived at the meeting and insisted upon voting in the election.

The chair pointed out that the mar-

National Parliamentarian

gin of victory was too large for the result to be affected by the newly arrived members. Still they insisted.

The newly elected treasurer, who watched from the front row, chose to stay silent on the matter, but the chair ruled that since the newly arrived members were not present when the vote was taken, there was no way for their votes to be counted in the election. A member then moved to reconsider the vote on the election of the treasurer. When the chair asked the member if she voted on the prevailing side during the election, the member argued that she cannot be forced to reveal her vote since it was taken by secret

ballot. The chair stood her ground and ruled that a member only had the right to move to reconsider a vote taken by ballot if that member was willing to forgo the secrecy of his vote. The member refused, but another member quickly moved to reconsider the vote on the election and declared that he had voted on the prevailing side. This was seconded, and the chair stated the question on the motion to Reconsider. After debate, the motion to consider was lost, and the chair did not allow the newly arrived members to vote in the election for treasurer. Where was the blunder?

New Professional Registered Parliamentarians!

NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the highest credential awarded by the National Association of Parliamentarians:

Sylvia Arrowwood, South Carolina Bobby Lee Balentine, Missouri Sharon Daugherty, Texas Russell A. Guthrie, Oklahoma Esther A. Heller, California Matthew J. Schafer, Washington Jeffrey T. Streutker, Ontario Shannon Sun, New Jersey

Fourth Quarter 2014

21

Ordering Materials from NAP Five ways to order: 1) By Mail: 213 South Main Street Independence, MO 64050-3808 2) By Phone: (888) 627-2929 3) By Fax: (816) 833-3893 4) By E-mail: HQ@nap2.org 5) On the Web: http://parliamentarians.org

Categories of Materials Available Include: Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition Materials

Parliamentary Reference Cards

Other Parliamentary Manuals

Pathways to Proficiency

Electronic Resources

References

Meeting Resources

Parliamentary Supplies

Leadership Spotlights

Teaching Resources

Parliamentary Study

Resource descriptions and a complete order form are available at the NAP Online Store: http://parliamentarians.org/store/newstore.php

Nancy Sylvester and Emma Faulk, Leadership Conference Coordinators

22

Dale Huff presenting at the leadership conference

National Parliamentarian

Sandy Olson teaches Effective Use of PowerPoint

Liz Guthridge, keynote speaker

Craig Henry and Julianne Henry, with poster for downloadable “app” for NAPTC

Fourth Quarter 2014

23

Answer Key Quick Quiz Answer 1 (C) Only the rules that apply to the local chapter. For example, a national bylaw that provides that the national president shall be ex officio a member of all committees does not thereby mandate that each chapter president shall be ex officio a member of all chapter committees.

Answer 2

one. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 593, ll. 16-19.

Answer 3 All four: (A, B, C, and D). See RONR (11th ed.), p. 3, ll. 1-9 & p.

6 footnote.

Answer 4 (D) Nobody. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 482, ll. 25-29.

(C) A drafting of an entirely new document to replace the current

Mystery Motion Mystery Motion 31: Main Mo-

Mystery Motion 35: Amend;

Mystery Motion 32: Lay on the

Mystery Motion 36: Postpone

tion; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 100, ll. 1-21

Table; see RONR (11th ed.), p.

209, ll. 26-36 & tinted page 18, entry #44.

Mystery Motion 33: Call for the Orders of the Day; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 219 & tinted page.

Mystery Motion 34: Request to Read Papers; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 298, l. 9 & tinted page 24, entry #70.

24

see RONR (11th ed.), p. 135, ll.

7-17.

Indefinitely; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 128, ll. 17-33.

Mystery Motion 37: Suspend

the Rules; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 263, ll. 1-7.

Mystery Motion 38: Reconsid-

er; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 329, l.

26 - p. 330, l. 9.

National Parliamentarian

(continued on page 32)

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 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 Josh Martin, PRP, 10508 Quebec Ave, N., Brooklyn Park, MN 55445, or e-mailed to jcmartin7872@gmail.com.

Q&A 14

Beyond the Scope of the Object

Q

Recently, at our Registered Parliamentarian Study group, we had a discussion on bylaws. The issue of suspending bylaws, specifically the “object” article in bylaws, caused some confusion.

In RONR (11th ed.) p.13, 17, 88, and in other places, we note that bylaws

cannot be suspended. RONR (11th ed.), p. 571, ll. 5-9, states that a twothirds vote is required to allow the introduction of a motion that falls outside the society’s object. Is this not a suspension of a bylaw article?

We have been advised that, although a breach occurred during the processing of the motion, since no point of order was raised in a timely manner, the silence of the members equates to unanimous consent? Is this correct?

Parliamentary Research Team

Josh Martin, PRP Parliamentary Research Editor

Ann Homer, PRP Assistant Research Editor

Ronald Stinson, PRP NAP Past President Consultant

Fourth Quarter 2014

Leonard Young, PRP NAP Parliamentarian

25

Questions and Answers (continued from previous page)

A

No. The rule which provides that a society cannot consider motions outside of the society’s object (except by a two-thirds vote) is not one which is found in the bylaws themselves, but which is found in the parliamentary authority, and such rules can be suspended by a two-thirds vote. If the bylaws themselves provided that no action could be taken outside of the object article in the bylaws, such a rule could not be suspended (unless it

exceedingly difficult for the society to adapt and grow. If such motions can be introduced by a twothirds vote, however, this enables members to lay the groundwork for a future amendment to the bylaws.

It is conceivable that a motion is not merely outside the scope of the society’s object, but directly conflicts with it. In such a case, however, the chair can likely handle the situation by ruling the motion out of order as frivolous.

The flexibility described above may not apply in “…the object article is intended an incorporated society. for use as a guide for the society, While a two-thirds vote is to introduce a not as a straightjacket.” sufficient motion which is outside the scope of a society’s provided for its own suspension or object article in its bylaws, the was worded in such a way that it was same cannot necessarily be said in the nature of a rule of order). for a motion which is outside the In the ordinary case, however, scope of a society’s object article the object article is intended for in the Articles of Incorporation. use as a guide for the society, not Incorporated societies which are as a straightjacket. A society may considering taking such action find that a motion which is outside should seek legal advice. of its stated purpose nonetheless serves that purpose, by helping them to increase publicity, seek out organizations to cooperate with, or similar purposes. This flexibility Suspend the Rules also allows a society’s goals to and Reconsider evolve over time. If it was never A board was given new permitted to take action outside the information about a motion society’s object except by amending adopted two weeks earlier. This the bylaws, this would make it

Q&A 15

Q

26

National Parliamentarian

motion was adopted at that Then, in the second meeting meeting after being reconsidered. when the rules for reconsider were In the current meeting they moved suspended, ultimately the board to suspend the rules related to the voted to drop the project entirely motion to reconsider so they could “…the motion must state its specific reconsider the twopurpose, and its adoption permits week-old motion. (I know, they should nothing else to be done under the have used rescind, suspension.” but their advisor [not me] told them they had to move to reconsider.) Their and provide no funding at all. Is special rules allow them to “waive” the rule that a partially carried out their rules by a 4/5 vote. The vote to action cannot be reconsidered also suspend the rules was unanimous. suspended?

Can all the rules of reconsider be The motion to Suspend the suspended at one time? If they are Rules is used “to suspend suspended, does that still apply to one or more rules applicable to the the listed motions that are out of assembly—such as rules contained order? in the parliamentary authority, The matter concerned funding special rules of order, or standing for a project. At the earlier meeting, rules—that interfere with proposed the board was informed by staff action during a meeting… In making that they had already approved the the incidental motion to Suspend funding and at the time all they the Rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are “It is not in order … to Suspend the not mentioned; but the motion must state its Rules in order to Reconsider a specific purpose, and motion when the motion has been its adoption permits nothing else to be done partially carried out.” under the suspension.”

See RONR (11th ed), p.

261, l.

22 – p. 262, l. 4). So if a were doing was setting at a lower member moves to Suspend the amount. The party to receive the Rules and Reconsider a motion, a funding was present at the meeting single motion to Suspend the Rules as a guest (not a member of the will suspend any number of rules board), so apparently some action which interfere with that purpose was taken based on the approval.

A

Fourth Quarter 2014

27

Questions and Answers (continued from previous page)

(provided that all such rules can be suspended).

Additionally, it is in order to Suspend the Rules in order to make a motion to Reconsider beyond its usual time limits, although this is usually not done since the same object can be achieved with other motions (Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted).

It is not in order, however, to Suspend the Rules in order to Reconsider a motion when the motion has been partially carried out. As a parliamentary matter, the board could have used Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted regarding the unexecuted part of the motion. Since it appears that the board’s original motion may have been in the nature of a contract, however, it would have been prudent to seek legal advice before taking such action.

Q

At an annual business meeting, the total votes were 19,123.

During the election of one regional director, voting for 2 candidates was as follows:

ROUND ONE

Ms. A = 9,122 Mr. B = 9,044 Spoilt votes = 451 Total votes cast = 18,617 NOTE: To win, a candidate needs to secure at least 50% + 1 of the total votes cast.

The chair declared that there was no majority, as winner needs to get at least 9,309 votes. A second round of voting was declared. The 2nd round result was:

ROUND TWO

Mr. B = 9,318 Ms. A = 9,308 Total votes cast = 18,626

The chair was about to declare the “…it is in order to Suspend the Rules in winner based on order to make a motion to Reconsider Round Two voting. delegate raised a beyond its usual time limits…” APoint of Order and protested that the Round Two voting should not be counted as Ms. A had already won the election in Round One. After a 10 Incorrect Declaration by minute recess, the chair honored the the Chair and No Timely Round One voting and declared Ms. A duly elected as regional director.

Point of Order

Q&A 16 28

National Parliamentarian

Questions: 1. Should the point of order be called before the chair has asked for Round Two voting ?

2. Was the call for Point of Order —out of order ?

3. Is Ms. A now the winner of the election?

A

information on this subject, refer to RONR Official Interpretation 200618, www.robertsrules.com.

The second question is regarding whether the Point of Order was “out of order,” and it was not. The member used the correct procedure to raise a Point of Order. The real question is likely whether the Point of Order should have been ruled “well taken” or “not well taken,” which indicates whether the chair agrees with the claim the member is making. The chair should have ruled the point not well taken, for two reasons. First, as discussed above, the Point of Order was no longer timely.

NOTE: After further questioning from the Parliamentary Research Editor, the member who sent in this question clarified that the “spoilt votes” were what RONR refers to as “illegal ballots” – votes which were illegible, cast for ineli“The real question is likely whether the gible candidates, Point of Order should have been ruled etc. The society does not have any ‘well taken’ or ‘not well taken,’ which special rules reindicates whether the chair agrees with garding how such ballots shall be the claim the member is making.” counted.

Additionally, the Point of Order The first question is regarding when the Point of Order should was incorrect, and therefore should have been raised. The member have been ruled “not well taken” should have raised such a Point of even if it had been raised in a timely Order immediately. It may have still manner. Ms. A should not have won been timely after the chair called the election after Round One, and for another round of voting, but it the chair correctly declared that was certainly no longer timely after there was no winner and announced voting had begun. The member was a second round of voting. “Unintelalleging that the chair’s declaration ligible ballots or ballots cast for an of the voting result was incorrect, unidentifiable or ineligible candiand a Point of Order regarding date are treated instead as illegal that issue must be timely. For more votes—that is, they are counted as Fourth Quarter 2014

29

votes cast but are not credited to any candidate or choice.” See RONR (11th ed), p. 416, ll. 2-5. So the chair was correct to include the “spoilt votes” in the number of votes cast when determining whether a candidate achieved a majority.

The last question is whether Ms. A is now the winner of the election.

The answer is that yes, she is, notwithstanding that Mr. B should have been declared the winner. As discussed above, a Point of Order regarding the chair’s incorrect declaration of the voting result must be timely. An Appeal regarding such an issue would also have to be timely.

A member should have appealed from the chair’s ruling on the Point of Order and pointed out that, in fact, the chair had been entirely

that “To win, a candidate needs to secure at least 50% + 1 of the total votes cast.” While it does not affect the current situation, the member should be sure to remember in the future that the proper definition of a majority is “more than half,” and that alternative definitions such as “50% + 1” or “51%” are incorrect and may lead to problems.

Q&A 17

Debating Nominations

Q

An organization I belong to has a policy that states all speeches and remarks about a nominee shall be of a positive nature and should focus around the member’s accomplishments.

In the tinted pages, RONR indicates that “…in fact, the chair had been entirely nominations require no second, are not correct regarding the results of the amendable, but are first round of voting…” debatable. How so?

What can the merits of debate go into? correct regarding the results of the Isn’t debate supposed to alternate first round of voting (and even if he between for/against?

This doesn’t had not been, the member had not raised a timely point of order), and seem possible with the policy that Mr. B had now won the election mentioned above. based on the results of the second round. Since this was not done, however, Ms. B is now the regional director.

Although this was not one of the questions, a parliamentarian can hardly overlook the statement 30

A

Members may speak in debate regarding the merits of the nominees in an election. A member could conceivably make negative remarks about a nominee, although members should take great care when doing so in order not to violate

National Parliamentarian

the rules of decorum. Your society has gone further and has provided outright that only positive statements are in order regarding nominees. Such a rule is not unusual.

It is correct that, in the general case, debate should alternate between members speaking for and against a motion, to the extent possible. Such a procedure is not applicable to an election, since the question before the assembly is not whether to elect a particular person

or not, but which person should be elected to the position. In the context of an election, the rule might be applied in a modified form by alternating between members who wish to speak in favor of the various nominees. This is consistent with the spirit of the rule (preventing a one-sided discussion) while also being consistent with the purpose of the election and your society’s rule.

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

John F. Eaton, Virginia Marilyn Vondrak Collins, California Evelyn Slater, Illinois Apolei Bargamento, Hawaii Kayrell G. Clark, Georgia Dr. Brahama D. Sharma, California Isabel M. Bravo, California Jacqueline W. Gaither, Georgia Ben M. Carpenter, Tennessee Olif E. Staley, North Carolina Robert B. Sherron, Washington Alison P. Riddle-Fletcher, Maryland Shirley Domenico, Oklahoma

Fourth Quarter 2014

31

Answer Key (continued from page 24)

Answer Key MYSTERY MOTION (cont.)

Mystery Motion 39: Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 310, ll.

8-27 & tinted page 26, entry #76

Mystery Motion 40: Object to the Consideration of a Question; see RONR (11th ed.), tinted page 20, entry #54 & p. 268, l. 14-15.

What’s Wrong?

Blunder 9

Blunder 7 The right to speak in debate is not transferable. Mrs. Douglas cannot give her time to another

member (not even to Mr. Douglas). See RONR (11th ed.), p. 388, ll. 12-18.

Blunder 8 After the report of the nominating committee and before the voting, the chair must call for further nominations from the floor. See RONR (11th ed.), p.

435, ll. 10-12.

32

The chair should have ruled out of order the motion to reconsider the vote on the election. After an election has become final—which this one had, since the treasurer was present and did not immediately decline—it is too late to move to reconsider the vote on the election. See RONR (11th ed.), p.

444, ll. 25-27.

National Parliamentarian

Buffalo Soldiers George Noland; Guy Williamson; Fred Gray; Gregory Henry with Jacqueline Achong (VP of Oklahoma State Association of Parliamentarians); Shelby Mata

Jeanette Williams, Lucy Anderson during NAPTC Seminar: Ethical or Unethical

Youth Day: Youth and Youth Committee Members Austin Stottlemyer;Jill Coats; Alyssa Rogers; Angela Nwanko; Brandon Walters (Youth Committee Chairman); Evan Lemoine; Ann Guiberson (NAP President); Gloria Cofer; Licett Almarez; Robert Schuck; Joanna Fuess; Natalee Sargent; Julie Palm, Reinaldo Rodriguez