National Parliamentarian (Vol. 83, No. 2)

NP

Volume 83, No. 2 | Winter 2022

National Parliamentarian R i s i n g to t h e C h a l l e n g e

Together

Setting the Standard: Getting It Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

page 5

Optimizing Committee Meetings Using RONR . . . . . . . .

page 8

The Presiding Officer’s Whisperer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

page 20

Parliamentary Resources at Your Fingertips

There is only one place to turn for your parliamentary resources: NAP. Browse our online store for • Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and In Brief – we offer spiral-bound versions not available anywhere else!

• Parliamentary reference cards • Basic information handouts • Script samples • Leadership primers for officers • Credentialing study guides • Teaching resources • And so much more

Check us out today at

www.parliamentarians.org

NP

National Parliamentarian Volume 83, No. 2 | Winter 2022

Contents

2021-2023 NAP Officers

From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

President Wanda M. Sims, PRP

President’s Message Rising to the Challenge Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Vice-President Alison Wallis, PRP

FEATURES

Secretary Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP

Setting the Standard: Getting It Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Frances Jackson, PRP

Treasurer Henry C. Lawton, PRP Directors-at-Large Mary Q. Grant, PRP Adam Hathaway, PRP Carl Nohr, PRP District Director Representatives Lucy H. Anderson, PRP Deborah A. Underwood, PRP Parliamentarian Timothy Wynn, PRP Legal Advisor Melanye Johnson, RP Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh

Optimizing Committee Meetings Using RONR . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 James J. Connors, PRP Purposes of a Consent Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Patricia E. McDougle, PRP Deliberation Dilution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Adrian Stratton, PRP A Majority Elects . . . How Many? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 H. R. (Bob) Hall The Presiding Officer’s Whisperer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP DEPARTMENTS Test Yourself Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 NAP Connections Fifty Years-Plus Members’ Milestone Celebration at 2021 Biennial Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Ruth Benton Mulholland,1931-2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Florida State Association of Parliamentarians Betty Freeman Tunstall, 1926-2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Board of Directors Resolution

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

New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . 31 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 www.parliamentarians.org

1

National Parliamentarian

®

Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 S. Main Street • Independence, MO 64050-3808 816.833.3892 • 888.627.2929 hq@nap2.org • www.parliamentarians.org

Editor Rosalie H. Stroman, PRP npeditor@nap2.org

Assistant Editor TennieBee Hall

NP Review Committee Dana Dickson, RP-R, Chair Ronald Dupart, PRP Ferial Bishop, PRP

Parliamentary Research Committee Ann Homer, PRP Rachel Glanstein, PRP Azella Collins, PRP Timothy Wynn, PRP, Parliamentarian/Consultant

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN®

(Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592) Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians ©2022 All rights to reproduce or reprint any portion of this publication are reserved, except by written permission of the editor. Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those endorsed by NAP.

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

Annual subscription: $30 • Single copy: $8

NP Submission Guidelines National Parliamentarian generally publishes only original works that have not been published elsewhere. Articles will be edited to conform to The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.) and may be edited for content and length. Article text should be submitted in Microsoft Word or rich text format and transmitted via email. Illustrations, photographic prints and high-resolution photos are welcome. Materials submitted will not be returned unless special arrangements are made in advance with the editor.

Contributors must include a completed “Assignment and Transfer of Copyright” form with their submission, granting NAP the copyright or permission to publish.

Submission Deadlines Volume 83, No. 3 (Spring 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 1, 2022 Volume 83, No. 4 (Summer 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2022 Volume 84, No. 1 (Fall 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2022 2

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

From the Editor The feature articles in this issue of National Parliamentarian® include topics that inform and offer helpful tips and concepts for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of meetings.

In her article Setting the Standard: Getting it Right, Frances Jackson describes the process of inter-rater reliability and how it is being used by the Commission on Credentialing (COC) to ensure testing integrity. This is in keeping with the duty of the COC to administer the credentialing programs of the NAP within accepted psychometric practices.

Concepts for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of meetings are offered by James Connors, Patricia McDougle, and Lorenzo Cuesta. Adrian Stratton writes about the effect of technology on the deliberations of an assembly and Bob Hall addresses multi-vote elections.

As you read, take note of the “Connections” section where you will find tributes to two longtime members of NAP who are now Silent Gavels. Ruth Benton Mulholland was a member for fifty-three years and Betty Freeman Tunstall, assistant editor of National Parliamentarian® during the 2019-2021 biennium, served NAP in several capacities during her forty-four years of membership.

We hope you enjoy the articles.

Rosalie H. Stroman, PRP

Follow Us On https://twitter.com/ napparlypro https://fb.com/ parliamentarians/

www.parliamentarians.org

3

President’s Message

Rising to the Challenge Together With the 2021 biennial convention behind us, it is time for us to look at the horizon and plan for things to come.

As I said in my inaugural address, NAP is good in so many ways. During the past administration, not only did the number of educational programs offered increase, the methods by which we bring those programs to our membership has become more standardized. The focus of this biennium is to move NAP from good to great. Our goal is to innovate those methods and offerings to reach a wider audience. All members, in the smallest unit to the largest association, should be able to access our catalog whenever they choose.

Volunteer opportunities exist throughout NAP. We have members with very specialized talents, from technically hosting Zoom meetings to teachers with decades of experience. We are fortunate to have those members offering to share those talents with us. You may have a talent or area of expertise that you are willing to share with NAP so we can develop and have our own cadre of expertise at our fingertips to meet our goals.

Whether you enjoy facilitating students’ learning experiences or serving as a committee member, please let us know through any member of the Board of Directors, your unit or state association president, or your district director, or by phoning the headquarters. We welcome anyone who has a desire to serve.

If there are members, or new members who are unsure how to access any of our services, it is our responsibility to meet those members where they are.

Congruent with our mission, I am proud to announce that NAP is in the process of developing an orientation program for new members and new units. Simply stated, the premise is that an informed member is an active and happy member.

The focus of this effort will be on explaining to as many new members as possible the mission, purpose, structure of the association, volunteer opportunities in which they may be interested at the unit, state, and national level, and NAP’s considerable educational offerings. Look for more information on this exciting program as it evolves in the months to come.

I remain as humbled and excited as I was when we were together virtually at the biennial convention. The foundations of excellence have been laid. Now, we must continue to expand on our foundations, developing the strongest of pillars so that we all can continue to carry out the mission of NAP and deliver parliamentary education to the world. There will be challenging work ahead, but I am convinced that as the National Association Parliamentarians® we will rise to the challenge. Let’s get started!

Wanda M. Sims, PRP 2021-2023 NAP President 4

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

Setting the Standard: Getting It Right Frances Jackson, PRP

During the 2021 NAP Biennial Convention, members from the Commission on Credentialing (COC) presented a workshop that updated the progress the commission is making on completing the RP credentialing process, and the start of the PRP credentialing process. As part of that presentation, commissioner Frances Jackson presented the analysis work performed by the commission to ensure testing integrity of the new process. Since that presentation, some interest has been expressed in having Dr. Jackson expand on the presentation to describe the process of inter-rater reliability and how it is used to ensure testing integrity.

As some members are aware, one of the recurring issues with the current credentialing process is the view for both the Professional Qualifying Course (now called the Professional Qualifying Examination) and all versions of the Professional Renewal Course (now called Professional Renewal Certification), that how candidates are evaluated is dependent on who one gets as an

evaluator. Rightly or wrongly, there is a persistent perception that there is a lack of consistency on how the assignments are scored. This perception, whether accurate or not, leads to considerable anxiety among candidates, and raises legitimate questions about consistency of evaluation, how it can be measured, and how it can be achieved.

The bylaws that established the COC included a clause requiring psychometric analysis as part of the testing process for the new credentialing system. This provision not only reflects the concerns of NAP members but is also a requirement from the three organizations that sanction accreditation programs. To achieve this and comply with this provision, the COC established an Analysis Committee.

The chair of this committee is commissioner Jackson, a retired university professor. The committee member is Dr. Mona Calhoun, PRP, who is now the national secretary for NAP. Dr. Calhoun recently completed a doctoral degree in psychometric testing. Dr. Jackson has thirty-two www.parliamentarians.org

5

graduate credits in research and analysis. This committee is responsible for designing and implementing the analysis used to comply with the bylaws, that psychometric testing is used to confirm testing integrity of the credentialing process.

Brief Overview of the RP Credentialing Process The RP credentialing process has three steps, and each step has several parts. Step One is comprised of eight multiple choice exams. A score is generated, and candidates must achieve 85% on each exam to successfully complete each exam. Step Two is comprised of four parts, mainly composed of written assignments that reflect activities performed by parliamentarians outside of meetings.

A scoring rubric has been developed for each assignment. Step Three is composed of a video that is a meeting simulation. Candidates will serve as the parliamentarian for this meeting.

After this mock meeting, candidates will submit a post-meeting report.

Since the multiple-choice exams in Step One generate a score, there is no need for evaluator agreement. The Schoology system scores each exam.

However, for Steps Two and Three, candidates will be subject to evaluator “opinion” or assessment on the extent to which a written assignment (Step Two) or a candidate’s performance as a meeting parliamentarian (Step Three) meets the criteria in the scoring rubrics. This naturally raises the question on what standard is used to establish what is considered a passing assignment, who establishes this 6

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

standard, and how this standard is communicated to all persons who serve as evaluators for Steps Two and Three.

Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR) Based on the recommendation of the Analysis Committee, the COC established that the standard for analysis for Steps Two and Three will be the commission. At the point the COC is ready to train evaluators to score the Step Two and Step Three assignments, evaluators will be judged on the extent to which their scores correlate, i.e., match the scores of the COC. Essentially, to what extent does the evaluator agree with the COC on what is a passing assignment and which assignments must be resubmitted?

To make this determination, two statistics will be used to measure these issues: inter-rater reliability (IRR), and correlation coefficient.

The first step is for the COC to establish the standard of what constitutes a successful assignment for each part of Steps Two and Three.

To establish that standard, commissioners were given actual assignments submitted by candidates, and asked to score these assignments. Dr. Jackson retrieved the scores and ran the IRR statistics which generated a score.

Inter-rater reliability (IRR) measures the extent to which two or more raters agree on the scores they have awarded.

The IRR statistic ranges from 0.0 to 1.0. For most studies, an IRR score of at least 0.7 is considered strong agreement. These results were presented at a commission meeting, and areas where the IRR score was below 0.7 were discussed to identify

why the disagreement occurred. To be clear, there were times when a commissioner gave a passing score on a criterion that the other commissioners felt had failed to meet the criterion.

At other times, a commissioner gave a failing score on a criterion that other commissioners felt had successfully met the criterion. The discussion of the differences sometimes raised issues that helped all commissioners come to an agreement on what was a successful assignment, and what was not. This process will be repeated for all parts of Steps Two and Three.

With the standard established of what constitutes a successful assignment, and what constitutes an unsuccessful assignment, once the COC starts training evaluators to take over the scoring of these assignments, evaluators will be judged on the extent to which their scoring matches or correlates with the scoring done by the commission. During the training, potential evaluators will score the same assignments scored by the commissioners. The correlation coefficient statistic will be used to determine the extent to which the evaluators’ scores agree (correlate) with the scores awarded by the commissioners.

Evaluators will not undergo IRR. Conducting IRR with the evaluators will tell us the extent to which they agreed with each other. It will not tell

us the extent to which the evaluators agreed with the standard set by the commission. The commission sets the standard, and evaluators will be judged on the extent to which their scoring agrees (correlates) with the scores awarded by the commissioners.

In this way, the scores awarded by evaluators should have less diversity based on who is doing the scoring, and therefore more consistency.

Essentially, no matter who does the scoring, the same result should occur because the standard for evaluation is the standard set by the commission, not the standard of the individual evaluators.

In conclusion, the statistics used to ensure testing integrity include IRR and correlation coefficient. IRR assists in establishing the standard of acceptable assignments as determined by the COC. The correlation statistic will assist in the training of evaluators to assess to what extent evaluators agree with the standard set by the COC. This will provide an opportunity during the training to help evaluators understand what differences, if any, exist between their scoring and the scoring done by the commission on the sample assignments that will be used. It is hoped that this process will decrease variability in scoring assignments and that all candidates will have equity and consistency in having their assignments scored. NP

Frances Jackson, PhD, RN, PRP, a member of the NAP Commission on Credentialing since 2017, worked as a registered nurse at various health care agencies before joining the faculty at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan where she served for thirty years. She has been a member of the Detroit Unit since 1996 and is currently president of the Michigan Unit of Registered Parliamentarians and first vice-president of the Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians. www.parliamentarians.org

7

Optimizing Committee Meetings Using RONR James J. Connors, PRP

As a university professor, I have had the pleasure of chairing my university’s curriculum committee for the past two years. This committee meets weekly to discuss proposed new courses, course changes, degree program requirements, new degrees and other academic issues. The committee consists of representatives from all seven colleges at the University of Idaho, a small land-grant university in Moscow, Idaho.

As the chair of the University Curriculum Committee (UCC), I’m in the unique position of knowing parliamentary procedure and serving as a parliamentarian.

As a UCC committee member, prior to serving as chair, I noticed that a lot of time was spent voting on approval of the minutes, waiting on members to move and second motions and asking for a motion to adjourn the meeting. When I began my tenure as committee chair, I proposed several committee procedures prescribed in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 8

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

(RONR) to improve the efficiency of the weekly meetings and facilitate handling of the numerous proposals that come before the committee members. The committee accepted the following proposed procedures.

Assumed Motion Most of the proposals that come before UCC have already been discussed and approved at the department and college levels.

Resolutions are entered into an on-line Curriculum Information System so all members can view the proposals on their computers during the virtual meetings held on Zoom.

This follows the recommendation in RONR (12th ed.) 4:5 that, “A resolution, or a long or complicated motion, should be prepared in advance of the meeting, if possible, and should be put into writing before it is offered.”

These proposals are also put on the weekly agenda that is disseminated to the committee members at least five

days before the meeting. Because of this, we need not require a committee member to “move” the proposal as an original main motion. RONR (12th ed.) 49:21(5) states, “When a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion’s having been introduced.”

Second Another procedure UCC now uses is that we no longer require a second for the proposals. In relation to a second, RONR (12th ed.) 4:11 states, “A motion made by direction of a board or duly appointed committee of the assembly requires no second from the floor (provided the subordinate group is composed of more than one person), since the motion’s introduction has been directed by a majority vote within the board or committee and is therefore desired by at least two assembly members or elected or appointed persons to whose opinion the assembly is presumed to give weight regarding the board’s or committee’s concerns.”

Because the department and college level curriculum committees are almost considered sub-committees of the UCC, the committee values

their opinion and therefore does not require a second for curriculum proposals. In addition, because UCC acts as a small board, the guideline that seconds are not needed for main motions is followed. RONR (12th ed.)

49:21(2).

Series of Resolutions In some instances, an academic unit wants to make similar changes to numerous courses. An example would be when a unit creates a new course prefix (e.g., Agricultural Education = AGED). Recently a department created a new prefix and wanted to change dozens of courses from the old prefix to the new prefix.

To save time during the meetings the committee treats these as a series of resolutions offered by a single main motion. RONR (12th ed.) 10:25.

If any member were to object to handling the proposals as one main motion, then the committee would handle them all individually. Also, if the series consists of independent resolutions relating to completely different subjects, one member can demand that a resolution be handled separately and not approved with the others in the series. In this instance, the committee does not require a formal motion to Divide the Question.

RONR (12th ed.) 10:25 and 27:1. www.parliamentarians.org

9

Postponing Action The committee regularly uses two motions to delay action on motions.

When the committee doesn’t have enough information on an issue or wants to see changes to the proposal, motions may be postponed definitely (RONR (12th ed.) 14:1) to the next week’s meeting or recommitted (RONR (12th ed.) 13:4) back to the college curriculum committee.

Beginning and Ending Other parliamentary steps that have been utilized to improve efficiency is approving the minutes of the previous week’s meeting without any formal vote (RONR (12th ed.)

41:11) and adjourning without a motion or vote. If the committee finishes its agenda for the week, the meeting is adjourned without a vote;

if the scheduled time to adjourn is reached (5:00 pm) then the agenda is interrupted and the meeting adjourned. RONR (12th ed.)

21:14-15.

Conclusions The incorporation of these RONR procedures have been eagerly embraced by the UCC members. They help speed up meetings and make handling numerous proposals easier and less taxing on everyone involved in the process. At the same time, proposals are given full consideration and formal votes of the committee are taken to approve or reject the proposals. Hopefully, future committee chairs will continue to use these parliamentary rules to run efficient meetings and facilitate the handling of important committee business. NP

James (Jim) Connors, PhD, PRP, PAP, is a professor and head of the Department of Agricultural Education, Leadership, and Communications at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho. He has taught parliamentary procedure for over thirty-five years.

From 2001 to 2015 he served as superintendent of the National FFA Parliamentary Procedure Leadership Development event in which over 250 FFA members competed each year. He has worked with youth organizations on their parliamentary procedure competitions and served as parliamentarian for numerous local, state, and national organizations. He is a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians®, American Institute of Parliamentarians, and the Society for Agricultural Education Parliamentarians.

10

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

Purposes of a Consent Calendar Patricia E. McDougle, PRP

Consent Calendar: A means of prioritizing certain items of business?

A timesaving device for handling routine business?

A separate vote on individual items grouped together?

Or one vote for all? It’s all of these!

Introduction A consent calendar1 or alternatively, consent agenda, references a list of business matters or items grouped together for consideration under a single category.

A consent calendar may serve either of two purposes. It may allow (1) a group of related or unrelated business items to be considered individually or (2) a group of routine and noncontroversial items to be considered in gross (taken together), without debate or amendment, on a single vote. This second group is often the more familiarly used. Placement of the calendar on the meeting agenda must be established in a special rule of order.

A Special Rule of Order Establishes the Calendar’s Priority and Procedures In order to utilize a consent calendar, an organization must first adopt a special rule of order permitting its use. Beyond authorization, the rule adopted may include, e.g., placement on the agenda, types of business to be included and approval required to include an item. If an organization has authorized a consent calendar and the authorization does not include its consideration in gross and without debate or amendment, the items on the calendar are considered like any other business.2 An example of a special rule of order authorizing a consent calendar to consider business items individually follows: A consent calendar may be utilized to place related or unrelated matters or items of business to be taken up before the matter or item of business would come up in the standard order of business. Any item or matter to which any member objects shall be removed from the calendar and placed in the appropriate class of business on the meeting agenda. The consent calendar shall be placed on the meeting agenda as the first item of business.

1 RONR (12th ed.) 41:32 2 RONR (12th ed.) 41:32 www.parliamentarians.org

11

An example of a special rule of order authorizing a consent calendar to adopt business items with one vote and without debate or amendment follows: A consent calendar may be utilized for routine and noncontroversial matters or items of business provided they are considered in gross without debate or amendment. Upon the request of a single member, any item shall be removed from the calendar and taken up under the regular rules after its placement in the appropriate class of business on the meeting agenda.

The consent calendar shall be placed on the meeting agenda as the first item of business.

Business Items Considered Individually Business items listed under a consent calendar utilized in this manner are given a higher priority of consideration than they would have if listed under the class of business to which they would normally belong. Examples include the election of officers, the accounting firm’s review of the annual audit report or the attorney’s update on the status on pending legal actions.

The meeting agenda should list each of the items under the consent calendar heading. As each item on the consent calendar is reached, it is called up separately by the chair. If an objection is raised, the item is restored under the class of business on the meeting agenda where it would normally be considered.

Each action item is open to debate and amendment with a vote taken before moving on to consideration of the next item. Reports recommending action, whether oral or written, may be included and when the report is taken up, a recommended action is open to debate, amendment and a vote. In the minutes, the applicable wording and disposition of each item is recorded in a separate paragraph.

Business Items Considered Without Debate or Amendment A consent calendar is a useful tool for disposing of routine or noncontroversial matters without debate or amendment.3 Although what is routine or noncontroversial differs among organizations, whether legislative or non-legislative, all may have matters in common; for example, the need for approval of multiple minutes of prior meetings, committee appointments, invoice payments or expense reimbursements not exceeding a certain amount. Other items, such as contracts, policy revisions, grants and loans may need only pro forma approval upon completion of all documentation.

Including reports on the consent calendar Financial reports, committee reports and legally required reports from a corporate organization to its board of directors, while routine, should not be included on a consent calendar. Robert’s states that: 3 RONR (12th ed.) 41:32 12

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

• No action on a financial report is required, or proper, except perhaps that the report be submitted for audit.4 • A vote to adopt a report in effect says that every aspect of the report, its facts, rationale, and recommendations, is endorsed by the voting body and thus concludes that adoption of a report is rarely wise.5 Robert’s statements are borne out in an article published in American Banker in 2008 by Dan Clark.6 According to Clark, “boards and individual directors expose themselves to regulatory and legal jeopardy” by adopting reports included on a consent calendar. Clark writes that: “The board’s approving of a report creates a specific and unnecessary accountability, and thus personal liability may extend to the individual directors. ...when a board approves a report, it is saying that it agrees with all of the content and makes that affirmative statement to all who should read that report subsequently. Boards need to let reports stand on their own as the product of those who prepared them. Directors, take the information and absorb it to carry out your duties.”

In a follow-up article,7 Clark writes that if the practice of including reports on the consent calendar is followed, a distinction should be made between action items and acknowledgment of reports received. This concept is applied to the parliamentary steps followed in the handling of a consent calendar on the meeting agenda, in the meeting, and in recording the minutes.

Consent Calendar on the Meeting Agenda The meeting agenda should indicate the placement of the consent calendar— as specified in the adopted special rule of order—followed by a listing of the items on the calendar, action items and acknowledgment of reports received.

Each item is numbered. The pre-meeting packet sent to members will include the documentation related to each listed item.

Handling the Consent Calendar in the Meeting When the calendar is reached on the meeting agenda, members are given the opportunity to remove an item or items from the calendar. A single member, without approval, may request the removal of an item. Items removed are placed on the meeting agenda in the appropriate class of business. The chair may use unanimous consent to handle items in the consent calendar, as in the following example: 4 RONR (12th ed.) 48:24 5 RONR (12th ed.) 51:13 6 Clark, Dan, “Why Boards Can’t Afford to Be Careless With Consent Agendas,” American Banker, October 24, 2008 7 Clark, Dan, “Proper Use of Consent Agendas, Reports Can Streamline Board Meetings,” American Banker, November 14, 2008 www.parliamentarians.org

13

Chair: The first business on today’s agenda is the consent calendar. Does any member wish to remove an item from the calendar? [pause for member requests, if any] Items four, seven, and twelve are removed from the calendar.

Is there an objection to adopting the consent action items one through eight with the exception of items four and seven and acknowledging receipt of the reports listed in items nine through fifteen with the exception of item twelve? [pause] Since there is no objection, the noted items are adopted and acknowledged. Items four and seven are placed on the meeting agenda under reports of officers. Item twelve is placed on the agenda under reports of special committees.

Recording the Consent Calendar in the Minutes In the minutes under the heading Consent Calendar, the following are noted: • items removed • each action item, its wording and disposition, included in a separate paragraph, in the same manner as a motion from the floor • acknowledged reports A Suggested Minutes Format is as follows: Consent Calendar Removed from the Consent Calendar for Separate Consideration [List items as they appeared on the meeting agenda] Action Items Adopted [Separate paragraph for each item on the calendar when adopted] Acknowledgment of Reports Received [List of reports included on the calendar when adopted] A Last Word A consent calendar may serve two distinctive and different purposes: 1) to give high priority to related or unrelated items of business to be considered separately; and 2) to provide for disposal of routine and non-controversial items of business with one vote and without debate or amendment; these may be items to adopt or items to acknowledge receipt. The second saves time that may be used for more substantive business and contributes to efficiency in a meeting. NP Patricia E. McDougle, PRP, has been a member of NAP since 1985 and a PRP since 1991. She serves as parliamentarian and provides training for international, national, state, and local organizations as well as government bodies on a local level. She has supported youth organizations, FFA, FBLA, FCCLA, and others for many, many years as a judge for parliamentary competitions. She is a member of the Broward-Palm Beach Parliamentarians.

14

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

Deliberation Dilution “Are you ready for the question?”

That critical invitation1 is delivered frequently by presiding officers as a means to begin debate on a motion.

Parliamentary law is rooted in the concept that members address one item of business at a time. One, cohesive, focused discussion is the method by which assemblies have deliberated for centuries with coordination and cooperation. But when the question is stated today are all members having the same discussion?

Traditionally, following carefully refined rules, the standard flow of information is approved and enforced by the assembly through the chair.

Starting with adoption of an agenda and adherence to business arising out of it, members expect to share and receive information in order to dispose of matters before the assembly. The assembly is informed by the members and invited guests when recognized.

Increasingly, more options to communicate, are changing how assemblies deliberate. Through

Adrian Stratton, PRP

email, text messages, and messaging applications members are able to exchange information in ways that are convenient and far-reaching during meetings.

When appropriate, members may rise to speak for or against a motion and share information to strengthen arguments. The clash of debate provides insights for members upon which to form their voting preference.

Out of the clash, a decision is made by a majority of members. Now, however, information can be (and often is) received from more than just those speakers recognized. In addition to a request for information2 a member now has the capability to directly ask one who has the floor their question.

Further, a member may ask another member—possibly one who has not been recognized by the chair—for clarifications. Guests of an assembly and non-participants can also be queried. On response through a private electronic message, remarks shared and information received may

1 RONR (12th ed.) 4:15 2 RONR (12th ed.) 33:6 www.parliamentarians.org

15

be selectively distributed among portions of the assembly.3 These subtle ways in which deliberations are being diluted has significant impact on the concept of full and free discussion.

One comment can splinter into numerous micro discussions all taking place rapidly, and silently in between statement of the first argument in debate and when the question is put to a vote. With a tap, a message can reach an entire organization or just a few select members. Information received—requested or not—can be the last impression a significant number of members has on an issue prior to a vote. A screenshot of a yet to be presented committee report can be displayed to a closed cohort in an attempt to influence recipients. And information on a candidate can be pushed to a targeted voting block just prior to submission of a paper or digital ballot. Improperly, even undebatable motions may become subject to informal debate in a virtual pseudo-quasi committee of the whole.

These diluted deliberations that are expanded into many conversations can privately break rules that all members seem to publicly follow.

Members have probably always shared information among a few during meetings. Private conversations naturally take place with those in close proximity when members gather face-to-face. Hushed speech is the preferred way for a chair to speak with a parliamentarian and members have used this technique among themselves 3 RONR (12th ed.) 43:22.

16

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

for a variety of reasons. Text messages and direct chats, arguably the digital equivalents of whispers, are now commonly used in person and virtually. Furthermore, few practical rules exist that prevent two or more members from simply removing themselves from deliberations so that they may converse privately. Whether in the corridor of a convention hall or in a private chat, members are free to exit meetings to separately gather how they please.

A whisper among neighboring members and informal caucusing do not typically breach accepted parliamentary decorum. So, it is reasonable to assume some deliberative dilution has occurred before and that it will most likely continue.

Nevertheless, of parliamentary concern now is not only the magnitude and reach but the ease and options that one may use to communicate with some members while simultaneously excluding others. Unruly whisperers may be called to order. Too many members leaving a meeting could cause another member to question if quorum is still present. The devices most members utilize for communication has created a new dynamic that enables interaction without much disruption. Enforcing certain rules in a diluted deliberation, particularly when all members are not impacted, may become necessary to address. For example, an entire assembly may not be aware that a previous speaker has continued to

advocate for their points after their recognition has ended and another has the floor. This type of unspoken breach would create a unique presiding challenge if a point of order were raised,4 but the violation may never be addressed if the recipients are receptive to the incoming communications.

Assemblies have a better chance of making great decisions if all are equally informed. All members having relatively equal access to insights on the business before them is fair and helpful. In acknowledgement, parliamentary law provides many means to ensure information may be freely and equally shared. Papers may be approved to be read5, items may be referred to committees for deeper consideration, and special meetings may be called to discuss particular matters. Properly formed quasi committees of the whole6 may be entered to allow deliberation with fewer restrictions.7 Despite the mechanisms to achieve full and free discussion, some members are now voluntarily distracted with competing conversations among overlapping

factions operating in parallel to the entirety of the assembly. What a member learns from debate could become less influential than what is read in private group communications.

The unified debate is becoming more and more diluted. Technology is enabling this change in not only how assemblies deliberate but the way in which members engage. No rule can be enforced that constrains members within one discussion. Rules to ban devices, for instance, could be imposed, but should they? In virtual environments the very devices that could be banned are instrumental to transacting business. The technology enabling modern assemblies is imbedded with distraction only a click or tap away. Some assemblies may choose to impose limitations on how members interact during meetings but it is the intrinsic responsibility of each member to choose to focus.

As a result, a staid characteristic of deliberations going forward may be acceptance that some members are possibly readier for the question than others. NP

4 Carl Nohr, PRP, raises excellent points on chat box management and provides great recommendations for consideration in his article “The Chat Box: Boon of Boondoggle?”

See Carl Nohr, “The Chat Box: Boon or Boondoggle?” National Parliamentarian® Volume 82, No. 4, Summer 2021 (Independence, Missouri: National Association of Parliamentarians®, 2021), 13-15 5 RONR (12th ed.) 33:20 6 RONR (12th ed.) 52:1-2 7 RONR (12th ed.) 52:19-23

Adrian Stratton, MBA, PRP, is president of the New York Association of Parliamentarians. A member of the National Association of Parliamentarians® and the American Institute of Parliamentarians, Mr. Stratton is a partner at GAACC management consulting.

www.parliamentarians.org

17

A Majority Elects…

How Many?

In elections with just a single position to fill, the candidate who receives a majority of the votes cast is elected, since only one person can receive a majority. When there are multiple positions to be filled, the election is often faster when members cast multiple votes on a single ballot.

The rules for such multi-vote elections (MVEs) are given in RONR (12th ed.)

46:33.

In an MVE, all candidates receiving votes of at least a majority of the ballots cast are elected. If the number receiving a majority exceeds the number of available positions, candidates are declared elected in descending order of votes received, starting with the one with the most votes and proceeding down until all available positions are filled. In the case of tie votes, or if not enough candidates are elected, then balloting continues among the candidates not yet elected. On each repeated ballot, members may cast from one vote up to the number of open positions remaining, but may not cast multiple votes for any one candidate.

At the 2021 biennial convention of the National Association of Parliamentarians®, the Directors-atLarge, District Representatives, and four members of the Commission on Credentialing were elected in MVEs. The convention standing rules called for the election of one candidate per 18

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

H. R. (Bob) Hall

ballot in the first two cases. After the first single-vote ballot for directors, it was obvious that the elections would take too long, so the assembly approved a change in the convention standing rules to allow MVEs. In the first multi-vote ballot three candidates were elected by majority votes, filling all open positions. But the list of candidates with votes received showed that, with a small difference in vote distribution, four candidates could have received majorities. I was interested in this and decided to look into it.

I wondered what fraction of the ballots in MVEs should be exceeded for electing candidates to all open positions, but no more? Trial calculations revealed the answer: If N is the number of votes allowed on a ballot, and if candidates are elected by receiving more votes than the (N/(N+1)) fraction of ballots cast, then a maximum of N positions can be filled on a single ballot.

The table on page 19 verifies this result. To provide an easy-to-follow example, it assumes that 100 valid ballots were cast, and that all members cast the maximum number of votes allowed. This clarifies the table entries, and does not limit the validity of the results. The single-vote, single-position case is included to show that it fits this result.

Elections: Examples for 100 Ballots Votes per Ballot

N/(N+1) Fraction

Votes for a Tie

Votes to Elect

Total Votes

Minimum to Fill

1 2 3 4 5

1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6

50 66.7 75 80 83.3

51 67 76 81 84

100 200 300 400 500

51 134 228 324 420

Consider the columns in the table above. For each row, the first two columns give the number of votes per ballot, and the numeric fraction for that case; the third and fourth give that fraction of votes for 100 ballots, and the number needed to be elected; the fifth, sixth, and seventh give the total votes cast, the minimum number of votes to elect a full set of candidates, and the maximum number of votes remaining. In each case, it is less than the number required to elect another candidate. The third column is called “votes for a tie,” because if (N+1) candidates each get this number of votes, the ballot results in a full tie among them.

The results presented here apply equally both to SVEs and MVEs, but there is a significant difference between the two: In SVEs, ballots are either valid, or not counted, so the total number of votes and the

Maximum Votes Remaining 49 66 72 76 80

number of ballots cast are the same.

In an MVE, a ballot is counted if it has only one vote on it, so the total number of votes will often be less than the maximum possible. This is clear in the rules for MVEs in RONR: “every ballot with a vote … is counted as one vote cast.” Unfortunately, this rule confounds the words “ballot” and “vote.” I have distinguished ballots from votes throughout this paper.

Finally, let me say that I am not advocating changing from electing candidates by a majority vote in MVEs. Since members may cast only one vote for any candidate, those candidates who receive a majority vote are obviously choices of the assembly, and the rules for MVEs in RONR apply. The result presented here is intended to improve members’ concepts about election voting for both MVEs and Single-Vote Elections (SVEs). NP

Harold R. (Bob) Hall, PhD, NAP member, designed and implemented the 300 Questions website (www.300questions.org) in 2007, adding the 100-question NAP membership exam for online testing until the shorter exam replaced it. He has maintained the website, updating it as needed for the 11th and 12th editions. He has served as NAP Webmaster (two years), CSAP Webmaster (fourteen years), advisor to the NAP Membership Examiners Committee, on the NAP Communications Committee, and in unit officer positions. He earned the BS, MS, and PhD degrees in EECS from the University of California, Berkeley. www.parliamentarians.org

19

The Presiding Officer’s Whisperer Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

Even a novice parliamentarian can be of revered assistance to a presiding officer, if the novice parliamentarian will at least help to control debate, avoid wasted time, and assure that everyone has a fair opportunity to speak according to the rules.

PROBLEM The parliamentarian has an obligation to assist the presiding officer in handling all business on the agenda productively and efficiently.

The main obstacle to productive meetings, however, tends not to be simply unfamiliarity with the motions, but more commonly, brain-storming, free for all, pointless discussions. The parliamentarian must collaborate with the presiding officer to cure this common meeting malady.

VALID SOLUTION Robert’s Rules recommends stand at ease, RONR (12th ed.) 8:2(4), or even recess to accommodate this collaboration. But stand at ease and recess are usually called too late into the deterioration of a parliamentary situation that could have been avoided if the parliamentarian had prepared the presiding officer before the meeting.

Some parliamentarians have tried showing a card that contains a script on how to handle a motion. Others have tried showing a card that reads, “Consult the parliamentarian.” Others interrupt the proceedings to provide an explanation to the presiding officer.

All of these approaches accomplish 20

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

one thing—they interrupt the presiding officer’s train of thought.

The presiding officer now has two problems—the deterioration of the situation and confusion in communicating with the assembly.

This approach often spirals the presiding officer down a parliamentary quicksand.

BEST SOLUTION What the presiding officer needs is a subtle prompt as the threat of chaos builds. This prompt could even be a brief whisper which would remind the presiding officer of their pre-meeting discussion covering these problems and their remedies. Ideally, the parliamentarian will supply the presiding officer this information on a single sheet for the presiding officer to reference during the meeting.

The phrase could be written on an unobtrusive card, or better still, delivered by means of a stealthy whisper that refers to the pre-meeting training. Note the following examples: Whisper: Off topic Meaning: The speaker is not confining his remarks to the merits of the pending motion. RONR (12th ed.) 43:20.

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker to ask, “Do you have anything to say about the pending motion?” If the answer is in the negative, the chair then recognizes the next speaker. If the answer is in the affirmative, the speaker will know to then return to the pending motion.

Whisper: Repetitious Meaning: The speaker is repeating himself or others. RONR (12th ed.)

2:14.

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker to ask, “Do you have anything to add that we have not heard?” If the answer is in the negative, the chair then recognizes the next speaker. If the answer is in the affirmative, the speaker will know to then return to the pending motion.

Whisper: Has already spoken Meaning: The speaker is attempting to monopolize the debate. RONR (12th ed.) 42:9(2), 43:13.

Remedy: The chair does not recognize the speaker because the speaker seeks to speak a second time when others have not had an opportunity to speak their first time. The chair asks, “Is there anyone who has not spoken their first time?” The monopolizer can be recognized to speak only if no one else wishes to speak their first time.

Whisper: Too many speakers Meaning: Several members are speaking, either interrupting each other or launching improper rebuttals. RONR (12th ed.) 3:30.

Remedy: The chair immediately interrupts everyone and states, “Member A has the floor. Member B, please wait to be recognized.”

Whisper: Attacking a member’s motives Meaning: The speaker is commenting on a member’s integrity, personality traits, or intentions. RONR (12th ed.) 43:21.

Remedy: The chair interrupts this tirade and instructs the speaker by saying, “The speaker must confine his comments to the merits of the motion and not to the motives of any member; either that, or please be silent.”

Whisper: Complaining Meaning: The speaker is not offering productive debate. The speaker is offering destructive discourse. RONR (12th ed.) 43:21.

Remedy: The chair immediately stops the speaker and asks the speaker to modulate his tone or propose a motion to amend, postpone or refer the motion that is bothering him.

Whisper: Direct comments to the chair Meaning: The speaker is directing his comments to the previous speaker (or to the presenter, other members or non-members in the hall). RONR (12th ed.) 43:22.

Remedy: The chair interrupts this show of disrespect to the chair’s efforts to guarantee fair debate by insisting, “The speaker must direct his comments to the chair or be silent.” www.parliamentarians.org

21

Whisper: Do we have a motion?

Meaning: The speaker is debating a topic before a motion has been proposed. RONR (12th ed.) 43:4.

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker and asks, “Do you have a motion?” If the answer is in the negative, someone may then introduce a motion, or the speaker must be silent.

Whisper: Does the member wish to amend, refer, or postpone the motion? RONR (12th ed.) 10:30.

Meaning: The speaker is speaking mindlessly and pointlessly. The speaker appears dissatisfied with the current wording of the motion.

It is obvious that the speaker would be happier with a modification or a delay of the motion.

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker and offers to assist him in proposing an amendment or postponement.

Whisper: Was not recognized by the chair Meaning: A speaker has started to speak or offer a rebuttal without being recognized by the chair.

RONR (12th ed.) 3:30.

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker and requests that the speaker wait in turn to speak since someone else has the floor.

Whisper: Reading without permission Meaning: A speaker is reading a

long document instead of speaking from the heart to sway the vote.

RONR (12th ed.) 43:26.

Remedy: The chair immediately stops the reading and asks the speaker if the speaker has anything else to say. If the answer is in the negative, the chair then recognizes the next speaker. If the answer is in the affirmative, the chair has succeeded in channeling the speaker’s comments.

Whisper: Exhausted speaking limits Meaning: The speaker has exhausted the speaking limits on this motion. RONR (12th ed.)

4:29, 43:8, 43:12.

Remedy: The chair interrupts the speaker, thanks the speaker for his comments, explaining the speaking limits, and then calls on the next speaker.

This set of whispered prompts is exactly what a Registered Parliamentarian needs to assist the presiding officer of a small and uncomplicated society or board. This approach requires a bold but diplomatic interruption by the chair in order to protect other members’ right to debate. I assure every inexperienced or failing presiding officer that if the presiding officer collaborates with the parliamentarian by using this whisper approach, not only will the meeting last less than half the typical meeting time, but productivity will double as well. NP

Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians. He has served as a parliamentarian for boards, conventions, and annual meetings in and beyond California for more than twenty years. He typically offers a three-hour interactive parliamentary procedure workshop that focuses on members’ rights and efficient meeting management.

22

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers The intent of this column is to provide general answers or advice (not formal, official opinions) about the questions asked. The answers are based on the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, unless otherwise indicated, and do not take into account such governing authorities as statutes, bylaws, adopted special rules of order, other parliamentary authorities, or earlier editions, except as specifically mentioned.

The abbreviations used in these questions and answers are explained in National Parliamentarian Vol. 83, No. 1, Fall 2021, p. 18.

Questions should be emailed to npquestions@nap2.org.

Q

Question 5: At the last monthly meeting of my club, a member had an issue with one of the votes taken. The motion was hotly debated, and the voice vote taken was inconclusive. The president then retook the voice vote as a rising vote. After the rising vote, the president was still in doubt as to the result, and so retook the vote as a counted rising vote; the results were announced as 50 in favor, and 49 opposed, and the president declared the motion adopted.

A member raised a point of order that they were outside of the meeting hall, and the doors were closed so the member could not get in to cast their vote on the motion—the member indicated that they would have voted in opposition which could have changed the result of the vote. The president ruled the point of order not well-taken, saying that it’s proper procedure for the doors to be closed during a vote, and moved on to the next item of business.

Was the president’s ruling correct even though the member was denied the right to vote? What else could the member have done?

Answer: Yes, the president’s ruling was correct. The proper procedure was followed and the member was not really denied the right to vote.

It’s possible the member’s vote would not have affected the result either, since the president may have chosen to vote to cancel out the member’s vote and ensure that the motion was adopted.

RONR (12th ed.) 45:15 states in part: “In all but small assemblies, the doors should be closed and no one should enter or leave the hall while a count is being taken.” RONR (12th ed.) 25:11 indicates some www.parliamentarians.org

23

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

fundamental principles of parliamentary law, one of which is that the right to vote is limited to the members actually present at the time the vote is taken.

The member may have chosen to leave at some point during the debate, and had not returned by the time the president was taking the vote. Or the member may have arrived late to the meeting and missed the vote. Regardless of how the member happened to be outside when the doors were closed for the taking of the vote, the member was not present during the vote. Therefore, the member was not denied the right to vote.

At the meeting, the member could have raised an appeal of the president’s ruling on the point of order. RONR (12th ed.) 24:1 and 24:3 provide that any two members have the right to appeal the president’s ruling on a question of procedure, and a majority vote is needed to overturn that decision.

Or, at the meeting, the member could have convinced a member that voted in favor of the motion to make a motion to reconsider the vote on it as allowed by RONR (12th ed.) 37:10, as long as the motion was made before that meeting was adjourned.

Or, at the meeting, the member could have made a motion to retake the vote by another method, such as a ballot, as indicated by RONR (12th ed.) 45:9. This motion would have to have been made before any further business intervened.

Otherwise, the member could give notice to rescind the motion at the next meeting, or they could just make the motion to rescind at the next meeting. Per RONR (12th ed.) 35:2, if notice is given, a majority vote may rescind the original motion, and if there is no notice, either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership may rescind the original motion.

Q

Question: 6 The corresponding secretary used a sign-in from the last in-person meeting (pre-COVID) to notify members of the upcoming Zoom meeting. One member protested and stated that her rights were violated when she did not receive a meeting notification for three months. The corresponding secretary stated that the member in question attends one meeting a year and didn’t think she wanted a notice. The member argued that all members in good standing must receive meeting notifications. Who is correct?

24

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

Answer: The member is correct, members in good standing are entitled to full participation, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote…except through disciplinary proceedings.

Refer to the bylaws to ensure that there are no exceptions to member rights and to see if members have the ability to waive notice of meetings. See RONR (12th ed.) 1:4

Q

Question: 7 Thirty-one members were online via Zoom for an organization’s monthly meeting. The secretary stated a quorum was met.

A motion to have a speaker at each meeting was made and properly seconded. The president then proceeded to call on members and ask them how they wished to vote. She called members by name. After she received 17 ‘yes’ votes, she stopped taking votes and stated there was no need to see how the other members wished to vote as their votes were “intrinsically irrelevant”. No member protested. Did the president correctly process the vote?

Answer: The president did not correctly process the vote. When the president has determined that there is no further debate, and has ensured that members understand what they are voting for, she should call for all who are in favor of the motion to raise the hand icon, or otherwise register their votes in a manner consistent with the technology being used (a voice vote is impractical in a Zoom meeting, since delays in transmission do not allow for a harmonious, simultaneous projection of verbal votes) and then she should have called for the negative vote in the same manner. Finally, she should have announced the outcome of the vote.

RONR (12th ed.) 4:35 says “The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear, except that this rule is commonly relaxed in the case of non-controversial motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature; but even in such a case, if any member objects, the chair must call for the negative vote. A further exception arises when the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant, as, for example, when ‘a vote of one fifth of the members present’ is required.” www.parliamentarians.org

25

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

A roll call vote consists of calling for the yeas and nays and is usually confined to representative bodies. “It should not be used in a mass meeting or in any assembly whose members are not responsible to a constituency.” RONR (12th ed.) 45:45 In this particular case, if the vote requirement was not based on the number of members present, the president should have called for the negative vote.

Q

Question 8: The treasurer of this organization feels the minutes should not contain any mention of finances. This organization has had financial irregularities spanning forty-five years. Many members have requested to have the treasurer provide a statement of the balance on hand each month and said balance to be recorded in the minutes.

The bylaws do not address a treasurer’s report. We do not use any book on meeting procedure. What can be done by the secretary so that the minutes reflect the organization’s financial status?

Are monthly financial statements adopted?

Answer: Bylaws Principle of Interpretation four states, “If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited.” RONR (12th ed.) 56:68(4). If the bylaws define the duties of the treasurer and don’t allow for the group to require additional duties, then the treasurer does not have to give a monthly report unless it is required by the bylaws. It may be recommended that the bylaws be amended to include a full description of the treasurer’s duties, or at the least to allow the group to assign additional requirements.

Assume the bylaws require treasurer reports or that the group may assign additional duties. Considering alleged financial irregularities, a special rule of order can be adopted by the membership mandating the treasurer to include a treasurer’s report at each meeting until the bylaws are amended to include this requirement. Adoption or amendment of special rules of order requires either a) previous notice and a two-thirds vote or b) a vote of a majority of the entire membership. See RONR (12th ed.) 2:22. A majority of the entire membership is a majority of the total number of those who are members of the voting body at the time of the vote. RONR (12th ed.) 44:9(b).

The motion to have the treasurer provide a statement of the balance on hand each month and said balance is to be recorded in the minutes 26

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

must be made by a member then seconded by another member, and finally voted on by the membership. The financial report should not be adopted unless it is sufficiently important, such as an annual report, to be referred to auditors—in this case, it would be the auditor’s report that would be adopted. See RONR (12th ed.) 48:24 “Reports by the Treasurer. At each meeting of a society, the chair may ask for a ‘Treasurer’s report,’ which may consist simply of a verbal statement of the cash balance on hand—or of this balance less outstanding obligations. Such a report requires no action by the assembly.” RONR (12th ed.) 48:20

Q

Question 9: A parliamentarian needs to review our bylaws to ensure that they reflect how to operationalize our mission. What is the difference between a review and revision of the bylaws?

Answer: A review of the bylaws will include a review of the governing documents, such as the articles of incorporation, special rules of order, standing rules, the parliamentary authority, and if applicable the bylaws of the parent organization. The bylaws are a contract between the organization and the members and should mean the same thing to each member. A reviewer should look for proper format, correct punctuation, and spelling. The reviewer should check for inconsistencies and duplication. The review may conclude with recommendations for spelling and punctuation, for revision or amendment or to follow the basic bylaws outline.

A revision occurs when there are numerous changes in the bylaws and a new document is written because the changes are “so extensive and general that they are scattered throughout the bylaws.” RONR (12th ed.) 57:5 Questions & Answers Research Team

Ann Homer, PRP, Editor

Rachel Glanstein, PRP

Azella Collins, PRP

Timothy Wynn, PRP, Parliamentarian/Consultant

www.parliamentarians.org

27

NAP Connections

YEARS

PLUS

Members’ Milestone Celebration at 2021 Biennial Convention

The fifty years-plus members’ milestone celebration held on September 10, 2021, during the 2021 biennial convention formally recognized and congratulated fifteen individuals who have been members of the National Association of Parliamentarians® for fifty years or longer.

Fifty Years Rollie Cox, PRP-Retired, Wisconsin, Madison Unit, (NAP President 1991-1993) Fifty-One Years Rebecca McNamara, member, Maryland, member-at large Charlotte Smith, RP-Retired, Florida, member-at-large Elaine Staley, PRP-Retired, Wisconsin, Madison Unit Virginia Berg, member, Virginia, member-at-large Michael Wims, RP-Retired, Utah, member-at-large Fifty-Two Years Ruby Roberts, member, Virginia, Golden Gavel Unit Elaine Fulton, RP-Retired, Missouri, Santa Fe Trail Unit Virginia Johanson, PRP-Retired, Texas, Martha Knowles Memorial Unit Fifty-Three Years Ardith Inman, PRP-Retired, Illinois, Marjan Suburban Parliamentarians Unit Ruth Mulholland, member, Florida, Alpha Unit of Parliamentarians Melba Gee, PRP-Retired, California, member-at-large Fifty-Six Years Virginia Berberick, PRP, Kansas, Leger Unit Fifty-Seven Years Susan Nolte, member, Maryland, member-at-large Sixty-Six Years (Longest Continuous Member) Claire Stein, PRP-Retired, Arizona, member-at-large 28

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

NAP Connections

R ememberin g

Ruth Benton Mulholland January 9, 1931-October 5, 2021 Florida State Association of Parliamentarians

Ruth was born in Palmetto, Florida on January 9, 1931, grew up in the Dover and Plant City areas, and settled in Tampa, Florida. She graduated from Turkey Creek High School and attended Hillsborough Community College. She joined the Florida Alpha Unit of Parliamentarians, Florida State Association of Parliamentarians Ruth Mulholland and daughter Kathy and NAP in 1968 and maintained her membership from that time on.

Ruth was passionately involved in children’s issues, and served as president of the Hillsborough County Council of the Parents and Teachers Association from 1969-1970, and was later appointed as State Legislative Chairman for the P.T.A. She made good use of her parliamentary procedure knowledge in these organizations.

She was a leader in civic, community, and youth groups her entire life, always taking a keen interest in what was going on around her. While she went through a difficult time in the hospital, Ruth strived to live, and her mind stayed sharp, until the very end. She will be greatly missed.

www.parliamentarians.org

29

NAP Connections

R esolution in M emory of

Betty F. Tunstall

Board of Directors Resolution

Whereas, Betty F. Tunstall was a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians® for forty-four years; Whereas, Mrs. Tunstall was a Professional Registered Parliamentarian®, earning that credential in 1989 and maintaining it for thirty-two years; Whereas, Mrs. Tunstall was a distinguished parliamentarian who perpetuated and exemplified the principles and ideals of parliamentary procedure; Whereas, Mrs. Tunstall was a leader, mentor, and master teacher for hundreds of students of parliamentary procedure; Whereas, Mrs. Tunstall served with integrity as chairman of the National Association of Parliamentarians’ Credentialing Appeals Committee, Parliamentary Research Editor of the National Parliamentarian®, the quarterly journal of the National Association of Parliamentarians®, and the 2001 Biennial Convention Coordinator; Whereas, Mrs. Tunstall served two-terms as the District Two Director, secretary, parliamentarian, and 12th president of the District of Columbia Association of Parliamentarians; Whereas, Mrs. Tunstall was the recipient of numerous awards from the National Association of Parliamentarians® and served as parliamentarian to various national, state, and local organizations; and Whereas, the Sartwell-Tunstall Unit of the National Association of Parliamentarians® was renamed in her honor in 2014; Resolved, That, on behalf of the National Association of Parliamentarians®, the Board of Directors conveys its deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Betty F. Tunstall regarding her passing; and Resolved, That a copy of this resolution shall be printed in the National Parliamentarian®.

Adopted by the NAP Board of Directors, presented this 12th day of November 2021.

___________________________________ Wanda M. Sims, President 30

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Hazel Cameron (MD)

Novella Franklin (FL)

Margaret Kelley (EL)

Lynae Spratley (DE)

Jovan Cameron (NJ)

Tisha Gieser (WA)

Nichole Pressley (FL)

Crystal Staples (MD)

Patricia Clark (GA)

Royston Gordon (OH)

Ellen Reaves (PA)

Charlotte Taylor Powers (IL)

Sabine Eustache (PA)

Richard Gordon (OH)

Tonja Ringgold (MD)

Alichia WA (NJ)

Anne Farley (NY)

Rachelle Hunt Russian (IA)

Ericka Shoulars (NJ)

Christopher Wren (WI)

NEW Professional REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians: Janice Bush (MI)

Tamara Dunning (CA)

Kenneth Reed (AZ)

Lenita Jackie Compton Bunch (OH)

Beverly Fields (DC)

Nancy Terpening (OH)

Silent Gavels* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Betty Tunstall (DC)

New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Joyce Akwaa (NY)

Vicki Hill Brooks (IL)

Erlinda Colon (DE)

Tenisha Fort (NJ)

Sherlly Alceus (NY)

James Brown (HI)

Jeri Cook (TX)

Carol Francum (FL)

Christi Angel (NY)

Rochelle Brown (NY)

Yvette Cooper-Sullivan (DE)

LaRhonda Gamble (MD)

Anntionette Austin (IL)

Yusef Burgess (NY)

Tonia Dawson (NY)

Katrina Ghazanfar (EL)

Patria Ayton (NJ)

Christine Burnett (PA)

Wallace DesAmours (NY)

James Gothard (FL)

Bonita Ball (DE)

Patricia Burnett (AR)

Joyce Doakes Smith (OK)

Angela Graham (IN)

Mumtaz Bari-Brown (NJ)

Sandra Catchings (Virginia)

Sharon Doldron (NJ)

Jeffery Gray (KS)

Andrise Bernard (FL)

Leona Chandler-Felton (FL)

Norma Drake (TN)

Danielle Green (MD)

Sharmaine Bisnauth (NY)

Tiffany Clemmons (MD)

Karen Drummond (DE)

Shatara Grimsley (NEAP)

Gail Black (PA)

Sondra Cofield (FL)

Kasey Edwards (MD)

Jo Ann Haedge (TX)

Andrew Branch (NY)

Alisa Collins (NEAP)

Justin Farrell (ON)

Julie Harris (AR)

* For the period October 8, 2021 through December 17, 2021 www.parliamentarians.org

31

NAP Connections

New Members*

continued

Toya Harvey (IL)

Sarah Lewis-Weaver (IL)

Ruby Roberson (IL)

Tiffany Wicks (IL)

Robbin Haynes (NJ)

Allison Li (NY)

Shanell Robinson (NY)

Jacqueline Wilcher (MD)

Andrea Hazzard (NJ)

Bernardine Lowery-Crute (NY)

Shirley Rowser (NY)

Regina Williams (NC)

Susan Sanders-Jackson (IL)

Candice Williams-Hickman (GA)

Juli-Ann Heron (NY) Lanabeth Horgen (WA) Shirley Houston (NJ) Derbha Houston Jones (TX) Rosa Howze (DE) Laurie Huber (MI) Andrella Hurley (NY) Kiesha Ivey (NY) Susie Jackson (LA) Wendy James (NY) Joyce Jennings (GA) Debra Johnson (MO) Shawndra Johnson (PA) Debra Jones (FL) Dianne Jones (FL) Wilbur Jordan (GA) Vanessa Kauffman (NJ) Taryn Kennedy (PA) WyQuasia King-Thomas (NY) Amber LaRowe (FL) Jacqueline Lemon-Denton (NY) Brian Lester (AR) Aliyah Levin (CA)

Lorisia MacLeod (AB) Elise Mason (GA)

Leslie Scamacca (NY) Brandon Seto (CA)

Mark Massey (GA)

Lynne Simpson (OK)

Denise McKinney (PA) Danielle McNeil (NJ)

Martha Sims-Wilson (DE) Jaya Singh (NJ)

Linda McNeil (NJ)

Jeanine Young Merriman (DC)

Jennifer Singleton (MD)

Thank you instructors!

Andrew Smith (NJ)

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members:

Ben Smith (GA)

Beverly Tatham

Amber Smith-Bush (MS)

Bonnie Murdah

Jesse Sopko (Alberta)

Carolyn Stubbs

Anuradha Spear (NJ)

David White

Lisa Spellman (DE)

Deborah Underwood

Ronald Stovall (OH)

Gloria Watson

Nkong Tankeng (NY)

James Lawson

Osama Tawi (FL)

James Stewart

Daya Taylor (FL)

Kay Crews

Florence Taylor (VA)

Marian J. Martin

Theodosia Taylor (PA)

Nichole Wilson

Nyahalay Tucker (NY)

Sharon Brooks

Christian Vigil (CA)

Ted Allman

Jacqueline Watson (TX)

Theodore Allman

Sabrina Riley (NJ)

Janell White (MD)

Tommie Hill

Tonja Ringgold (MD)

Pamela White (NC)

Wanda Sims

Betty Middlebrooks (AL) Julianne Montes de Oca (MD) Karla Munden (NC) Joyce Nelson (IL) Ayesha Noel-Smith (NJ) Sheray Norfleet (NJ) Laura Odom (TX) Levette Okoro (NY) Tamra Perkins (MD) Jarrett Perlow (MD) Linda Peterson (FL) Richard Pinkston (OH) Tara Porcher (NJ) Benita Powell (NC) Shenetha Releford-Dickey (GA)

Jodi Slattery (IL)

* For the period October 8, 2021 through December 17, 2021

32

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2022

Soar to new heights.

2022 NAP Training Conference Albuquerque, NM

Sept. 8-10, 2022

2022 NTC Save the date to join us in historical Albuquerque for the 2022 NAP Training Conference. Here’s what you can expect: • Learn from the experts in parliamentary procedure • Broaden your perspective through interactions with your peers • Make new friends with others who share your passion for parliamentary procedure • Experience the architecture, artwork, and cuisine that make Albuquerque the cultural capital of the Southwest

National

Parliamentarian

®

Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 S. Main Street Independence, MO 64050-3808 816.833.3892 • 888.627.2929 hq@nap2.org • www.parliamentarians.org