Issuu

PARLIAMENTARY JOURNAL VOLUME LXVII, NO. 2 FA L L 2 0 2 6

MANUSHAG N. POWELL, PHD, CP-T

A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F PA R L I A M E N TA R I A N S 1 2 1 S TAT E S T R E E T A L B A N Y, N E W Y O R K 1 2 2 0 7 888.664.0428 A I P @ A I P PA R L . O R G W W W. A I P PA R L . O R G

CONTENTS

AIP Officers and Department Chairs

Notes from the Editor Manushag N. Powell

AIP’s Credential Marks Are Now Federally Registered C.J. Cavin

Just Because You Can Does Not Mean You Should: A Saga of Paper Ballots Beverly Przybylski

AI Is Writing Your Minutes. Your Bylaws Aren’t Ready. Valoree Althoff

Running Meetings on Time: A Plain-English Guide to Timed Agendas under Robert’s Rules Kay Allison Crews

Default Rules/Positions in the American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC), Second Edition Kenneth L. Reed

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

Opinion: When Does a Committee Recommendation for Action Need a Second?: Reconciling the Rules for Committee Reports, Motion-Making, and Seconds Opinions Committee

Bearing Witness: Reflections on an AIP Journey Robert M. Peskin

Do You Have a Parliamentary Procedure Question?

Contributors

Information for Authors

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRS President Atul Kapur, MD, MSc., CPP-T, PRP President@aipparl.org

Communications Director Brandon Walters, CP-T, PRP Communications@aipparl.org

Vice President Valoree Althoff, CPP-T, PRP VP@aipparl.org

Parliamentarian Glen Hall, DDS, CPP-T Parliamentarian@aipparl.org

Secretary Laura Meade, CPP, PRP Secretary@aipparl.org

OTHER OFFICIALS Parliamentary Journal Editor Manushag N. Powell, PhD, CP-T PJ@aipparl.org

Treasurer Evan Lemoine, CPA, CFE, CGMA, PRP Treasurer@aipparl.org Accrediting Director Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP Accrediting@aipparl.org Education Director W. Craig Henry, CPP-T, PRP Education@aipparl.org

Chair, Opinions Committee Lucy Hicks Anderson, CPP-T, PRP Opinions@aipparl.org The Communicator Editor Rachel Miller-Bleich, CP, RP Communicator@aipparl.org

The American Institute of Parliamentarians is a nonprofit organization founded for the general purpose of improving parliamentary procedures. Regular Member First Two Years $55 After Two Years $70 Full-time Student $20 CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN® $105 CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN® $130 Annual membership dues include subscription to the Parliamentary Journal.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

NOTES FROM THE EDITOR Good changes are coming to the Parliamentary Journal. Dear Members (and Future Members) of the American Institute of Parliamentarians: I am so pleased and excited to announce that AIP’s Board of Directors has authorized the Parliamentary Journal to form an editorial board. The board will assist the editor-in-chief with soliciting and vetting the strongest and most interesting pieces for inclusion in the journal, identifying media for reviews, locating reviewers, and with developing and expanding our core readership. Nominations (including selfnominations) are welcome; please send them with a brief statement of the nominee’s qualifications to pjeditor@aipparl.org no later than 1 December 2026. The editorial board will be announced following the annual winter practicum, 14-16 January 2027 in Las Vegas, NV—where I hope to see each and every one of you. In the meantime, this issue has some excellent pieces on matters timely, timeless, and even traditional. Please join me in welcoming the return of our Opinions Committee, which is eager to hear from you. In this issue, they address a surprisingly thorny question: does committee work ever need a second? Also on offer: a smart warning from newly elected AIP Vice President Valoree Althoff about why you should think twice, and then think twice again, about using generative AI to prepare your minutes. The indefatigable Kay Allison Crews walks us through the finer points of running a meeting with a timed agenda, complete with handy micro-scripts. Dr. Ken Reed gives us a helpful guide to all the default positions that kicked in with AIPSC’s second edition. Beverly Przybylski spins a cautionary tale learning opportunity of how an election can go very wrong, even with well-prepared leadership and well-intentioned members. And immediate Past President Bob Peskin reflects on a decades-long career in parliamentary procedure and the joys of working with the AIP community. Finally, please give your attention to an important announcement authored by C. J. Cavin regarding the trademarking and proper use of AIP credentials—as members, it is very much our duty and obligation to protect our organization and get this right. Enjoy your fall, dear readers, and send me your best pitches for the December issue.

Manushag N. Powell, PhD, CP-T

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

AIP’S CREDENTIAL MARKS ARE NOW FEDERALLY REGISTERED C.J. Cavin is a licensed Oklahoma attorney and holder of the CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® and PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIAN credentials On September 22, 2026, the United States Patent

which preserves AIP’s right to recover profits and

and Trademark Office registered AIP’s four creden- damages from an infringer. Id. § 1111. Fourth, after tial marks on the Principal Register: CERTIFIED

five years of continuous use, AIP may make each

PARLIAMENTARIAN® (Reg. No. 8,446,622), registration incontestable. Id. § 1065. CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN® (Reg. No. 8,446,623), CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® (Reg. No. 8,446,637), and CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® (Reg. No. 8,446,638). The registrations protect the credentials members have earned. That protection depends on how each member uses the marks. What Registration Does

AIP can now stop others from offering a credential under these names or a confusingly similar one. Id. § 1114(1). A person who has not earned an AIP credential cannot market services as though he or she holds one. AIP will vigorously protect these marks by taking appropriate legal steps when violations occur. Hundreds of members signed declarations describing how they use and understand the credentials.

A trademark identifies the source of a service. Here, That evidence supported the applications. AIP thanks each mark indicates to the public that a credential, each of them. AIP also thanks Accrediting Director course, or examination is from AIP and meets AIP’s

Kay Crews, who holds the CERTIFIED PROFES-

standards.

SIONAL

Federal registration adds four protections. First, registration is a nationwide notice of AIP’s claim of ownership according to 15 U.S.C. § 1072. Second, it is prima facie evidence that the marks are valid, that AIP owns them, and that AIP holds the exclusive right to use them for the registered services. Id. § 1057(b). Third, it entitles AIP to use the ® symbol,

PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER®

credential, who worked with outside counsel and saw that each step was completed; Communications Director Brandon Walters, who holds the CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® credential, oversaw the website rebuild to show how AIP uses the marks; and Anthony Kownack of AIP’s management company, who sent the declarations to members and prepared them for filing.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

How a Mark Is Lost Registration does not last on its own. A mark that becomes the generic name for a service can be canceled at any time. 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). “Aspirin” was once a trademark. It was lost because the public

and type 0174 on the numeric keypad. In Microsoft Word, typing (r) converts to ® automatically, and Insert > Symbol offers it as well. To raise the symbol, select it and press Ctrl+Shift+= on Windows or Command+Shift+= on a Mac.

came to use it as the ordinary name for the drug. Fourth, use the mark as an adjective. The mark Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y. modifies a noun naming an AIP service: credential, 1921). The risk for AIP is specific. “Certified parliamentarian” reads like a plain description. If members and the public use it as a label for anyone certified in

course, examination, boot camp, or program. Never use the mark as a noun or a verb, and never make it plural or possessive. Here, “become a certified parliamentarian” becomes

parliamentary procedure, the mark stops identifying “earn the CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN® AIP. Consistent usage is the defense. AIP must file a declaration of continued use between the fifth and sixth years after registration, here between September 22, 2031, and September 22, 2032. 15 U.S.C. § 1058. The declaration requires speci-

credential.” “The CP exam” becomes “the CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN® examination.” “All instructors are Certified Parliamentarians” becomes “All instructors hold the CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN® credential.”

mens showing the marks in use. Correct usage in

Websites and marketing emails that reference any

the Parliamentary Journal, on the website, and in

credential should carry this attribution line:

course materials builds that record. How to Use the Marks On September 27, 2026, the Board of Directors adopted AIP’s Trademark Usage Guide as policy. The guide sets four rules for any content that markets or identifies an AIP product or service.

C E RT I F I E D

PA R L I A M E N TA R I A N ® ,

CERTIFIED

PROFESSIONAL

L I A M E N TA R I A N , ®

PAR-

CERTIFIED

PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER®, and CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® are registered service marks of the American Institute of Parliamentarians. U.S. Reg.

First, use the full mark. Write CERTIFIED PAR- Nos. 8,446,622; 8,446,623; 8,446,637; and 8,446,638. LIAMENTARIAN®, not CP. Credentials After a Name Second, set the mark apart. Display it in bold capital These rules govern references to AIP’s programs. letters. They do not change how a member lists an earned Third, add the registration symbol. Place a super- credential after a name. The abbreviations CP, CPP,

script ® immediately after the mark. On a Mac, CP-T, and CPP-T are not among the four registrapress Option+R. On a Windows computer, hold Alt tions. The ® belongs only on a registered mark, so

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

it does not follow the abbreviation. A member signs as “Jane Doe, CP-T,” and the Parliamentary Journal prints credentials in that form. AIP hopes each credentialed member will update his or her email signature, website, business cards, and marketing materials to follow the recommended holder language. A signature may keep the abbreviation after the name and add a line beneath it: “Holder of the CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® credential.” A sentence describing the credential uses the same form: “Jane Doe holds the CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® credential.” A website or marketing email that names a credential also carries the attribution line. Under the communications plan the Board adopted, AIP will update its own website and materials within 30 days, and Communication Director Brandon Walters will report to the Board when that work is complete.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD: A SAGA OF PAPER BALLOTS Beverly Przybylski, CP, PRP A group of members presented a resolution to be

would stand, clearly display their voter badges,

considered at the national convention. After the

receive ballots, vote, and return the ballots. The pair

presiding officer called for debate, some members,

of tellers would then go to the next row. After all the

possibly because they were distrustful, but certainly

voters had voted in a section, the tellers went to the

not foreseeing the ramifications of their plan, moved

next section. Many tellers would be working many

that the vote on the pending question be by paper

sections, at the same time. The plan seemed solid

ballot, counted in the presence of the assembly, with

and well thought-out.

three observers appointed by each side. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.) (RONR) says that a ballot vote “is used when secrecy of the members’ votes is desired.”1 The motion was adopted. There is a saying: “Be careful what you wish for.”

After 2 ½ hours of debate, of which the motion Point of Order3 was raised more than forty times (several being ruled not well taken), and more appropriately to the actual parliamentary situation, ten incidences of Request for Information,4 a motion was adopted to end debate.5 The presiding officer gave detailed

This can be tricky when there are more than 4,000

voting instructions and the tellers were dispatched

registered members seated in stadium-style seating,

to their assigned sections throughout the meeting

of which nearly 3,000 are delegates. But the

hall and commenced distributing ballots.

organization was prepared and had a plan. Although best practice would have been to have all the voters seated in one reserved section, due to the layout of the meeting hall, this was not possible.2 Therefore, voting and non-voting members were mixed in their ticketed seats. Due to the steep rows in the balcony area and with 60% or more voters in those seats, it was decided that the tellers with the ballots and ballot boxes would come to the voters. The ballots were on colored paper. Each pair of

This worked well until... 1. We learned that ballots of two different colors were

distributed.

Balloting

was

allowed

to continue. We decided that the different colored ballots would be counted and reported separately. 2. We heard that some of the tellers were going back to rows that had already voted to ask if anyone needed a ballot.

tellers would proceed to a section, one row of voters Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

3. We learned that some voters received more than one blank ballot. 4. We were told that after voting, some voters were handing their voter badges to the rows behind them (to members who weren’t delegates), and 5. It was discovered that after voting, some voters were leaving their seats and going to a row that hadn’t voted yet in order to vote again. The presiding officer, after consultation with the parliamentarian and other leadership, halted voting, had the ballots and ballot boxes collected, and brought them to the platform. At this point, we had used an hour for voting. The voters were told why voting was stopped and that a new ballot vote would be held using different colored ballots. Members would be escorted single file, by their sections, to a designated area in the meeting hall, where their voter badge would be checked and a corner snipped off when they received their ballot. The voter then walked a few steps to mark their ballot and then walked a few more steps to place the ballot in the ballot box, every step under the watchful eyes of the tellers committee, the credentials chair, and the parliamentarian. They were then escorted back to their seats. A member could leave the meeting room at any time, but they couldn’t come back until voting concluded. We missed lunch.

taken to the counting area on the platform. At each of three tables were two tellers who would open each ballot, read the ballot, and announce the Yes or No vote. Two other tellers kept a tally of each vote. The ensemble was completed with two observers. Detailed instructions were printed and given orally and the counting commenced. Because there was still business that needed to be conducted before we left the auditorium that night, after a brief recess, the presiding officer called the meeting back to order. It was now 5 p.m. We weren’t going to make it to dinner either. Normally, ballot counting should be done in a place free from distractions. “The tellers proceed to count the ballots—in a secluded location or in another room if the meeting proceeds to other business during the counting.”6 To say that there was great interference for the ballot counters is not doing justice to the situation. Due to the noise in the meeting room, side conversations, and people walking back and forth across the platform, the tellers were continually distracted, causing them to make mistakes and lose concentration. Although each group would only tally 40 or so ballots before checking their totals, they were frequently off and would need to recount until the totals agreed. Then each group had five to seven pages of tally marks to total. One group had two math errors. The counting took nearly 3 ½ hours. The meeting lasted 11 hours

While the voting was underway, tables and chairs

and 22 minutes.

were brought onto the platform and set up behind

The administration had briefly considered using an

the seated dignitaries and officers in preparation for ballot counting as required by the adopted motion. After 3 ½ hours of voting, the ballot box was sealed,

electronic voting platform but chose not to, in the belief that many members would be distrustful of such a system, not having used it before.

and in the view of everyone in the auditorium, it was

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

If there’s a lesson here, it might be that while member rights are paramount, and should never be usurped, members need to be reasonable and... be careful what they wish for.

Notes: Henry M. Robert, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly

Revised, 12th Edition, Eds. Henry M. Robert, III, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Daniel E. Seabold, Shmuel Gerber (New York: PublicAffairs, 2020), 45:18. RONR (12th ed.) 59:65

RONR (12th ed.) 23:1

RONR (12th ed.) 33:6B

RONR (12th ed.) 16:1

RONR (12th ed.) 45:30

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

AI IS WRITING YOUR MINUTES. YOUR BYLAWS AREN’T READY. Valoree Althoff, CPP-T, PRP Your organization’s minutes were taken at last

because it is polished, complete, and formatted. The

month’s board meeting by an AI tool someone

transcription records what was said, not what was

downloaded on their phone or laptop. No one voted

decided. It does not distinguish a motion from a

on using AI transcription. No one thought to amend

comment, especially a comment that should never

the bylaws. The secretary emailed the minutes to

be written on record to begin with.2 AI cannot

the board, and everyone approved them without a

recognize that a failed motion belongs in the record

second glance.

differently from an adopted one, especially if it is

That is the governance crisis hiding in plain sight right now, and most organizations are not aware or equipped to handle it. Parliamentarians have to

Debate is not part of the official record at all, but AI will transcribe it anyway.3

be aware that this trend is more prevalent than we

The American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard

expect and be proactive to make our clients aware

Code of Parliamentary Procedure, Second Edition

of these possible vulnerabilities to potential legal

(AIPSC2), is explicit about what minutes must

issues.

contain, including: the name of the organization; the

The Document Your Bylaws Did Not Anticipate The minutes of a meeting are the official legal record of what a deliberative body decided. Minutes are neither a transcript nor a summary; they are the authoritative account of what business was transacted and what actions were taken. When 1

a meeting’s outcomes are challenged, they are the document that settles the dispute. When your organization faces a lawsuit, they are the document your attorney subpoenas. AI transcription tools do not know any of that, and AI produces output that looks deceptively authoritative

a motion that AIP recommends to exclude entirely.

date, time, and place of the meeting; quorum being present; all main motions and their disposition; and the hour of adjournment.4 That is a defined legal record. An AI-generated transcript does not meet that standard by default, and in many cases it introduces language that actively contradicts what was decided. The AI transcription tool has no concept of which motions belong in the record and which don’t. For example, a motion withdrawn before being stated by the chair is treated differently compared to one that is withdrawn after.5 AI transcription certainly won’t recognize a closed session or protect the confidentiality of what happened inside it.6

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

The

convenient

technology

must be conducted, what conditions organizations

gaps

that

must meet to hold them, and what responsibilities

organizations now must rectify. However, AI can

presiding officers carry in those environments.7

serve as a minutes-drafting aid when proper human

AIPSC2’s virtual-meeting rules also establish

oversight is used. If the secretary is allowed to submit

what a presiding officer must control in a virtual

AI-generated minutes to the assembly for adoption,

environment.8 Controlling the official record is part

and the president does not provide oversight, then

of that authority. An organization that has adopted

there is a breakdown in the governance of the

AIPSC2 but has not updated its bylaws to address

organization. Governance problems are solved in

AI-generated content has a gap between what

the bylaws and standing rules of order.

its parliamentary authority requires and what its

inadvertently

created

transcription governance

Virtual Meetings Made This Worse, and AIPSC2 Addressed It AI transcription tools are now everywhere and require minimal training to use. A novice secretary can save an AI transcript in seconds, assuming their duty of writing the minutes is completed. When a board meets on Zoom, someone hits “record.” When they meet on Teams, transcription is a menu option. AI summaries are generated automatically, shared to the chat, and forwarded to the secretary before the meeting even adjourns. The friction that used to exist between a meeting and an unofficial record of it has disappeared entirely. This situation occurred recently in a dental hygienist organization I belong to. The secretary relied only on the meeting transcript; she did not take notes of the meeting. A week or so later, we received a letter from the Executive Director asking if we remembered what had happened, with the assistance of the agenda. The COVID-19 pandemic normalized virtual and hybrid meetings. The American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, Second Edition, responded by adding explicit rules governing how virtual meetings

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

governing documents permit or prohibit. The gap of AI-generated minute accuracy is where liability lives, and the organization may not even realize it. If an organization has retained a parliamentarian and that parliamentarian has not made them aware of the AI-minutes risk, the parliamentarian shares responsibility for this failure. What Your Bylaws Actually Need to Say Fortunately, this problem is easily remedied. Three governance documents must address AI-generated meeting records before your organization uses AI creation tools. First, the bylaws must specify who holds the authority to produce the official minutes. Usually, that authority belongs to the secretary.9 If the secretary is using an AI tool as a drafting aid, the bylaws must be clear that the secretary, not the tool, is the official source. Any AI-generated content must be reviewed, edited, and authenticated by the secretary before it is presented for approval. Second, a standing rule or policy should be considered to define what AI assistance is permitted, at what stage in the process, and what disclosure is

required. A motion to approve minutes is a vote on

Notes:

whether those minutes accurately reflect what the

body decided. Members voting on AI-generated

minutes should know what they are approving. Finally, the minutes approval process must be treated as the substantive governance act it is. Boards that rubber-stamp AI-generated summaries because they

AIPSC (2nd ed.) 23.3 AIPSC (2nd ed.) 23.23 AIPSC (2nd ed.) 23.22

AIPSC (2nd ed.) 23.11

AIPSC (2nd ed.) 16.67

AIPSC (2nd ed.) 18.26

look tidy and complete are not fulfilling their duty.

The new chapter on presiding officer skill in AIPSC2

makes clear that the chair’s responsibilities include

ensuring that the business transacted is correctly

recorded. That responsibility does not end when 10

the secretary sends a file.

AIPSC (2nd ed.) 19.1-44 AIPSC (2nd ed.) 19.5 AIPSC (2nd ed.) 27.29 AIPSC (2nd ed.) 27.4

A Call to Action for Parliamentarians This is not a hypothetical risk. Organizations are already approving AI-generated minutes, using AI transcripts as their official record, and exposing themselves to challenges they do not know are coming. When a group’s minutes are challenged, the AI tool that generated them won’t be answering questions. The bylaws will have to stand the argument on its own. A credentialed parliamentarian, such as I, can work with an organization on a bylaws review and update specific to virtual meetings and electronic records, grounded in the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, Second Edition. A thorough analysis would include a review of the bylaws language, identification of gaps against AIPSC2’s virtual-meeting provisions, and proposed amendments ready for the assembly to adopt. Savvy organizations should settle for nothing less.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

RUNNING MEETINGS ON TIME: A PLAIN-ENGLISH GUIDE TO TIMED AGENDAS UNDER ROBERT’S RULES Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP Here’s a problem most boards know well: you spend

agenda is adopted. Mark them with an asterisk so

45 minutes on agenda item number two, and by the

that everyone sees what is intended. For example:

time you get to the budget vote — the reason half the room showed up — everyone is tired and you’re running late. A timed agenda fixes that. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised gives you the tools to make it stick. Two reasonably simple concepts do most of the work here: Special Orders and Orders of the Day.1 Special Orders: Locking in a Time Slot A Special Order is simply an agenda item with a guaranteed start time. When that time arrives, the meeting drops whatever it’s doing and moves to that item. No vote needed, no debate — it just happens. However, you don’t need (and shouldn’t use) Special Orders for everything. Save them for items where timing genuinely matters, such as budget votes or

Item

Time

Type

Call to Order/ Approve Minutes Treasurer & Committee Reports * Budget Amendment

7:00 PM

Regular

20 min

Regular

7:30 PM

Special Order

* Bylaw Revision

8:00 PM

Special Order

New Business/ 8:30 PM Adjourn

Regular

Items marked * are Special Orders. Everything else runs in order and flexes with the clock.

major financial decisions, bylaw or policy changes, a guest speaker who can’t stay all night, or anything with a legal or regulatory deadline. How to set it up At the start of your meeting, the chair presents the agenda for a vote. Any item that lists a specific clock time — “7:30 PM” rather than a duration like “15 minutes” — becomes a Special Order when the

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

Script: Adopting the agenda Chair: Are there any additions or corrections to the agenda? I’ll note that items marked with an asterisk—the Budget Amendment at 7:30 and the Bylaw Revision at 8:00—are proposed as Special Orders. If adopted, we will move to those items at those times regardless of where we are.

Member: I move the adoption of the agenda as proposed. Chair: Is there a second? [Second.] All in favor say Aye. [Ayes.] Those opposed say No. [Noes.] The agenda is adopted. Orders of the Day: The Enforcement Tool Adopting the agenda makes the plan. Orders of the Day makes it enforceable. When a Special Order’s time arrives and the meeting hasn’t moved to it, any member can simply say “I call for Orders of the Day.” That’s it — no second needed, no debate. The chair must act. The only way the board can stay on the current item is a two-thirds vote to set the schedule aside. In practice, a good chair watches the clock and does this proactively. But any member has the right to call it, which is what gives the timed agenda its teeth.

Script: The board votes to stay on current business Member A: I call for the Orders of the Day. Member B: I move to set aside the Orders of the Day. Chair: It’s 7:30 and the Budget Amendment is a Special Order. If the board wants to continue the current discussion, it requires a two-thirds vote in the negative to set aside the Orders of the Day. There is a motion to set aside the Orders of the Day. Is there a second? [Seconded] There is a second. The question is, “Shall the Orders of the Day be followed?” A vote in favor takes up the Budget Amendment, a vote in the negative continues the current discussion. The motion is not debatable. Shall the Orders of the Day be followed? Those in favor raise your hand. [pause, count only

Script: Chair enforces it proactively [It’s 7:30 PM. Discussion on reports is still going.] Chair: I need to pause us here—it’s 7:30 and we have a Special Order for the Budget Amendment. We’ll pick this up after. Let’s move to Item 3: the Budget Amendment.

if it appears to be necessary.] Those opposed raise your hand. [pause, count only if it appears to be necessary.] There are not 2/3 in the negative, and the Orders of the Day will be followed. The Special Order is the Budget Amendment. OR

Script: A member calls for it [It’s 7:35 and the chair hasn’t acted.]

are set aside and we will continue with the current debate.

Member: I call for Orders of the Day.

Conclusion: A Few Practical Notes

Chair: The member is right—we’re past 7:30 and

•

the Budget Amendment is a Special Order. We need to move to it now.

There are 2/3 in the negative, the Orders of the Day

Do not over-use Special Orders. Two or three per meeting is plenty. If everything is “special,” nothing is.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

•

A majority vote adopts the agenda at the start. But bypassing a Special Order mid-meeting requires two-thirds. That gap is what makes the schedule meaningful.

•

Distribute the agenda before the meeting so nobody is surprised when discussion gets interrupted. (Also, sending the agenda before the meeting is good practice even without special orders.)

•

The chair should give a “five minutes remaining” heads-up before a Special Order kicks in. It keeps things civil.

•

Build in a 10–15 minute buffer at the end of your agenda. Meetings run over, and it is always better to end early than to cut a vote short.

Notes: This essay’s advice is based on Robert’s Rules of

Order, Newly Revised, 12th Ed. §§18, 20, 41. For complex situations, always consult a credentialed parliamentarian.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

DEFAULT RULES/POSITIONS IN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS STANDARD CODE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE (AIPSC), SECOND EDITION Kenneth L. Reed, DMD, ATP, CP-T, PRP First presented on 1 June 2024, at the AIP Spring/East

organization, and each organization is free to deviate

Coast Virtual Practicum, this piece is a compilation

by developing standing rules of order.

of the default rules and positions established by the American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC) in its

Established electronic notice as a default permission,

Second Edition (which became effective January

unless prohibited by statute or the bylaws.

1, 2024). A significant feature of this edition is the

3.23 Discipline

introduction of default rules that apply automatically whenever an organization’s governing documents are silent on a given matter. These defaults span a wide range of topics, including electronic notice, discipline, bylaws amendments and interpretation, emergency procedures, and the election of multiple candidates to equal positions. The sections that follow are organized by AIPSC section number, with each entry summarizing the relevant default rule or position for quick reference. 0.4 Default Rules A major change is the addition of default rules when the organization’s governing documents are silent. Despite being stated that certain information “should be included” in the governing documents, it seldom was. These default rules will not suit every

0.6 Electronic Notice

The bylaws, when addressing discipline, should also address the situation where a member resigns from membership but does so with disciplinary charges pending and before the applicable disciplinary process has been completed. If the bylaws are silent, the board decides, by motion, whether the disciplinary process should continue. 4.27 Considering Amendments to Bylaws Proposals to amend the bylaws are an example of the Specific-Purpose Main Motion to Amend a Previous Action. Because of their unique proposition to change the bylaws, unlike the usual Motion to Amend a Previous Action, they require previous notice and a two-thirds vote for their adoption unless a different requirement is stated in the bylaws.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

4.38 Failure of Bylaws Revision

to be used similarly to the other words in the list.

The revision is considered first, and should the

9. When a list contains several specific items,

bylaws revision fail, separately noticed amendments

other similar items are intended to be excluded.

to the existing bylaws may be considered. If the revision is adopted, the existing bylaws have been replaced. Any separately noticed amendments may be considered if they can be easily adapted to the revised bylaws. 4.40 Ambiguous Provisions of Bylaws Some general rules to be considered when interpreting ambiguous provisions of bylaws or rules, often called canons of construction, include: 1. The purpose of interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the drafters of the ambiguous provision. 2. The bylaws (or rules) are to be read together as a whole and words used in one place in the bylaws should have a similar interpretation elsewhere in the bylaws (or rules). 3. Every clause or provision of the bylaws (or rules) should be given effect. 4. Weight should be given to the customary practice of the organization in carrying out the provision. 5. Words (other than legal or technical terms) are to be given their standard meanings, not a forced or artificial construction.

10. When general words follow specific words in a list, the general words are considered to cover items like those of the specific words. 11. A provision requiring something to be done implies

authority

and

reasonable

means

necessary to carry the action out. 12. A specific provision prevails over a general provision. 13. A mandatory provision prevails over a permissive provision. 14. An authorization for a greater action includes within it the power to take lesser included actions. 15. A prohibition of a lesser action prohibits any similar greater action. Penalty clauses, such as fines and disciplinary provisions, are to be interpreted narrowly. 4.41 Temporary and Standing Rules of Order Organizations sometimes adopt rules governing procedure and conduct in meetings that add to or deviate from the rules of parliamentary law as stated in their adopted parliamentary authority. The rules that are temporary and intended to meet a current

6. When legal or technical terms are used in the

or special situation are termed temporary rules.

bylaws in a technical sense, they are to be given

The rules that are intended to stand until revoked

their legal or technical meaning.

are termed standing rules of order. Temporary and

7. The bylaws or rules should not be construed to lead to an absurd or infeasible result. 8. If a word is included in a list, it is to be interpreted

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

standing rules of order cover meeting procedures and are of higher rank than those in the parliamentary authority.

4.58 Emergency Rules Every organization should have a set of procedures in place to allow the organization to continue

officers’ and directors’ terms. 7. If

vacancies

occur,

including

temporary

functioning, to the extent feasible, in case of

emergency-related vacancies, to fill those

emergency.

vacancies in a more expeditious manner than

4.60 Actions Outside the Standard Course During an Emergency Before any organization takes actions outside the standard course during an emergency, it should

otherwise provided in the bylaws. 8. Whether proxies or telephonic or electronic meetings should be permitted if otherwise prohibited by the bylaws.

check any applicable emergency statutes and

9. Whether to relocate the corporate office; how

executive orders to verify that the intended actions

the board and members are to be notified of

are authorized.

action taken outside the standard course during

4.62 Issues to Address in Emergency Bylaws 1. Who is to determine whether an emergency exists and is applicable to the organization and the criteria to use to make that decision, e.g., government emergency declaration or determination by the board or an officer; often board or officer determination is limited to the occurrence of certain circumstances, such as a quorum of the board being unable to meet. 2. When and by whom a meeting can be postponed or canceled, and rescheduled. 3. How and by whom notice of meetings, postponements, or cancellations are to be given. 4. Quorum requirements should be relaxed. 5. Whether the board should be delegated certain powers by the members, including amending the bylaws. 6. Whether to deviate from or add additional officers to the standard order of succession of

officers due to vacancy or incapacity; to extend

the emergency. 10. Whether and how soon after the emergency ends the standard procedures will resume in effect. 4.64 Purpose of the Rules It is important to note that the purpose of the rules is to serve the will of the organization and not to restrain it. When an organization’s adopted governing rule is impossible to carry out in the circumstances and this prevents the organization from functioning, the only thing that can be done is to change that provision to a reasonable one, complying, in making the change, with the spirit of the existing rules as nearly as possible. 5.49 Computing a Majority When Electing a Group When several offices of equal rank are being voted on simultaneously and require a majority vote, there are two requirements for election. The nominee must:

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

1. Receive a majority vote based on the total number of legal ballots cast for all the equal offices. AND 2. Rank among those candidates receiving the highest number of votes above the number required to elect, which is the total number of offices to be filled. 5.54 Computing a Majority When Electing a Group If the governing documents or standing rules of order are silent regarding electing multiple candidates to equal positions, this method is used instead of

6.53 Preferential Voting System The preferential voting system described below, often called Instant Runoff Voting, is the default for those organizations that use this parliamentary authority and that require preferential voting for single-position elections. In such an election, members mark their ballots to indicate their first, second, third, and subsequent choices among the candidates. 18.8 Beginning a Meeting No meeting may begin before the time stated in the notice or set by custom unless all members are present and consent.

others.

18.10 Special Meetings

6.10 No Formal Motion or Second

If the bylaws are silent or do not explicitly provide

The presiding officer may propose action by general consent without either a formal motion or second or may proceed by assuming general consent and

for other business to be conducted, only items of business specifically stated in the call of the meeting may be acted upon.

moving on with business at the meeting.

18.15 Cancel or Postpone a Meeting

6.42 Proxies

If a regular or special meeting has to be canceled

Proxies are not generally used in nonprofit organizations with active and engaged membership unless members have a financial interest in the organization, as with community property associations. Organizations that expect to use proxies should authorize that use in the bylaws and indicate whether the board or the members should adopt standing rules of order and procedures governing their use. To the extent that applicable statutes permit an organization to prohibit proxies by a rule outside the bylaws, they are prohibited in organizations adopting this parliamentary authority.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

or postponed, or the date, time, or location must be changed, the authority to do so and the process to do so must be stated in the bylaws. If the bylaws are silent on such provisions, the decision to cancel, postpone, or change the time or location of the meeting may be made by the body or person that originally called the meeting. If this is not possible, the board may make the decision, and if there is no board, a majority of the elected officers may do so. 18.26 Minutes of a Closed Meeting The minutes of a closed meeting are available only to current members of the body holding the meeting

unless the law or the bylaws require otherwise or the

the flexibility to alter a method of a meeting if

body holding the closed meeting votes to make its

circumstances require a change. For example, a

minutes available to others.

meeting organizer may recognize that a quorum may

18.29 Electronic Meeting Unless prohibited by the bylaws or any applicable statute, any meeting may be held as an electronic meeting, that is, by telephonic or electronic means,

not be achieved with a previously noticed in-person meeting, but if a virtual or hybrid meeting were an option, a quorum might be more easily obtained. 19.13 Venue of Meetings

or as a hybrid meeting, with some members grouped

If the venue where the meeting is to take place is

together in specific location(s) and with other

no longer available, this would not prevent the

members participating by telephonic or electronic

organization from conducting its business. If the

means.

meeting is noticed as an in-person meeting, there is

Electronic or hybrid meetings must have the same protections for the rights of members as other meetings, although the procedural rules associated with such meetings may differ. 18.34 Failure to Call Meetings If officers or directors fail to call a meeting in accordance with the organization’s governing documents, members may demand that they send a call to the membership. In the absence of guidance in the governing documents or applicable statute, this parliamentary authority provides that a group representing 10 percent of the membership or any two officers are allowed to call the meeting and designate the time and location if it can be demonstrated that those who are responsible have failed to call a meeting. 19.13 Notice of Meetings Notice requirements for electronic meetings are that a previously noticed in-person meeting can be changed to an electronic meeting if members receive the change in meeting method in a reasonable

no right to attend the meeting electronically; just as if the meeting is noticed as an electronic meeting, a member does not have the right to attend in person. The authority to call a meeting also includes the ability to determine or modify the method of meeting. 21.19 Consent Agenda An organization that includes a consent agenda in its standard order of business may adopt a standing rule of order to determine who shall establish the consent agenda. If there is no standing rule of order, it is prepared by the presiding officer in consultation with the secretary. Additionally, if the presiding officer or any member senses that the assembly could dispose of many items en bloc, such as multiple recommendations from a committee, the presiding officer or the member can propose that they be considered as a consent agenda. When this is proposed, any member may remove any item from the group of items for individual consideration, and the remainder are approved en bloc as outlined above.

time frame. This rule allows meeting organizers

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

21.22 Priority Agenda An organization that includes a priority agenda in

21.30 Reports of Governing Board, Standing Committees, and Special Committees

its standard order of business can adopt a standing

When there is a report of the board of directors

rule of order to determine who decides the business

or governing board, this report comes first. The

items to be placed on a proposed priority agenda

presiding officer calls on the chair of the board, then

and their sequence. It could be, for example, the

standing committees, and then special committees

president of the organization alone, the officers,

to report. Committees are called on in an order

the executive committee, a reference committee,

determined by the presiding officer when setting

or a special committee. If not otherwise provided,

the agenda, subject to amendment by the assembly.

it is the presiding officer in consultation with the

The vice president or secretary often presents for the

secretary. The assembly has final say on the priority

board when the president also serves as chair of the

items and can amend the priority agenda by majority

board. Written reports of committees are filed but

vote or by general consent.

not voted on, except when the organization’s rules

21.24 Disposition of Previous Meeting Minutes The first item of business is the review, correction,

require specific reports to be approved by vote. 21.32 Recommendations

and approval of the minutes of the previous meetings.

Unless otherwise provided by a standing rule of

If minutes have been sent to each member by mail

order, if an officer or committee also presents

or electronically, they usually are not read. The

recommendations, these are considered and voted

presiding officer must, however, call for corrections

on immediately after the relevant report. Some

to any minutes to be approved by the assembly.

organizations, however, adopt a rule requiring

Corrections can be handled by general consent, but,

such items to be considered under new business. In

in the case of a dispute, debate is permitted, and a

organizations receiving reports from staff, customs

majority vote is required to adopt a correction. After

or rules will determine the point in the order of

corrections, if any, the minutes can be adopted by

business for such reports.

general consent, or if in dispute, by a majority vote. 21.27 Reports of Officers Other than the president and the treasurer, officers only report if responsible for an area of the organization that has been active since the previous meeting. If not otherwise provided in the organization’s standard order of business, officers usually report in the order listed in the bylaws.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

21.41 New Business New Business is in order, even if not included as a category on an adopted agenda. 23.9 Access to Minutes Current members have access to all minutes of that body; however, once a member leaves the body, that individual no longer has the right to access

the minutes, even of the meetings that the member

to speak on their own behalf, even if not otherwise

attended.

members of the body. The rules of decorum in

23.17 Reading of the Minutes At the appropriate place in the order of business,

26.26 Nomination to More Than One Office

the presiding officer calls on the secretary to present

No member can hold two incompatible offices.

the proposed minutes. It is common practice for

Incompatibility not only consists of practical

organizations to distribute these draft minutes to

impossibility to perform the duties of both offices

the membership in electronic or written form prior

but also includes a conflict between the duties of the

to the meeting, and they are only read aloud in full

two offices.

if no copies are available to the assembly. Draft or proposed minutes should be clearly identified as such until approved. 25.15 Reference Committees

26.31 Nominating Committee Members as Candidates Members who are likely to become candidates should not serve on a nominating committee, but

The resolutions should be referred and thus assigned

members of the committee can become candidates.

to a reference committee within a few days after

If a member of the nominating committee wishes to

the deadline for their submission. Because these

be considered as a nominee or declares candidacy

assignments are made in accordance with the

for a position, the member must resign from the

adopted rules, the resolutions do not need to be

committee.

introduced on the floor of the assembly prior to their referral. 26.3 Bylaw Provisions on Nominations and Elections

26.36 Election Committee In organizations with an election committee, the tellers are usually members of the election committee or a subcommittee of the election committee. If

The bylaw provisions on elections should include

the rules are silent on a tellers committee, the

the time, place, and method of voting; the notice

presiding officer has the authority to appoint a tellers

required; a statement of who is eligible to vote; the

committee.

vote required to elect; the method of conducting the election; and the time when the new officers take office. If no time is designated for taking office, those elected take office at the adjournment of the meeting or convention at which elections occur. 26.13 Nominations If no other rules are provided, nominations are debatable by members, and candidates are allowed

debate apply and must be strictly enforced.

26.50 Votes Needed to Elect Unless specified otherwise in the bylaws or a higherlevel governing document, elections are conducted by ballot and require a majority vote for election. Specifically: •

A candidate who receives a majority of the legal votes cast for a single office is elected.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

•

A candidate who receives a plurality of the legal votes cast, but not a majority, is not elected unless there is a provision in the bylaws for election by plurality.

•

27.31 Secretary Resignation, etc. If the secretary resigns, is unable to act, or neglects to carry out the secretarial duties, the senior officer then in office may send out any necessary notices

When election to an office requires a majority

or may assign the duties of the secretary to one or

vote, the requirement for a majority vote cannot

more other members until the vacancy in the office

be waived.

of secretary is filled or the secretary resumes the

26.56 Contested Elections Contested elections may not be conducted by voice

duties of the office. 27.66 Filling a Vacancy

vote if this parliamentary authority is used. Elections

A vacancy is filled by the same authority that

may only be conducted by show of hands or rising if

selected the officer, or director, unless the bylaws

the organization’s bylaws authorize this. Neither of

provide otherwise. A special election may be called

the above is recommended.

to enable the members to fill a vacancy. In such a

26.65 Challenging an Election This parliamentary authority specifies a time limit of seven calendar days to register an election challenge after the results have been announced or officially

situation, the president or the board is authorized to assign the duties of the vacant office to others until the vacancy is filled. 33.15 Vote Required to Remove

posted to the membership, and that the challenge

If the law or bylaws are silent, the vote for removing

is to be resolved by the governing board of the

an officer, director, or elected committee member

organization in office at the time of the challenge.

is the same vote by which the position was filled,

No member of the governing board can vote on a challenge that has the potential of directly affecting

usually a majority vote, but in no case may it be less than a majority vote.

an office held by that member.

34.120 Majority Vote

27.21 The President-Elect

A vote that requires more than half of the votes in the

The president-elect assumes the duties of the president in case of the absence or temporary incapacity of the president and becomes president on the death, resignation, removal, or permanent incapacity of the president unless the bylaws provide differently. This succession cannot be declined. Following completion of that term, that person serves the term as president as originally elected.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

affirmative for a proposal to be adopted. By default, unless a different basis for determining the majority is specified, a majority vote means a majority of the legal votes cast. 34.229 Three-Fourths Vote A vote that requires three-fourths of the votes in the affirmative for a proposal to be adopted. By default, unless a different basis for determining three-fourths

is specified, the requirement is three-fourths of the legal votes cast. 34.231 Two-Thirds Vote A vote that requires two-thirds of the votes in the affirmative for a proposal to be adopted. By default, unless a different basis for determining two-thirds is specified, the requirement is two-thirds of legal votes cast.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

OPINION WHEN DOES A COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION NEED A SECOND? RECONCILING THE RULES FOR COMMITTEE REPORTS, MOTIONMAKING, AND SECONDS Question Presented: When a committee submits a recommendation requesting action to an assembly, under what circumstances must the recommendation be formally moved by a member of the assembly, and when does the resulting motion require a second? Framework for Determining When Committee

because the committee’s majority vote already

Support Eliminates the Need for a Second

supplies that assurance.1 Yet that principle does not

Questions

about

seconds

ordinarily

seem

elementary. In committee reporting, however, the answer turns on how the motion made pursuant to the recommendation reaches the assembly and who formally places it before the members. A committee’s approval may eliminate the need for a second, but it does not give a nonmember the right to make a motion. Reading RONR (12th ed.) 4:11 together with 51:11–12, 31, 34, and 36–37 yields a practical rule: first identify how the recommendation comes before the assembly, and then determine whether the usual requirement for a second applies. The Governing Principle

eliminate the separate requirement that a person who makes a motion in the assembly must be entitled to do so. The rules governing committee reports therefore determine whether the recommendation comes before the assembly automatically, is moved by an assembly member on behalf of the committee, is assumed by the chair, or must be introduced as an ordinary motion. Five Recurring Situations 1. A Referred Motion Returning to the Assembly When a pending motion was referred to a committee by the subsidiary motion to Commit or Refer, the motion returns in its proper place in the order of

RONR generally requires a second to show that at

business. No member must move it anew, and no

least two members wish the assembly to consider

second is required. The chair states the question

a motion. A motion made by direction of a duly

on the referred motion as part of bringing the

appointed committee ordinarily needs no second

committee’s report before the assembly.2 A

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

committee recommendation to adopt, reject, or take

is not an assembly member—the chair may, where

no action does not raise a new motion and therefore

appropriate, assume the motion and state it as the

seconds are not a consideration. The procedure

committee’s recommendation. Because the motion

when the committee recommends an amendment

is then presented on the committee’s authority rather

to the motion that was referred (or recommends an

than as an individual member’s proposal, no second

amendment to an amendment pending at the time

is required.6

of referral) or recommends indefinite or definite postponement on its own initiative, raises the question of who can make the motion to adopt the committee’s recommendation.3 In that case, the subsidiary motions to amend, postpone indefinitely, or postpone definitely are subject to the same constraints on who can make the motion (and thus whether a second applies in that situation) as applied in Scenarios 2 through 5 below. 2. A One-Person Committee

Chair Does Not Assume This is the most difficult case. Suppose a committee of two or more makes a recommendation arising from its own deliberations or from a referral by incidental main motion. No committee member is also a member of the assembly, or the person reporting is not an assembly member, and the chair does not assume the motion. An assembly member must then move the recommended action. On the

If a committee consists of only one person, its

better reading of the provisions together, that motion

recommendation cannot demonstrate support by

requires a second.7

at least two persons. When the recommendation originates in the committee internally or follows a referral made by incidental main motion, an assembly member must make the implementing motion, and the motion requires a second.4 3. A Committee Member Who Also Belongs to the Assembly

Why the Language in RONR 4:11 Is Narrower Than It First Appears Read in isolation, RONR (12th ed.) 4:11 may suggest that any recommendation approved by a committee of at least two persons is exempt from the requirement of a second. RONR (12th ed.) 51:11–12 supplies an important qualification: a nonmember of

When a committee of two or more recommends

the assembly cannot make a motion in the assembly.

action and a committee member who is also a

Thus, when a committee is composed entirely of

member of the assembly presents the report and

nonmembers, its internal vote does not by itself place

moves the recommendation, the motion needs

the recommendation before the assembly. Someone

no second. The committee’s vote has already

with the right to make a motion must do so, unless

established the requisite degree of support.5

the chair assumes the motion. And, consequently, a

4. A Recommendation Assumed by the Chair If no committee member is entitled to make the motion in the assembly—or if the reporting member

5. No Eligible Committee Member Moves, and the

second is also required. The specific reference in RONR (12th ed.) 4:11 to support from “at least two” elected or appointed

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

persons remains meaningful in a mixed committee.

second, but it does not confer membership rights

Consider a three-person committee consisting of

on a nonmember. The decisive question is therefore

one assembly member and two nonmembers. If the

not simply whether the committee approved the

two nonmembers support a recommendation and the

recommendation, but how—and by whom—

assembly member opposes it, the assembly member

the recommendation is formally brought before

may nevertheless report for the committee and move

the assembly. Because the interaction of these

its recommendation. In that event, no second is

provisions is easy to misread and has practical

required because the motion is made by a member of

consequences for presiding officers, it may merit

the assembly at the direction of a committee whose

a formal interpretation or clarifying treatment in a

majority has approved it. If the assembly member

future edition.

declines to make the motion and the chair does not assume it, however, another assembly member must introduce the proposal. In that case, the motion requires a second.

Submitted by: AIP Opinions Committee (Lucy H. Anderson, CPP-T, Chair; C. J. Cavin, CPP-T; Atul Kapur, CPP-T; Michael Malamut, CPP-T; Ann Rempel, CPP-T)

A Practical Decision Rule Before asking whether a second is required, the presiding officer should identify how the recommendation is being placed before the assembly. If the original motion is returning automatically after referral, no new motion or second is needed. If an assembly member who is also a committee member moves on behalf of a committee of two or more, no second is needed. If the chair assumes the committee’s motion, no second is needed. But if an ordinary assembly member—not acting as an eligible committee representative—must introduce the recommendation, the usual requirement for a

Notes: See RONR (12th ed.) 4:11.

See RONR (12th ed.) 51:11, 36–37.

See RONR (12th ed.) 12:77–78, 13:20, 51:44–51.

See RONR (12th ed.) 4:11, 50:1, 51:31, 34.

See RONR (12th ed.) 4:11, 51:11–12.

See RONR (12th ed.) 4:11, 51:11–12, 31, 34.

second applies. Conclusion The apparent tension between RONR (12th ed.) 4:11 and 51:11–12 is resolved by distinguishing committee authorization from eligibility to make a motion. A committee vote may eliminate the need to demonstrate additional support through a

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

BEARING WITNESS: REFLECTIONS ON AN AIP JOURNEY Robert M. Peskin, DDS, CP-T There is something about reaching the end of a long period of service that encourages reflection. After twelve years on the Board of Directors of the American Institute of Parliamentarians—two as a director, four as secretary, three as vice president, and three as president—I find myself looking back not simply at those years, but at the rather unlikely path that brought me to them. I did not set out to become a parliamentarian. My involvement in organized dentistry began while I was still a dental student and later intersected with my interest in dental anesthesiology. Somewhere along the way, I discovered that understanding the rules by which organizations govern themselves could make the difference between merely participating in an organization and understanding how to make a meaningful contribution. What began as a practical necessity gradually became an intellectual interest and, ultimately, an important part of my professional identity. My years in AIP have caused me to reflect upon how experiences in one organization can inform one’s work in another, how lessons learned years earlier can unexpectedly become relevant again, and what responsibility we assume when we become temporary stewards of institutions that existed before us and, hopefully, will continue to flourish

after our period of leadership has ended. Looking back, I have come to appreciate that

organizational

isolated.

Knowledge,

experiences relationships,

are

rarely

successes,

disappointments, and lessons travel with us from one setting to another. Sometimes their significance is apparent immediately; sometimes a lesson lies dormant for years before circumstances make it relevant again. Finding My Way into Organized Dentistry My introduction to organized dentistry came early. In July 1975, as a second-year dental student at the Stony Brook University School of Dental Medicine, I served as the student representative to the American Dental Association’s (ADA) Fourteenth Regional Conference in Hunt Valley, Maryland. I cannot pretend that, as a dental student, I appreciated the significance organized dentistry would eventually have in my professional life. I didn’t. I did realize, though, that I had been introduced to a professional world that extended well beyond dental school and clinical practice. That exposure continued after graduation, and the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology (ADSA) provided an early opportunity for deeper involvement in organized dentistry. What began

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

as professional affiliation eventually became

anesthesiology as a dental specialty. When ADSA

participation, then service, and ultimately leadership.

ultimately abandoned its efforts to pursue specialty

I was elected to the ADSA Board of Directors in 1988. In the years that followed, two experiences would prove particularly important to my parliamentary development, although for very different reasons. Learning Through Governance and Advocacy The first involved governance. I was given the opportunity to undertake a substantial rewrite of ADSA’s Constitution and Bylaws. The new governing documents, adopted in 1992, were my first serious attempt to translate an organization’s needs, traditions, and aspirations into rules that would actually govern it. It was an education. Writing bylaws forces one to think differently about organizations. Intentions have to become words, and words have consequences. A provision that seems straightforward when written may operate quite differently when applied to circumstances its authors never anticipated. In developing those bylaws, I wrestled with the question of what constitutes a majority when several identical positions are being filled simultaneously. My proposed solution proved too complex to gain acceptance, but my effort to work through the problem ultimately became the subject of my first submission to the Parliamentary Journal, “When a Majority Is Not So Simple,” published in 1996. More important to my journey, however, was the project itself. It was my first substantial experience writing governing documents. It would not be my last. The second experience taught a different lesson. It involved an issue of enormous importance to my manner of practice: recognition of dental

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

recognition, those of us who remained committed to it found another path through the American Society of Dentist Anesthesiologists (ASDA). I became involved as an advocate and contributing author to the first application for specialty recognition. Coincidentally, in 1992 I also began serving in the ADA House of Delegates, where the specialtyrecognition effort would ultimately be considered. When Substance Is Not Enough I knew the substantive arguments for specialty recognition. I had lived with them, helped develop them, and believed strongly in them. What I was beginning to understand, however, was that knowing the merits of one’s position and knowing how to navigate a deliberative assembly to bring others to embrace that position are two very different things. The 1994 House debate was particularly consequential for me. Specialty recognition was contentious, and our efforts faced formidable opposition. The experience impressed upon me that a sound substantive argument does not somehow exist apart from the process through which an organization

considers

it.

Substance

matters

enormously, but process determines how substance reaches a decision. Our first application failed, but the effort continued. By 1997, what had been a decisive defeat three years earlier came within six votes of succeeding. That experience reinforced something I was gradually coming to understand: effective advocacy required more than command of the underlying issue. It also required an understanding of the deliberative process through which the issue would be decided—

and of the organizational dynamics that shaped the

House found a procedural means of addressing the

outcome.

immediate problem. What stayed with me, however,

My interest in parliamentary procedure therefore evolved incrementally rather than from a single event. Experiences in the ADA House, my work with governing documents, and the organizational responsibilities

was

assuming

of a new edition of the parliamentary authority had effectively changed the rules governing the organization between meetings of its House.

increasingly

I never forgot it. More than twenty years later, in

convinced me that I wanted to develop a deeper

conversations with members of the authorship team

understanding of the discipline. That eventually led

for the second edition of the American Institute of

me to what was then AIP’s East Coast Practicum at

Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary

the College of William & Mary. There, I encountered

Procedure (AIPSC-2), the question arose as to when

teachers and parliamentarians who helped transform

the new edition should become effective. I almost

parliamentary procedure for me from a collection of

immediately thought back to what had occurred in

rules into a discipline.

the ADA House in 2001. AIPSC-2 was released in

A Lesson That Waited More Than Twenty Years One experience in the ADA House of Delegates remained with me for reasons I could not have anticipated at the time. In 2001, the fourth edition of Alice Sturgis’s The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure was published between annual meetings of the ADA House. The ADA Bylaws designated the “current edition” as its parliamentary authority. The new edition contained a provision concerning the scope of advance notice that had not appeared previously and immediately affected the way the House determined annual membership dues. Traditionally, the dues amount adopted by the House remained in the Bylaws until amended at the next annual meeting. A proposed amendment establishing the following year’s dues was subject to adjustment as the House adopted resolutions with financial implications. The new scope-ofnotice provision suddenly restricted the extent to which that proposed amount could be amended. The

was the circumstance that had created it: publication

September 2023 with an effective date of January 1, 2024. It was the first time I can recall any parliamentary authority deliberately separating its release date from its effective date for precisely these reasons. That interval gave organizations whose governing documents incorporated the current edition an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the new edition before its provisions became operative. It also gave both organizations citing AIPSC as their parliamentary authority and those parliamentarians advising them in its use time to study those changes before being called upon to interpret and apply them. For me, the connection between those events, separated by more than two decades, illustrates something I have come to value increasingly: experience has a remarkably long shelf life. A lesson acquired in one organization may lie dormant for years before becoming relevant in another. Shortly after the publication of AIPSC-2, I had another opportunity to see those worlds intersect.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

At my suggestion, immediately prior to the 2023

to understand that parliamentary procedure was

ADA House of Delegates Annual Session, members

not simply something I used in my organizational

of the AIPSC-2 authorship team addressed speakers

work. It had become part of the way I thought about

and parliamentarians from ADA constituent dental

organizations themselves.

societies across the country regarding significant changes incorporated into the second edition. Having been elected AIP president only a few months earlier, I took particular pride in introducing my AIP colleagues to a group with whom I had worked for many years. My interest in parliamentary procedure had been shaped in no small measure by experiences in organized dentistry; now, as AIP president, I was helping bring the work of AIP back into that same world. Governance Is More Than Words on a Page

Becoming Credentialed—and Remaining a Student Practical experience, however, is not the same as mastery. In 2012, as I contemplated seeking the office of ADA speaker, I deliberately stepped away from advocacy for another application for specialty recognition. I had been closely associated with that effort for many years, but believed that seeking an office whose effectiveness depends upon impartiality required a different posture. During a conversation about my candidacy, the then speaker of the ADA House suggested that earning AIP’s CERTIFIED

Between those experiences came another important

PARLIAMENTARIAN® credential would be

chapter in my parliamentary development. My

an important qualification for someone seeking

involvement with what is now the New York State

the office. It seemed a logical next step, although

Dental Association (NYSDA) began in the mid-

it proved considerably less straightforward than I

1980s and deepened over the years. By 2007–2008,

anticipated.

an unexpected confluence of events provided me with the opportunity—and responsibility—to draft a new Constitution and Bylaws for the association. I approached that task very differently than I had the ADSA project years earlier. I had more organizational experience, more parliamentary education, and a much greater appreciation for the consequences of language. The resulting documents did more than modernize the association’s governing structure. They created a House of Delegates and the office of speaker of the House.

first

attempted

PARLIAMENTARIAN

the ®

CERTIFIED

examination in 2012.

I did not pass. I tried again in 2018, with the same result. They say the third time’s the charm, but not so for me in 2019. I finally earned my CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN® credential in 2021 and qualified for the CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® designation (-T) in February 2025. I include the unsuccessful attempts because they are part of the story. Credentials should mean something. A meaningful

When the new structure took effect, I was elected

credential is not diminished because capable people

NYSDA’s first speaker, serving from 2009 through

sometimes fail to earn it on their first attempt; quite

2015 and, in that capacity, as parliamentarian to

the opposite. The rigor of the process is part of what

its Board of Trustees. By then, I was beginning

gives the credential its value.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

Earning the CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN®

conditions in which other people can do their best

credential and later qualifying for the -TEACHER®

work. That last lesson may have been the most

credential were important milestones for me, but I

important.

do not regard them as the end of my parliamentary journey. One of the attractions of this discipline is that there is always another level of understanding to pursue and another opportunity to test what we think we know. Perhaps nowhere has that opportunity been more evident than in my service as speaker of the Academy of General Dentistry (AGD) House of Delegates, a position to which I was elected four months after earning the CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN® credential. This November, I will preside over my fifth AGD House, where the practical demands of presiding continue to challenge me to draw upon parliamentary knowledge, preparation, and judgment. Twelve Years Around the Board Table When I joined the AIP Board of Directors, I could not have anticipated that I would spend the next twelve years serving successively as director, secretary, vice president, and president. Each office provided a different perspective on the same organization. A director learns the work of the organization’s governance. A secretary develops an appreciation for precision, the importance of an accurate institutional record, and the need to capture not simply what was discussed but what was actually decided—particularly in an organization composed of parliamentarians who, by their nature, tend to be rather particular about such things. A vice president begins to see the organization increasingly

greatest resource has always been the knowledge, commitment, and generosity of its members. Presidents come and go. Board members rotate. Committees change. The accumulated expertise and willingness to serve within the membership give the organization its continuity. The role of leadership, therefore, is not to make an organization dependent upon its leaders. It is to leave the organization better positioned for those who follow. That lesson was not unique to AIP; it transcended any particular organization

and

was

reinforced

repeatedly

throughout my years of organizational leadership. Education and the Purpose of AIP If I were asked to identify AIP’s central purpose in a single word, I would choose education. Everything else flows from it. During my years on the Board, and particularly during my presidency, I watched AIP expand the ways in which it pursued that mission. Traditional educational programs remained important, but the environment in which professional organizations operate was changing. Members increasingly expected learning opportunities to be available not only at a particular meeting in a particular city, but throughout the year and in forms that accommodated different schedules and different ways of learning, something particularly important during the COVID

through the lens of continuity and succession. And

era and the years that followed.

a president discovers that leadership is considerably

The development of AIP’s Learning Center, the

less about issuing direction than about creating the

AIP is fundamentally a volunteer organization. Its

continued evolution of our Practicums, the hybrid

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

format of our Annual Sessions, virtual presiding

without acknowledging that organizations are

programs, the Learning Series, and New Member

ultimately collections of people; indeed, AIP

Orientation

that

represents a remarkable canvas—an eclectic mix

commitment. The particular programs matter less,

of individuals from widely diverse backgrounds

however, than the principle they represent. An

who share a common passion for process. Over

educational organization must remain responsive

the years, I have had the privilege of learning from

to how people learn, adapting the ways in which

extraordinary parliamentarians—some as teachers,

it delivers education without losing sight of what

some as colleagues, some as friends, and often as

it is there to teach. Importantly, AIP’s educational

all three.

were

all

manifestations

mission extends beyond its own membership and beyond those who seek its credentials. Its programs provide opportunities for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of parliamentary procedure, whether or not an AIP credential is their ultimate objective.

Like many volunteer organizations, AIP relies heavily upon a relatively small cadre of members who step forward again and again. The willingness of these members to serve provides an extraordinary measure of continuity and institutional strength, but it also presents a challenge: an organization must

For those who do pursue credentialing, however,

continually work to develop others who are prepared

education

closely

to assume those responsibilities. The contributions

intertwined. AIP’s credentials represent rigorous

of this dedicated group of volunteers are hardly

standards

aspire,

invisible; indeed, many are among the most familiar

PROFESSIONAL

names in the organization. But familiarity should

credential representing

not cause us to take their service for granted. The

the pinnacle of accomplishment. Protecting the

same people who teach our programs often serve

integrity, value, and recognition of those credentials

on our committees, develop educational materials,

is not peripheral to AIP’s educational mission; it is

administer examinations, write for our publications,

an integral part of it.

mentor newer members, organize meetings, and

with

the

and to

assessment which

members

CERTIFIED

PARLIAMENTARIAN

become

may

The challenge for AIP is to preserve rigor without becoming static—to respect the standards that

accept still another assignment because the work needs to be done.

give its credentials meaning while continuing to

Such commitment is one of AIP’s great strengths.

adapt how education, assessment, and recognition

The challenge is to broaden participation in that

can best serve both our members and the broader

work. An organization is strongest when experienced

parliamentary community. That work, appropriately,

members continue to contribute while new members

continues.

are given meaningful opportunities to become the

The People Who Make It Work No reflection on an AIP journey would be complete

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

people upon whom others will someday depend. Leadership may get the microphone, but service sustains the organization. I leave the presidency

with enormous gratitude for those who performed that service during my tenure and for those who did it long before I arrived. Bearing Witness After twelve years on the AIP Board, I have increasingly thought of my role as one of bearing

The conclusion of my service as AIP president provides a natural opportunity to look backward, but I do not regard it as a conclusion to either my involvement with AIP or my journey in organizational leadership.

witness—watching AIP evolve. I have seen it

I continue to serve in leadership elsewhere,

embrace new methods of education while preserving

just as I expect to remain engaged with AIP in

the importance of serious parliamentary study. I have

a different capacity. The lessons I have carried

watched credentialing become more sophisticated

from one organization to another throughout my

and personally experienced its rigor. I have watched

professional life will continue to inform whatever

new leaders emerge, new members become

responsibilities come next. Perhaps that is the most

engaged, and ideas that once seemed improbable

enduring lesson of this journey. Leadership is not

become ordinary parts of organizational life. I have

defined by a particular office, title, or term. Each

also witnessed the constancy beneath those changes.

experience prepares us, sometimes unexpectedly,

AIP still exists because its members believe deliberative assemblies matter. We believe rules should protect participation rather than frustrate it; that majorities should be able to decide while

for the next. We take with us what we have learned, leave behind what we can contribute, and continue to grow through the organizations and people we are privileged to serve.

minorities retain the right to be heard; that officers

There is always a temptation at the conclusion

exercise authority entrusted to them rather than

of a presidency to take inventory: What did we

authority inherent in their titles; and that organizations

accomplish? What remains unfinished? What might

function best when their members understand both

we have done differently? Those are worthwhile

their rights and their responsibilities.

questions. But I have come to believe there is a

Those principles may sound abstract. They are not. Parliamentary procedure cannot make people agree. It was never intended to. What it can do is provide a structure within which people who disagree can nevertheless deliberate, decide, and continue to function together afterward. That is no small contribution.

What Comes Next

better one: Is the organization stronger than we found it? No president can answer that question alone, and certainly not immediately. The answer emerges over time. I hope AIP is stronger because of the collective work undertaken during the years I was privileged to serve on its Board. But I also know that much

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

remains to be done. That is not evidence of failure.

beside me while I pursued the many professional

It is the nature of institutional stewardship. Healthy

and organizational commitments chronicled in these

organizations are never finished. They are passed

pages. Her patience, encouragement, and willingness

from one group of caretakers to another.

to share me with those commitments made possible

I began this journey as a dental student who could not possibly have anticipated where an early exposure to organized dentistry might lead. Along

far more than I have ever adequately acknowledged. For that, and for so much more, I remain profoundly grateful.

the way, parliamentary procedure became a means of understanding something much larger: how people organize themselves to accomplish things together. The rules matter. Words matter. History matters. Institutional memory matters. But people matter most. Acknowledgment No reflection on a journey spanning so many years would be complete without acknowledging my wife, Loretta. For more than forty years, she has stood

Do You Have a Paliamentary Procedure Question? The Opinions Committee provides AIP members with parliamentary guidance by responding to written requests for advice. Members are encouraged to submit their parliamentary questions to the committee for consideration and response to Opinions@aipparl.org. AIP Opinions Committee:

Michael Malamut, J.D., CPP-T, PRP

Lucy Hicks Anderson, JD, CPP-T, PRP, Chair

Ann Rempel, CPP-T, PRP

C. J. Cavin, J.D., CPP-T, PRP Atul Kapur, M.D., CPP-T, PRP

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

CONTRIBUTORS C.J. Cavin, Esq., CPP-T, PRP C. J. Cavin is a licensed Oklahoma attorney and holder of the CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® and PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIAN credentials.

Valoree Althoff, CPP-T, PRP Valoree Althoff, Vice-President of the American Association of Parliamentarians, is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian with the National Association of Parliamentarians, and holds the credential of CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® with the American Institute of Parliamentarians. She has served various organizations for services including a convention parliamentarian, presiding, workshop presenter, and bylaws revisions to name a few. Contact: althoffparliamentarian@gmail.com

Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP Kay Allison Crews is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian with the National Association of Parliamentarians, and holds the credential of CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL PARLIAMENTARIANTEACHER® with the American Institute of Parliamentarians. She is the Accrediting Director of the AIP, as well as a past president. She was also Project Manager for the authorship team that edited the current, second edition of the AIPSC. In 2020, Kay was chosen as the Chair of the Joint Committee on the Review of the Code of Ethics, a committee populated by professional parliamentarians representing both the National Association of Parliamentarians and AIP. That Committee drafted and adopted the Joint Code of Professional Responsibility, which is used by all members of professional parliamentary associations. Kay is routinely hired as a parliamentarian, but she also provides services as a professional presiding officer, recording secretary, and teller. Outside of meetings, she provides parliamentary opinions, script-writing and bylaws-writing services.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

Robert M. Peskin, DDS, CP-T Robert M. Peskin, DDS, holds the credential of CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® and is the immediate past president of the American Institute of Parliamentarians. He is currently Speaker of the House of Delegates of the Academy of General Dentistry and has been active in organized dentistry for more than five decades. A dentist anesthesiologist and general dentist, he maintains a private practice in New York and teaches at the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, where he is a Clinical Associate Professor. He also serves as a Clinical Associate Professor at Stony Brook University School of Dental Medicine.

Beverly Przybylski, CP, PRP Beverly Przybylski is a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) and the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP). A past president of the Oregon Association of Parliamentarians (OAP), she now serves as their treasurer. She also serves as president of the Rose City Unit of Parliamentarians (RCU). As an affiliate member of the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians (WSAP), Beverly serves on the board of directors as the Member-at-Large Representative. Beverly is presently serving as NP Assistant Editor and as a member of the NAP Communications Committee.

Kenneth L. Reed, DMD, ATP, PRP, CP-T Dr. Reed is a practicing dentist anesthesiologist and is the program director for the dental anesthesiology residency at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Dental Medicine. He holds the credential of CERTIFIED PARLIAMENTARIAN-TEACHER® from AIP and is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian with the NAP. Dr. Reed serves as the President of the American Dental Board of Anesthesiology (ADBA) and is a Past President of the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology (ADSA). He is a former member of the Board of Directors for AIP.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS

By the submission of material the author grants AIP

Parliamentary Journal uses The Chicago Manual

permission to publish that material in any form.

of Style, 17th Edition as the guide for preparation

Material proposed for publication may be submitted

of manuscripts. The deadline for submission of

by e-mail to PJ@AIPparl.org. A short biographical

articles for the December 2026 issue is Monday,

note should accompany each submission.

30 November 2026.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026

“fair use,” but for any copying beyond fair use,

the American Institute of Parliamentarians; all

permission must be obtained from the Parliamentary

rights reserved. Brief portions of material in this

Journal Editor and, in appropriate cases, from the

publication may be copied and quoted without

individual author or authors of the materials in

further permission, with the understanding that

question.

appropriate indication of the source of the excerpt will be included in such copying. Single copies of the material in this publication for the use of scholars in their scholarly research, and a reasonable number of copies for classroom use by teachers within a few days after copying, may be made without further permission if (a) such work is not for profit and does not involve republication of the material in another work, (b) appropriate credit is given to the author or authors of the material and to this publication, and

The Parliamentary Journal is published online in April, August, and December by the American Institute of Parliamentarians. The opinions expressed in the Parliamentary Journal are the opinions of the authors of the articles and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Editor or of the American Institute of Parliamentarians. Copyright ©2026 by the American Institute of Parliamentarians

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 | Fall 2026