Parliamentary Journal August 2025

PARLIAMENTARY JOURNAL VOLUME LXVI, NO. 2 AUGUST 2025

LIBBY WILLIS, PRP, EDITOR 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

3

Notes from the Editor Libby Willis, PRP

4

AIP President’s Writing Award

5

Origins of Parliamentary Terms Dominic Holzhaus, CP, RP

6

AIPSC2 in Motion! A Comparative Analysis of Motions from the Original AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure to the Second Edition (Part 1) 11 Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP

2

Opinion 2025-690: Voting by Ballot on Filling a Blank

15

Opinion 2025-691: Taking an Item From a Committee that was Not Originally Referred

17

Information for Authors

19

Copyright Information

20

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRS President Robert M. Peskin, DDS, CP-T President@aipparl.org

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

Vice President Atul Kapur, MD, MSc., CPP-T, PRP VP@aipparl.org

Parliamentarian Lucy Anderson, CPP-T, PRP

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

OTHER OFFICIALS Parliamentary Journal Editor Libby Willis, PRP PJ@aipparl.org

Treasurer Daniel Ivey-Soto, CP-T, 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

Chairman, Opinions Committee Atul Kapur, MD, CPP-T, PRP Opinions@aipparl.org The Communicator Editor David Jackson, DHSc, PA-C, CP-T, PRP 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. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

3

NOTES FROM THE EDITOR This issue of the Parliamentary Journal is a compendium of the best of the past and a continuing analysis of the new. These articles highlight a truism of the parliamentarian’s profession: parliamentarians must have an understanding of the historical roots of parliamentary procedure while at the same time being knowledgeable about the very latest in parliamentary procedure authorities and practice.

Sometimes it is worthwhile to have another look at the very best of the past. Such is the case with the review of the origins of parliamentary terms by Dominic Holzhaus, CP, RP for the October 2012 Parliamentary Journal (Volume LIII, No. 4) reprinted here. Holzhaus’ article is one of those you will want to keep always at hand. The piece is fascinating and provides many “Ah, Ha!” moments.

In her continuing series on AIPSC2, Kay Crews, CPP-T, PRP provides an exceedingly helpful comparative analysis of motions in the orginal AIP Standard Code with the second edition. This is Part 1 so you may look forward to the next part coming soon!

As always, we are grateful for the Opinions provided by the AIP Opinions Committee chaired by Atul Kapur, MD, MSc., CPP-T, PRP. “Voting by Ballot on Filling a Blank” and “Taking an Item From a Committee that was not Originally Referred” provide practical advice for the times a parliamentarian encounters these issues.

We continue to seek your articles on parliamentary procedure, parliamentary law, and parliamentary education. The deadline for receipt of submissions for the December 2025 issue is Monday, November 3 at 5 p.m. Please write about what you have observed and practiced in any of our 3 areas of interest. The Parliamentary Journal wants to share your knowledge and experiences.

Libby Willis, PRP, Editor

4

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

The 2025 AIP President’s Writing Award Committee is pleased to recognize the winning author and article for the 2025 President’s Writing Award:

Laura Meade, CPP, PRP Leadership Styles in a Democratic Organization Published in Vol. LXV, No. 2, August 2024 issue of the Parliamentary Journal

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

5

ORIGINS OF PARLIAMENTARY TERMS Dominic Holzhaus, CP, RP Parliamentary law developed over thousands of

Many Latin parliamentary terms are simply literal

years, with each successive culture borrowing

borrowings; pro tem (for a time), ex officio (out of,

and adapting to suit its needs. This rich history is

or due to, holding office), and quorum (of whom).

preserved in the parliamentary terms we use today.

Demeter explains that quorum came from the

The earliest explicit references to parlaimentary law date from the era of Greek city-states more

England:

than 2,500 years ago.1 The Greeks developed many

“We have hereby assigned you, and others as well,

familiar parliamentary procedures, including voice

quorum unum esse volumus [of whom it is our wish

vote and reconsideration but suprisingly few terms

that you be one] . . . .” 7

,2

of Greek origin survive. One notable exception is ballot which comes from the Greek word ballo (to throw) and the Greek voting practice of casting a marble ball, pebble or shell into a box or urn to express a vote.3 This practice was still common in Eighteenth Century England where club members cast a white ball in favor or granting membershp and a black ball against, giving rise to the expression “blackballing,” meaning excluding or shunning.4 In the early centuries A.D., the Romans adapted Greek governance traditions to their own needs and

But some of the Latin terms have a less direct derivation. Proxy is “short for ‘procuracy,’ from the Latin procuro (to attend to, to care for).”8 The word procure comes from the same root.9 A proxy in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), is a power of attorney allowing one person to “take care of” voting on behalf of another.10 Expunge literally means to “poke out”: to indicate that a soldier had retired from service, the Romans made a series of dots or points beneath his name on

spread them throught the Roman Empire.5

the service lists.11 Similarly, if a motion to rescind and

Latin remained the dominant language of European

draws a line “through or around the offending words

civilization “almost exclusively until 1250, and

in the minutes, and writes across them the words,

predominantly and influentially for another 500 years

“Rescinded and Ordered Expunged.”12

thereafter.”6 Latin derivatives are thus common in the argot of many professionals, including doctors, lawyers, and parliamentarians.

6

certificate used to appoint justices of the peace in

expunge from the minutes is adopted, the secretary

Just as the Romans eclipsed the Greeks, the Germans eclipsed the Romans:

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

“The political control of western Europe was

of this compound term has left many other traces of

thoroughly and permanently overturned by the

Anglo-Saxon tribes:

invasions of German speakers in the early fifth century.

Within a single generation Franks and

Saxons, Goths and Vandals, surged westward and southward to master France, Britain, Italy, Spain, and even north Africa. Yet remarkably, Latin was displaced in only one of these provinces, Britain, and the conquerors largely took up the language of

“Among the most notable evidences of the extensive Scandinavian settlement in England is the large number of place names that bear Scandinavian names. When we find more than 600 places like Grimsby, Whitby, Derby, Rugby, and Thoresby, with names ending in -by, nearly all of them in the district

their subjects.”13

occupied by the Danes, we have a striking evidence

Our word germane makes a connection between

For these names all contain the Danish word by,

the Romans and Germans. It comes from the Latin

meaning ‘farm’ or ‘town,’ a word that is also seen in

germanus (literally, having the same parents.)

our word by-law (town law.)20

of the number of Danes who settled in England.

14

The Roman name for the profusion of Germanic tribes was germani (related ones) giving rise to the collective term Germans.15

Parliamentary

authorities typically, and appropriately, use the word

The meaning of bylaw has been fairly stable for 1,000 years. In Old English (spanning the years 450-1150 A.D.),(21) burglagu meant “civil law.”22 In Middle

related to define the concept of germaneness.16

English (1150-1349), bylaw denoted an “ordinance

RONR traces the origin of the American tradition

English (1350-1469), it meant “a regulation made

of parliamentary process to “ways of life in Anglo-

by a local authority or corporation.”24 In the mid-

Saxon tribes before their migration to the island of

sixteenth century, it meant “a secondary, subordinate

Britain starting in the fifth century A.D.”

Because

or accessory law.”25 In contemporary parliamentary

Britain was the only Roman province where Latin

law, bylaws are “basic rules” of an organization,

was displaced by Germanic languages, including

but they are still secondary and subordinate to

English, many of these Anglo-Saxon terms have

legislation, charters, and constitutions.”26

17

been preserved. A good example is the term bylaws:

made by common consent.”23

In Late Middle

An Anglo-Saxon mot or moot was, as RONR

“From analogy with the customs of other Gernanic

mentions, “a deliberative assembly.”27 It is the source

tribes, it is supposed that freemen were accusomed to

of the modern expression moot point (a debatable

come together in the “Village-moot,” to make “bye-

question).28 A moot point is often mistakenly called

laws” for their village and to administer justice.”18

a “mute point” but mute is derived from the Latin

Merriam-Webster lists the etymology for bylaw as Middle English bilawe, probably from Old Norse bylog, from byr (town) and log (law). The first part

mutus (speechless).29 Thus moot and mute have almost opposite connotations — debatable versus speechless.

19

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

7

The Norman Conquest of 1066 resulted in French administration of Anglo-Saxon Britain, and “had a greater effect on the English language than any other [event] in the course of its history.”30 The impact on legal and parliamentary terminology was no less dramatic. One need look no further than the word parliamentary itself, which comes from the French

Riddick comes closest to the etymologies of these words. Debate comes from Old French debatre (de - down + batre - beat) meaning beat down or batter.38 Discuss comes from Latin discutere (from dis - apart + quatere - shake) meaning shake

word parler (to talk).31

apart or disperse.39 Deliberate comes from Latin

To ease the transition to French rule, pairs of words

weigh carefully.40

were often coupled to ensure that both the Anglo-

debate involves beating down the other side with

Saxons and their new French overlords understood

persuasive argument, discussion aims at teasing or

legal and administrative procedure:

shaking apart the issues, and deliberation involves a

deliberare (from de - from + libra - scales) meaning

will and

testament; lands and tenements; give and grant; breaking and entering. In each case, the first word has Anglo-Saxon roots.32 These doublets are still widely used in legal documents today although the ironic effect is sometimes to make them unduly

So, at least etymologically,

careful weighing of the arguments.

More than 500 years after the Norman Conquest, British colonies in the New World adapted the rules of the House of Commons for their legislative

verbose and hence less understandable.

assemblies,41 and in 1801, Thomas Jefferson

English has a wealth of synonyms, often with

based on British parliamentary procedure.42 Perhaps

interesting nuances of meaning related to their

the most profound early American innovation was

origins in different root words and languages. RONR

the requirement of a majority in elections where

defines debate as discussion of a pending question

the English used a plurality.43 Some terms acquired

by a deliberative assembly.33

The American

almost inverse meanings. Table in the U.S. refers

Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of

to interruption of consideration of a question; in

Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC) similarly defines

Britain, it refers to introduction of a new question.44

debate as formal discussion of a motion or proposal,34

Previous question in the U.S. usage requires that a

but uses the terms more loosely and interchangeably

question be put immediately to a vote; in England

— “Full and free discussion of every proposition

it was like our motion to postpone indefinitely (that

presented for decision is an established right of

the “question be not now put.”)45

members.”35

Cannon is looser still:

published his Manual of Parliamentary Practice,

“the three

terms ‘debate,’ ‘deliberation,’ and ‘consideration’ are interchangeable.”36 Riddick describes debate as a clash of ideas, “intentional thinking” appropriate for a general meeting, while discussion is “reflective

8

thinking,” appropriate for committees.37

Americans have also added to the parliamentary lexicon. Caucus, a meeting of delegates or partisans of a particular position,46 may be from the nativeAmerican Algonquian cau’- cau’ -as’u (adviser),47 but its derivation is uncertain.48 Whatever its origin,

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

Notes

caucus has an interesting history.

According to H.L. Mencken, the word “was in general use in the American colonies by the Revolution, but not until 1878 did it come into general use in England, and then, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), it was ‘grossly misapplied.’ In the United States it had the settled meaning of a meeting of some division, large or small, of a political or legislative body for the purpose of agreeing upon a united course of action in the main assembly, but in England it was applied to what we would call the organization. [It took on the “disparaging” connotation of a “machine politician.”]49

Patnode, Darwin, A History of Parliamentary

1

Procedure, p. 2. West Conshocken, PA: Infinity Publishing, 2006; Robert, Henry M., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 11th Edition, p. xxx. Eds. Sarah Corbin Robert, Henry M. Robert, III, William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2011.

RONR, pp. xxx-i; Patnode, p. 5-6.

2

Demeter,

3

George,

Demeter’s

Manual

of

Parliamentary Law and Procedure, Revised Edition, P. 309. Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1960; Patnode, p. 4.

Hendrickson, Robert, Word and Phrase Origins,

4

The OED lists the neutral senses of caucus as

3rd Edition, p. 78. New York: Checkmark Books,

a “committee of members of a political party,”

2004.

but also the “frequently derogatory” sense of “a

5

secret meeting of a group active within a larger organization or party.”50

Biography of Latin, p. 101-4. New York: Walker & Co., 2007.

Parliamentary law has a solid foundation in ancient traditions of deliberation and governance.

The

evidence of these traditions is still embedded in the terms of modern parliamentary procedure. The history of these terms illustrates another strength of parliamentary law:

Patnode, pp. 8-12; Ostler, Nicholas, Ad Infinitum, A

its demonstrated ability to

adjust to new demands and different contexts over thousands of years.

Ostler, p. 3.

6

Demeter, p. 152.

7

Demeter, p. 33.

8

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th

9

Edition, P. 927. Springfield, Massachusetts, 2000.

RONR, p. 428.

10

Merriam-Webster, p. 410; Shorter Oxford English

11

This article originally appeared in the October 2012 Parliamentary Journal (Volume LIII, No. 4). At the time, Dominic Holzhaus was the principal attorney for the Port of Long Beach. He provides legal and parliamentary advice to its five-member Board of Harbor Commssioners.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

Dictionary on Historical Principles (OED), 5th Edition, p. 899. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

12

RONR, p. 310.

Ostler, p. 128.

13

9

Merriam-Webster, p. 488; OED, p. 1089.

New York: The Overlook Press, 2004.

OED, p. 1089; Merriam-Webster, p. 488.

33

14

RONR, p. 385.

15

RONR,

16

p.

131;

American

Institute

of

Parliamentarians, Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC), p. 52. Eds. Alice Sturgis et al.

New York: McGraw Hill, 2012; Demeter, p. 70.

RONR, p. xxxi.

17

AIPSC, p. 303.

34

AIPSC, p. 9.

35

. Cannon, Hugh, Cannon’s Concise Guide to Rules

36

of Order, p. 6. Lincoln, NE: Authors Choice Press, 2001.

Ibid; Demeter, pl 216.

37

Merriam-Webster, p. 157.

p. 71. Ed. Miriam H. Butcher. New York: Scribner,

18

19

Baugh, Albert C., and Cable, Thomas, A History of

20

the English Language, 5th Edition, p. 98. Oxford: Routledge, 2002.

. Riddick, Floyd M., Riddick’s Rules of Procedure,

1985.

Merriam-Webster, p. 296; OED, p. 611.

38

Merriam-Webster, p. 331; OED, p. 697.

39

Ibid, p. 52.

40

Clark-Hall, A Concise Anglo-Dictionary, p. 60.

41

21

22

Lexington, KY: BN Publishing, 2008.

Patnode, p. 31.

Patnode, p. 31.

RONR, p. xxxvii.

42

OED, p. 318.

23

Patnode, p. 34.

43

Ibid.; Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English

24

Dictionary, First Edition, p. 1367 (03.04.13/04.05).

New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

RONR, p. 217n.

44

Patnode, p. 29.

45

OED, p. 318.

46

RONR, P. 10-12.

47

25

26

RONR, p. xxxi; Merriam-Webster, p.755.

27

OED, p. 1828.

28

RONR, pp. 605-06.

OED, p. 361; Mencken, H.L., The American

Language, 4th Edition, p. 177-78.

New York:

Alfred A. Knopf, 1979.

Merriam-Webster, p. 181 (“origins unknown”).

48

OED, p. 1870.

29

Mencken, p. 268.

49

Baugh & Cable, p. 108.

30

OED, p. 361. (emphasis added).

50

Demeter, p. 5; Merriam-Webster, p. 843.

31

Crystal, David, The Stories of English, pp. 152-3.

32

10

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

AIPSC2 IN MOTION! A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MOTIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL AIP STANDARD CODE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE TO THE SECOND EDITION (PART 1) Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP The second edition of The AIP Standard Code of

Purpose Main Motions,” a more descriptive label

Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC2) introduces a

that immediately conveys their unique function

range of substantive and stylistic revisions to its

in addressing past or anticipated actions of the

treatment of motions, reflecting a deliberate effort

assembly. The definitional core remains unchanged,

to modernize language, clarify procedures, and

but the new phrasing distinguishes this category

better align terminology with actual parliamentary

more clearly from general main motions.

practice. This analysis examines the changes found

Additionally, the phrase “tangentially arise” is used

in Chapters 7–10 of AIPSC2, comparing them to

in AIPSC2 to describe incidental motions, replacing

the corresponding sections of the 2012 edition.

the earlier language of “incidentally out of the

Although the revisions maintain adherence to the

business before the assembly.” This revision adds

fundamental framework, they represent a significant

precision and better captures the practical nature of

advancement in both the instructional methodology

these motions.

and practical application of the manual. Below, key changes are identified and assessed across four

Refinement of Examples and Clarifications

major areas: classification, ranking, governing rules,

AIPSC2

and procedural processing of motions.

incorporates

clarified

examples

to

illustrate classification decisions. For instance, the explanation of a motion to table “until ten o’clock” is

I. Classification of Motions Structural Reframing and Terminological Refinement

now explicitly categorized as a Motion to Postpone to a Certain Time—not a Motion to Table. This rectifies common misclassifications and helps dispel

significant

persistent myths around these motions. Moreover,

terminological updates by standardizing terms.

the motion to procure and read a newspaper article

“Specific main motions” have become “Specific-

is now explained more explicitly as a Question of

AIPSC2

introduces

minor

but

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

11

Privilege rather than merely an urgent main motion.

The revisions in the second edition include the addition of practical examples within rule explanations, aiming to address possible member confusion and enhance instructional clarity.

II. Ranking of Motions

or privileged motions more explicitly retain their voting thresholds (e.g., a Motion to Limit Debate still requires a two-thirds vote even when moved as a main motion).

III. Rules Governing Motions Expanded Analysis and Greater Specificity

Consistency in Content, Enhanced Clarity in

Perhaps the most substantial improvements occur

Form

in Chapter 9. The structure is expanded to include

The rank or precedence of motions remains largely unchanged across editions. However, AIPSC2 improves the format and explanatory flow.

Numbered paragraphs now provide a modular structure that enhances readability. As an example, the example and chart in 8.10-12 is explicitly crossreferenced with paragraph numbers (e.g., “Motion 10,” “Motion 6”), clarifying the order of operations

clearer subheadings and nuanced explanations, especially concerning interruptibility, seconding, debatability, amendability, vote thresholds, and renewability.

Interrupting a Speaker: Greater Nuance The 2012 edition permits interruptions by urgent motions but gives limited guidance. AIPSC2

during complex deliberations.

significantly expands this section. For example, it

Refined Illustrative Example

only in “extreme situations” and warns against

The scenario involving a motion to sponsor students attending music camp is retained but expanded in AIPSC2 with tighter wording and clearer sequencing. The explanation of how the presiding officer proceeds through the motions is more methodical. For example, the use of phrases like “the motion that is next to be voted on in the order of precedence is called the immediately pending motion” replaces more casual language from the

emphasizes that Factual Inquiries should interrupt dilatory use. It introduces a normatively useful threshold: interruptions are valid only when delay would “create a substantive problem” with the matter under debate.

Seconding a Motion: Conditionality Clarified AIPSC2 codifies what was previously informal practice: if debate has begun and more than one member has participated, the absence of a second

prior edition and reinforces proper terminology.

is moot. This codification helps avoid procedural

Redefined Motion Behavior

function of seconding rather than treating it as an

One noteworthy update is the more precise handling

missteps

and

reflects

the

consensus-building

inflexible formality.

of when parliamentary motions are offered as a main motion. In AIPSC2, these reclassified subsidiary

12

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

Debatability: Streamlined and Rationalized The second edition reduces the number of motions

IV. Processing Motions Modernized Presentation Framework

listed as having “restricted” debate by narrowing the

AIPSC2 reorganizes the procedural steps for

category and consolidating guidance. For instance,

presenting a motion using tabular and numbered

the motion to amend now appears under limited

formats, lending the material a more professional

debate instead of full debate unless applied to a

and accessible structure. The revised edition

fully debatable main motion. This change prioritizes

includes clear distinctions between verbal and

functional clarity and focuses discussion on the

digital methods of recognition (e.g., addressing the

scope of each motion.

presiding officer via microphone, electronic queues

Additionally, subsidiary motions like “Limit or Extend Debate” and “Close Debate and Vote Immediately” are explicitly labeled as undebatable—a clearer signal than the previous edition’s more tentative language.

Amendability: Expanded Categorization The 2012 edition identifies amendable motions but treats the issue briefly. AIPSC2 adds more structured rules, dividing amendability into three categories: freely amendable, amendable with limitations, and unamendable. Notably, “Close Debate and Vote Immediately” is now explicitly amendable, but only as to the scope of application, a clarification not previously articulated.

Voting Thresholds: Rights-Based Justification The second edition reaffirms the traditional majority/two-thirds rule but now grounds the higher thresholds in the principle of protecting member rights. By stating that two-thirds votes are required when “changing the rights of members to propose, discuss, and decide proposals,” AIPSC2 introduces a constitutional logic that complements its procedural

in virtual meetings). These updates reflect postpandemic parliamentary realities and the increased prevalence of hybrid or remote deliberative bodies.

Clarification of Motion Language The second edition emphasizes precise motion phrasing.

It

explicitly

discourages

vague

formulations like “I so move” or “I make a motion that...” and clarifies the procedural insignificance of casual expressions like “I suggest.” It also includes instructions for handling long or complex motions, encouraging submission in writing and providing guidance for display on screens—suggesting that digital tools are becoming part of standard parliamentary practice.

Visual Management and Transparency Where the 2012 edition merely acknowledged that clarity was important, AIPSC2 introduces procedures

for

projected

motions,

including

direction to discontinue display if the version shown is inconsistent with the presider’s statement.

These additions indicate a heightened concern with transparency and record integrity.

prescriptions.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

13

Conclusion

Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP is a past president

The revisions found in The AIP Standard Code of

Parliamentary

Procedure,

Second

Edition

(AIPSC2) reflect a more precise, user-friendly, and procedurally coherent document. While the core structure and substance of motions remain intact, the second edition makes meaningful improvements in how motions are defined, classified, ranked, governed, and processed.

These changes serve multiple audiences: they offer clearer instruction for novice members, firmer guidance for presiding officers, and more systematic reference

points

for

parliamentarians.

The

cumulative effect is a Code that maintains fidelity to traditional parliamentary law while embracing practical advancements in meeting conduct and organizational governance. As such, AIPSC2 is intended to represent not merely an update, but a

of the American Institute of Parliamentarians and serves currently as AIP’s Accrediting Director.

She led the authorship team of professional parliamentarians which produced the 2nd edition of the American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code. A past president of the Texas State Association of Parliamentarians and the recipient of its Parliamentarian of the Year award in 2011, Kay is routinely hired as a professional parliamentarian serving a national client base of governmental entities,

business

organizations,

professional

associations, homeowners associations, membership societies, labor unions, political parties, religious groups and charitable organizations.

She also

provides services as a temporary presiding officer or recording secretary. Outside of meetings, she provides script-writing and bylaws writing services.

professionalization of the parliamentary process.

14

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

OPINION 2025-690: VOTING BY BALLOT ON FILLING A BLANK A board is filling a blank to complete the motion,

a situation where there are multiple blanks (such

“That our next convention be held in the city of

as choosing the members of a committee) or an

_____” and decides to vote by ballot. Ballots are

expandable blank (when the size of the committee

printed that lists the five nominated cities and a

is not fixed); this is reinforced by the end of that

space for a write-in. The chair instructs the members

same sentence which specifies, “the choice (or

to vote Yes or No on each option. A member raises a

the proper number of choices…)” [emphases

parliamentary inquiry and questions this instruction.

added]. Read together, both parenthetical comments

The chair replies that parliamentary authority,

in this sentence make clear that a voter may vote

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.)

for multiple choices only when there are multiple

(RONR), states that a member marks “his or her

blanks to be filled.

preference for the choice (or choices) that shall fill the blank.” Is the chair’s instruction correct?

Answer: The chair’s instruction was incorrect. It appears to arise from a misinterpretation of RONR 12:103, the first sentence of which states: Alternatively, the assembly may direct that voting be by ballot or roll call (see 30; 45:18ff.), in which case each member marks or announces his or her preference for the choice (or choices) that shall fill the blank—which need not be confined to the suggestions previously made— and the blank is filled by the choice receiving a majority of the votes cast (or the proper number of choices receiving a majority that receive the largest number of votes; cf. 46:33).

The parenthetical phrase, “(or choices)” refers to

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

When read with the preceding paragraph (12:102) it is clear that the process for ballot or roll-call votes is different from that which would be used for other forms of voting, such as a voice vote, where the assembly would vote on each option in order until one choice (or as many as required to fill multiple blanks) received a majority vote.

This is analogous to an election where each “nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion ‘that ______ be elected’ to the specified position.” While, in a voice vote, the voter could vote Aye or No on each candidate in turn (46:37-46:39) until one of them receives a majority vote, the situation in a ballot vote is as described above for filling a blank.

Similarly, the example ballot in 45:24 indicates that the voter is to indicate their desired choice for the second question with a single X, rather than voting Yes or No on each choice.

15

The chair should have instructed members to mark

the chair’s advice would have been correct. The

their preferred choice or write in their preference if

process of filling a blank in AIPSC2 involves a

not listed.

counted vote on every proposed alternative, with

If the parliamentary authority were the American Institute of Parliamentarians’ Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (2nd edition) (AIPSC2),

16

the selected proposal being the one that receives the most votes in favor as long as it is a majority; this requires a vote, For or Against, to be cast on each option. 14.50

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

OPINION 2025-691: TAKING AN ITEM FROM A COMMITTEE THAT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY REFERRED Question An organization has a standing committee on awards that reports to the Executive Board. Some board members have become aware that the committee has,

RONR 36:1 “… the assembly can take the matter out of a committee’s hands after referring it to the committee and before the committee has made a final report on it …”

on its own, started considering a new award. At the

and 36:4(2) “The motion to Discharge a

next board meeting, a member moves to Discharge

Committee …. Can be applied to any main

the Committee from further consideration of the

motion, or any other matter, that has been

new award. The chair ruled the motion not in order

referred to a committee and that the committee

as the topic had not been referred to the committee

has not yet finally reported to the assembly.”

in the first place. Was the chair’s ruling correct?

[emphases added]

Response The ruling was correct. There are, however, alternative ways to accomplish the same objective and the chair could have advised the member about those alternatives. The parliamentary authority was not specified, but the answer is the same under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.) (RONR) or the American Institute of Parliamentarians’ Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed.) (AIPSC2).

AIPSC2 13.24 “The Motion to Recall from a Committee enables an assembly to remove a previously referred motion or subject from a committee …” and 13.27(7) “The rules governing the Motion to Recall from a Committee are that it …. applies to any main motion or subject that has been referred ….” [emphases added] However, as the committee is not an independent body and is subordinate to the board, the board can

Both the motion to Discharge a Committee (RONR)

still stop the committee from considering the topic.

and the motion to Recall from a Committee (AIPSC2)

The most appropriate method to do so depends on

specifically apply to a motion or subject that was

the board’s intentions regarding the topic.

previously referred to the committee. As nothing had been referred to the committee, the chair was correct that neither of these motions were applicable and, therefore, were not in order.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

If the board wished to end, in this example, any consideration of a new award, it would simply adopt a motion to instruct the committee to cease work

17

on the topic. As the topic had not been referred to

substantially the same question as one which

the committee, the effect of the motion is that the

has been temporarily but not finally disposed

topic would die and not automatically come up for

of — whether in the same or an earlier session

consideration by the board, as would have happened

— and which remains within the control of the

under Recall from a committee (AIPSC2 13.24) or

assembly” [emphases in original]

most occurrences of Discharge a committee (RONR 36:10-11).

AIPSC2 12.16 (table) “Method of Disposal: Temporary Disposal—Refer to a Committee

If the board did not wish to end all deliberation

Outcome: The motion is referred to a committee

of the topic but, instead, wished to consider the

and may not be re-introduced at the same meeting

topic itself, there are two options to bring it up

or subsequent meetings until permanently

for consideration. The first is that the board could

disposed of”

instruct the committee to report on the work that it has already done. When that report is received, the board could consider the topic at that time.

The board could omit that step if it wished to consider the topic immediately: any member could introduce a main motion regarding the topic. Under more usual circumstances, this main motion would not be in order while the committee was considering the topic. When an item is referred to a committee, it is considered to be temporarily disposed of, and any new main motion on that topic is not in order.

RONR 10:26(5) “No main motion is in order that would conflict with or that presents

However, in both authorities, the limitation explicitly applies to motions or subjects that have been referred to a committee. In the situation described in the question, the board made no referral to the committee, so the board cannot be said to have temporarily disposed of the question as it never considered it at all. Therefore, there is no restriction on the board considering a motion on the same topic that the committee is considering.

Rather, it is the committee which is restricted in this situation because it is subordinate to the board (RONR 50:4, AIPSC2 31.26). It cannot contravene the instructions, decisions, or actions of the board.

Do You Have a Paliamentary Procedure Question?

The AIP Opinions Committee welcomes requests for parliamentary opinions from members.The Committee responds to all requests informally. An informal response may be published as a formal opinion in the Opinions Column without identifying information. Please direct any requests for opinions to: AIP Opinions Committee Chair: Atul Kapur, M.D., CPP-T, PRP at vp@aipparl.org.

AIP Opinions Committee:

18

Atul Kapur, M.D., CPP-T, PRP; Chairman

Ann Rempel, CPP-T, PRP

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

Christopher J. Cavin, J.D., CPP-T, PRP, Advisor

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS By the submission of material the author is giving

The Chicago Manual of Style is being used as the

AIP permission to publish that material in any form.

guide for style in the Parliamentary Journal.

Material submitted for publication may be submitted

The deadline for submission of articles for the

by e-mail to PJ@AIPparl.org.

If submitted

December 2025 issue is Monday, November 3,

otherwise, it should be typed on one side of standard

2025 at 5 p.m. Information regarding probable

8-1/2-by-11-inch white paper. A short biographical

publishing date will be furnished when the

note should accompany each submission. Microsoft

manuscript is accompanied by an e-mail address.

Office Word® is the word processing program used by the editor.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025

19

COPYRIGHT NOTICE The Parliamentary Journal is copyrighted by

within these bounds is considered “fair use,” but

the American Institute of Parliamentarians; all

for any copying beyond fair use, permission must

rights reserved. Brief portions of material in this

be obtained from the Parliamentary Journal Editor

publication may be copied and quoted without

and, in appropriate cases, from the individual

further permission, with the understanding that

author or authors of the materials in question.

appropriate indication of the source of the excerpt will be included in such copying. Single copies

The Parliamentary Journal is published online

of the material in this publication for the use of

in April, August and December by the American

scholars in their scholarly research, and a reasonable

Institute of Parliamentarians.

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 (c) appropriate notice of copyright is included on the copies. Copying

20

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

©2025 by the American Institute of

Parliamentarians.

Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025