National Parliamentarian (Vol. 84, No. 2)

Volume 84, No. 2 | Winter 2023

NP

National Parliamentarian

Working Together as Partners

Large Virtual Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 5 The Parliamentarian Booth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 15 Life Span of a Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 17

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 84, No. 2 | Winter 2023

Contents

2021-2023 NAP Officers

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

President Wanda M. Sims, PRP

President’s Message Working Together as Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Vice-President Alison Wallis, PRP

FEATURES Large Virtual Meetings: Advice from Robert’s and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Jim Slaughter, PRP What Is an Assumed Motion? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Carl Nohr, PRP The Parliamentarian Booth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Pat Knoll, RP Life Span of a Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Lorenza R. Cuesta, PRP

Secretary Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP Treasurer Henry C. Lawton, PRP Directors-at-Large Carl Nohr, PRP Adam Hathaway, PRP Mary Q. Grant, 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

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

DEPARTMENTS Book Reviews Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules, Fifth Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

By Jim Slaughter With Original Author Jon Ericson Reviewed by Donald A. Fishman We the Miners: Self-Government in the California Gold Rush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

By Andrea G. McDowell Reviewed by Michael Mouritsen, RP Roberts Rule’s of Order Fast Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

By Jim Slaughter Reviewed by Donald A. Fishman Test Yourself In Other Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 David Mezzera, PRP Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Answer Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 NAP Connections Update from the Commission on Credentialing . . . . . . . . . 34 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . 39 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 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 Rachel Glanstein, PRP Lyle Kleman, PRP-R 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 ©2023 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 84, No. 4 (Summer 2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2023 Volume 85, No. 1 (Fall 2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2023 Volume 85, No. 2 (Winter 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1, 2023 2

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

From the Editor Upon the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic approximately two years ago, in-person meetings of various types of organizations were canceled due to health guidelines governing public gatherings. This resulted in a surge of electronic meetings of all sizes with parliamentarians having to adapt to the many options for holding electronic meetings in order to effectively advise their clients. In this issue of National Parliamentarian® Jim Slaughter shares the lessons he learned serving as parliamentarian for large virtual meetings.

Two articles focus on motions. Carl Nohr writes about the various circumstances that allow the chair to assume a motion and Lorenzo Cuesta addresses the life span of a motion. Pat Knoll gives an account of a strategy that can be used to de-escalate a potentially contentious meeting.

As you read, take note of the Book Review section that includes reviews of three books of interest to parliamentarians published in 2022.

We hope you enjoy this issue.

Rosalie H. Stroman, PRP

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

www.parliamentarians.org

3

President’s Message

Working Together as Partners We are excited about what NAP accomplished in 2022, and we have even greater expectations for 2023 and beyond.

In 2023 we will launch the online course “Parliamentary Fundamentals,” at NAP University, NAP’s new online learning center. Plans are underway to develop and launch a series of courses to help you excel as a parliamentarian and prepare you to be a Registered Parliamentarian (RP). Our committees are also producing targeted virtual events to deepen your knowledge of parliamentary procedure. The Commission on Credentialing is partnering with the Membership Registration and Examiners committee to develop the final RP credentialing exam. Our Webinar Meeting and Support team is partnering with committees, associations, and districts by providing technical support for training and annual meetings.

Working together with diverse groups can bring creativity and clever solutions to difficult problems. As we continue our journey from good to great, it is important to remember that forming partnerships, and collaborating within NAP as well as with external organizations, will allow us to find innovative ways to serve our members. Partnerships also expose us to groups that may need NAP and our unique skillset. Our Strategic Partnerships committee would like to hear from you if you have membership in an organization that could benefit from our services.

I am pleased to report the NAP Educational Foundation (NAPEF) is partnering with NAP by committing to donate annually at least $15,000 to NAP’s Educational Development Fund, and an additional $5,000 annually to NAP Events. This will directly effect how quickly we can roll out new training courses and events.

Your generous donations to NAPEF make this partnership possible.

On behalf of the NAP Board of Directors and the NAPEF, I am asking you to join the partnership by donating whatever you can afford to help support our educational program. Help us continue the journey from good to great—donate today!

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

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

Large Virtual Meetings Advice from Robert’s and Lessons Learned Jim Slaughter, PRP

“Moore’s Law” generally states that when it comes to technology, speeds double and costs halve about every two years. While no longer valid as to computers, the rule seems true regarding electronic (or “virtual”) meeting and voting technologies.

Since the start of COVID-19, options for electronic meetings have exploded. Numerous platforms exist for meeting or balloting electronically, and costs for large virtual meetings continue to fall. Many states have also adopted nonprofit corporation statutes permitting electronic membership meetings or voting, sometimes regardless of whether the bylaws permit such action as required

by RONR (12th ed.) 9:30. As a result, many organizations are facing questions of “Why don’t we just always meet virtually?”

RONR and Electronic Meetings For anyone considering a larger virtual meeting, the first place to look is RONR. To the credit of the authors (and not even a year into the COVID-19 pandemic), the 12th edition added significant provisions on electronic meetings, including a 15-page appendix of “Sample Rules for Electronic Meetings,” separated into four types of possible electronic meetings: 1. Full-featured Internet or Internet/ telephone meeting services with www.parliamentarians.org

5

audio, possibly video, text and voting.

2. Teleconference with Internet voting and document sharing.

3. Speakerphone to allow some members who are not physically present to participate in an otherwise in-person meeting.

4. Telephone meeting without Internet support. RONR (12th ed.)

Appendix, 635-649.

RONR also notes that bylaws meeting provisions should indicate whether members have a right to participate electronically, whether the body has the right to allow or disallow such participation, and whether there is a physical location where members can attend. Instructions must include details on how to participate, and possible rules should include: • Type of equipment or software to participate.

• Quorum.

• How to challenge quorum.

• How members obtain recognition.

• Whether motions must be submitted in writing.

• Taking and verifying votes.

RONR (12th ed.) 9:36.

If electronic meetings are a concern, definitely peruse RONR’s “Sample Rules.”

Additional Rules for Large Virtual Meetings Adding to the provisions in RONR on electronic meetings, I have assisted 6

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

many hundreds of virtual meetings, ranging from small boards to hybrid conventions of 6,000 (4,000 in person and 2,000 virtually), where virtual delegates could speak, make motions, and vote on all issues. Based on these experiences, the following should also be considered when drafting special rules for large electronic membership meetings: • Direction on how members access and participate in the meeting, including the technology platform to be used for speaking and, if different, voting.

• The specific items of business to be considered.

• Clearly defined steps for members to get recognized to speak or make a motion, including whether motions are simply stated audibly or must be submitted electronically in writing.

• That members must remain muted when not speaking, and when speaking, should reduce background noise or distractions as much as possible.

• Individual speaking limits, which will likely be shorter than at in-person meetings.

(Debate limits of 10 minutes per member with up to two opportunities to speak tend to be far longer than members will tolerate online.)

• Total debate limits on individual items, such as per proposal or resolution.

• That motions requiring a second are already deemed seconded.

(Waiting in virtual meetings for a member to be recognized, unmute, solve technology problems, and identify themselves just to say “second” takes up valuable time in large virtual meetings.)

• That certain motions will not be recognized or not in order, depending on the specific meeting.

For instance, in a telephone only meeting where motions cannot be seen by members, on-the-fly amendments from members might be unworkable. Other motions, such as to demand a rising vote, make little sense in a virtual setting.

• That an individual connectivity issue is not a basis for retaking a vote or a Point of Order, in that one person having a Wi-Fi problem cannot be the basis for repeating everything.

For those looking for one set of generic electronic meeting rules for all organizations, there is no such thing.

The recommendations in RONR and above are a start, but the best rules for a specific meeting will vary based on the organization, its governing documents, the technology to be used for the meeting, and the issues to be considered and voted upon during the meeting.

Additional Advice It takes longer to transact business in a virtual meeting. Sometimes delegates can’t be heard. Or the screen

will freeze, and remarks have to start over. Or the time to connect and recognize people isn’t taken into account. However long you think a virtual meeting is going to take, it will likely take half again as much.

Someone should be assigned to troubleshoot technology issues during the meeting, such as log-in issues, reconnecting dropped participants, helping members with speaker or microphone issues, or confirming that unknown phone numbers or electronic devices should have access.

It’s hard to chair a meeting and manage the technology simultaneously.

Participants should be reminded to unmute themselves, either when recognized or through an onscreen reminder slide.

Participants should be told to turn off their speakers. It is very distracting when a member’s remarks echo back a few seconds later.

Unanimous or “general” consent saves time during in-person meetings but does not work so well in large virtual meetings. Since members are likely muted, asking “Is there any objection to…,” may be met with silence. Using an online chat feature to have members type a response to the question “Is there objection?” tends to lead to confusion. Members also seem more likely to object in a virtual environment than to yell out an objection at an in-person meeting, which then requires the formal process be followed. Given these difficulties in obtaining unanimous consent virtually, it’s often faster to www.parliamentarians.org

7

vote electronically on all issues, even noncontroversial ones.

Most online platforms have a “chat” or “text” feature that allows participants to communicate during the meeting. While useful for other types of meetings, it can be a problem during an online business meeting if members type their thoughts on the proposal being discussed. Debate is supposed to happen aurally on the floor. If there is a chat feature, there should be consideration of rules to restrict its use to items such as getting recognized to speak (if necessary) or IT problems. Substantive comments related to issues on the floor should be deemed out of order and possibly a basis for removal from the meeting, if egregious.

In an in-person meeting, the vote count on motions is not usually announced by the chair and not entered in the minutes. Votes on motions are announced simply as having been “adopted” or “lost,” unless a count has been ordered or the vote is by ballot. RONR (12th ed.)

4:49; 45:39. The nature of voting online pretty much requires that all votes be announced or shown as actual numbers or percentages.

Because everyone knows the electronic platform is tallying such results, members will quickly ask for a count if the full announcement is not made automatically.

Differences Between In-Person and Electronic Meetings Just because a larger meeting can be held electronically doesn’t mean 8

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

it should be. Without question, there are advantages to meeting virtually.

Electronic meetings can save travel time and expenses. Electronic meetings also permit members with work or family conflicts who could not attend an in-person meeting to participate virtually. Downsides to virtual meetings include learning curves and (possible) new costs associated with large meeting or voting platforms. Such concerns might not exist for small boards or membership meetings that can meet through straightforward online platforms (such as Zoom or GoToMeeting or Microsoft Teams) to discuss and vote on issues like at in-person meetings. In contrast, there can be significant differences between in-person and electronic gatherings of large conventions or annual member meetings.

The current distinctions might lessen as technology improves and online deliberation becomes more familiar, but here are some instances where virtual meetings differ from in-person meetings: • Technology issues, whether big or small. At in-person meetings where the power goes out, meetings and voting often continue uninterrupted through light from windows. Not so at a virtual meeting. Electronic meeting technology keeps getting better, but connection issues, outages, or coverage issues will occur.

• Member experience. Individual members’ meeting experience

will vary greatly based on access to state-of-the art technology and Internet connection speeds.

• Different meeting dynamic. While large in-person assemblies often fight over certain proposals, there is still a feeling that it is a meeting of one organization. Large electronic meetings tend to feel like hundreds of individuals sitting somewhere doing their own thing.

• Less transparency. At in-person meetings everything happens real-time. If a member goes to a mic with a Point of Order, other members see that. In a virtual meeting, most things occur behind a curtain. Delegates don’t really know who’s “next in line” to speak, and a member might not be called on in the order they should be recognized, or at all. If a member is unruly, there will be temptation to simply mute or disconnect the member.

• Less individual engagement. It’s hard not to pay attention in a large physical meeting or convention.

You aren’t likely to fall asleep or have a telephone conversation in the middle of other delegates.

There is no such buffer with virtual meetings. The fall-off between who is logged-on for the meeting and who votes on motions can be extreme. That’s likely a function of what we do while on virtual meetings—other work, surf the Internet, make a

sandwich, complete other activities, etc. In other words, members might be present online, but with half (or less) of their eyes and ears. If delegates are not visible on a screen, it’s likely even more common.

• Different tone. Virtual meetings bring out the worst in some people. Members can be meaner and “in your face” than they would likely be in person. Virtual discussion is impersonal and, in some ways, similar to online chats and comments, where participants can be more negative. At an in-person convention, you must go to a microphone and make your comments directly in front of other delegates, often friends or peers. That dynamic likely causes members to be more circumspect.

In contrast, individuals talking to screens from their living rooms tend to be willing to say most anything—no matter how ugly or confrontational.

• Altered voting dynamics. Electronic votes often go differently than they would in person. Most often, noncontroversial proposals tend to have more votes against them. Or there might be more votes to take controversial positions, remove board members or officers, or reject items that in person would have been easily approved. At a physical meeting, you tend to vote by saying “aye” or “no” or rising in front of fellow members, often www.parliamentarians.org

9

simply get an up or down vote as proposed.

colleagues from your own organization. In other words, there are personality and group dynamics involved. You are also somewhat forced to be engaged in the process—you are present at the meeting, and there is little to do during proceedings but pay attention to the issues. In an online meeting, you are answerable to no one. You might also be paying less attention to the proceedings and voting with less information.

Perhaps online voting gets closer to what individual members think, but recognize that it is different from in-person voting.

• Little sense of community. There is more to meetings and conventions than simply voting on motions.

Relationships get built. Friendships and trust are forged. All of that creates future leaders and builds a sense of community for the organization. Much of that happens elsewhere than on the floor, such as during social events or during conversations outside the meeting.

Future technology may get there, but at present, it is difficult to build such relationships and a sense of community in virtual meetings.

• Difficulty in “working out” things. At in-person meetings, controversial proposals are often compromised on the floor or outside the meeting hall during discussions, possibly in hallways or after-hour events. For instance, maybe a motion to raise dues by “x” was doomed to fail, but members discussed the proposal and agreed to a compromise amount. Being physically present AT the meeting allowed that to happen. It is difficult to work out differences during virtual meetings, and most proposals

Conclusion Given the pandemic and new technologies, it has made sense to lean heavily into electronic meetings.

And now that we’re familiar with online platforms, some hope we’ll never go back to physical meetings.

Virtual meetings have many positive benefits, and with time, might become even more identical to in-person meetings. However, it’s currently worth weighing the benefits and disadvantages of meeting in-person versus virtually when deciding how to convene a particular meeting or resolve a specific issue. NP

Jim Slaughter is an attorney, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, and Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher. He served as first president of the American College of Parliamentary Lawyers. Jim is author of four books on meeting procedure, including the recently released Robert’s Rules of Order Fast Track and Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules, Fifth Edition. More info at www.jimslaughter.com.

10

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

What Is an

Assumed Motion?

Carl Nohr, PRP

Consider the following scenario. In a meeting, the chair states a motion that no member has made. A member raises a point of order about the propriety of the chair in stating a motion without a mover, suggesting that it is not consistent with the members’ right to direct the business of the assembly. The chair rules the point not well taken and proceeds to explain to the member what an assumed motion is and when the chair may directly state a motion without waiting for a member to make it.

To assume means to accept something as true without evidence. In assuming a motion, the chair directly states the motion, believing the assembly will likely want to consider it, without the evidence of a member making the motion.1

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) (12th ed.) describes various circumstances that allow a chair to assume a motion. The duty of the chair that supports such assumptions is the duty “To expedite business in every way compatible with the rights of members.”2 The chair may save time by making allowable assumptions, provided any minority interests are protected.3 Multiple steps in handling a motion may be

bypassed when the chair assumes a motion, including obtaining the floor, making the motion, and seconding the motion.4 Implicit in the chair’s assumption of a motion is the belief that there is no minority to protect. Rules designed to protect a minority need not be enforced when such a minority is absent. If such a minority is present, however, their rights must be protected. They may object to the chair’s assumption, thus providing proof that the assumption is not correct. This returns the movement of the relevant motion to the discretion of the assembly, effectively setting the chair’s assumption aside and demanding proof that the assembly wishes to consider the motion.

In the handling of a motion, RONR describes another time saving procedure that also relies on the chair’s assumption that there is no minority needing protection. This procedure is called unanimous consent.5 It is 1 RONR (12th ed.) 4:59 2 RONR (12th ed.) 47:7(7) 3 RONR (12th ed.) Principles Underlying Parliamentary Law pp. xlix-xlx 4 RONR (12th ed.) 4:2 5 RONR (12th ed.) 4:58 www.parliamentarians.org

11

What Is an

Assumed Motion?

commonly used by chairs to expedite business and can be effectively combined with an assumed motion.

“In cases where there seems to be no opposition in routine business or on questions of little importance, time can often be saved by the procedure of unanimous consent, or as it was formerly also called, general consent.

Action in this manner is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect. Under these conditions, the method of unanimous consent can be used either to adopt a motion without the steps of stating the motion and putting the motion to a formal vote, or it can be used to take action without even the formality of a motion.”6 The use of assumed motions by the chair follows the same principles.

If there is no objection to an assumed motion, then there is no evidence of a minority that needs protection; this also meets the demand for a second.6 The chair can then immediately proceed to debate and vote, thus expediting business. The chair may proceed to save even more time by using unanimous consent.

How does a member indicate disagreement with an assumed motion or with the chair’s use of unanimous consent?

A member of the assembly who disagrees may stop either procedure by objecting to it.

12

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

In the case of unanimous consent, it is clear in RONR that a single member may object, forcing debate and a vote.7 In the case of an assumed motion, how are the members protected from processing a motion that the chair incorrectly assumes the members wish to consider?

It may be that one or more members agree that the motion could be considered but disagree that the chair should assume that to be the case. Although not formally described as a rule, it seems to the author, that if such concern were voiced by a member, the wise chair would recognize the challenge to the assumption and withdraw the assumed motion.

If there is an objection and the motion is withdrawn by the chair, any member of the assembly who wishes to consider the motion could then move it as usual. The objecting member need not necessarily disagree with the content of the motion but may disagree with the chair’s assumption of the motion.

From a more technical perspective, does the assumption of a motion constitute a ruling by the chair, and hence is subject to appeal?

The relevant duty of the presiding officer is “To decide all questions of order, subject to appeal…”8 In 6 RONR (12th ed.) 4:58 7 RONR (12th ed.) 4:59 8 RONR (12th ed.) 47:7 (8)

assuming a motion, the chair’s determination that the assembly likely supports the assumption may be considered a ruling. A member objecting to the assumption has an established recourse by making a point of order and challenging the chair’s assumption. This would essentially provide proof that not all the members agree with considering the motion assumed by the chair. If there is no point of order, this could be considered agreement by the assembly that it wishes to consider the assumed motion.

Additionally, as the chair states an assumed motion, it achieves the status of a formal motion before the assembly. Any of the usual remedies to alter or defeat a motion are then available.

RONR (12th ed.) provides the following situations of when the chair may assume a motion: to accept resignations, to modify motions, in nominations and elections, to excuse the accused while penalty is considered, and to manage recommendations in reports. Based on the principles discussed above, and the cases provided below, chairs may find other opportunities not listed in RONR to exercise their duty to make effective use of members’ time using assumed motions.

When a member submits a resignation, it is in the nature of a request to be excused from a duty.

When announcing the resignation,

the chair can assume a motion that the resignation will be accepted.9 After a motion has been stated by the chair, the maker must ask permission to modify it. The chair would commonly manage this by unanimous consent, and if there is no objection, then state the question on the modified motion. If there is an objection, and the chair believes that an amendment equivalent to the requested modification would be in order, the chair may assume the motion to amend.10 Alternatively, any member may also move such an amendment.

A nomination is a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion “that _______ be elected to the position of ______.”11 Similarly, if an organization is choosing a voting method when none is prescribed in its governing documents, the chair may assume a motion to fill the blank in “Voting shall be conducted by ________ method.”12 While managing a breach of order by a member in a meeting, the offending member can be required to leave the room during the consideration of his penalty, but he must be allowed to present his defense first. A motion to require the member to leave during consideration of the penalty may be assumed by the chair.13 9 RONR (12th ed.) 32:5 10 RONR (12th ed.) 33:19 11 RONR (12th ed.) 46:1 12 RONR (12th ed.) 46:30 13 RONR (12th ed.) 61:16 www.parliamentarians.org

13

What Is an

Assumed Motion?

Additionally, RONR lists several circumstances in the management of recommendations in reports where the chair may assume a motion.

If the presenter of a report requiring a decision from the assembly is not a member and hence not entitled to make a motion, or is otherwise constrained from doing so, and the nature of the required motion to conclude the business in the report is clear, the chair may assume the motion and state the question without waiting for a member of the assembly make the motion.14 Similarly, as reports are given at a convention, if the person reporting is unable to make a motion, or does not promptly do so, the chair may assume the motion by stating, “The question is on the adoption of the report of the ______ Committee.”15 A second is not required as the report comes from a committee16, and whether adoption is moved by the person reporting, or assumed and stated directly by the chair, is moot.

In the interest of making effective use of time and being alert to the protection of any minority interests, an astute chair will find other opportunities to save the members some time by assuming motions in other circumstances as well.

If the chair is not sufficiently comfortable with assuming a motion in order to expedite business, the chair may suggest to the members that a certain motion would be useful to move business along, and then wait for a member to make the motion. Of course, the chair must be careful not to suggest a certain course of action that could be construed to constitute debate.17 Conclusion Motions assumed by the chair are acceptable as long as the rights of any minority are protected. The use of unanimous consent is also based on this principle. RONR describes a finite number of situations where the chair may assume a motion. Based on the principle that rules designed to protect a minority need not be enforced when no minority exists, there are many other situations where the chair may use the time-saving devices of assuming motions and unanimous consent. The chair may thus more easily fulfill the chair’s duty to make effective and efficient use of members’ time. NP 14 RONR (12th ed.) 51:12 15 RONR (12th ed.) 59:12 16 RONR (12th ed.) 51:11 17 RONR (12th ed.) 3:9

Carl Nohr, M.D., PRP, joined the NAP in 2013 and became a PRP in 2018. He serves as a director, vice-chair, secretary, and speaker for several associations. He is a student of good governance, meeting management, and decision making. He loves to share knowledge and believes we can all learn much from each other.

14

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

The Parliamentarian Booth Pat Knoll, RP

It is not uncommon for a parliamentarian to be informed that strife, difficulty, and significant division is anticipated for a rapidly approaching meeting. Indeed, parliamentarians are often hired for that very reason.

Serious trouble is brewing, and the president and board have finally come to the realization that expert advice is needed to de-escalate and defuse the impending explosion.

But what is the likely reaction of members of the assembly, who are bitterly in opposition to board actions or proposals, when it is brought to their attention that a procedural expert has been hired by the perceived enemy?

A not uncommon reaction tends to be that “the fix is in” for the board, that the parliamentarian will be in the board’s pocket, and that legitimate concerns of members in opposition will be ignored, finessed away, or somehow buried. In short, the hired parliamentarian will be in the board’s pay and therefore in the board’s camp.

One option to consider in circumstances such as these is for the president to offer that the hired parliamentarian will be available to answer members’ procedural questions1 immediately prior to the meeting. The minimum set-up required to address this offer is a small table and chairs, close by, but just beyond hearing distance from the meeting 1 RONR (12th ed.) 47:46 (…parliamentarian …., advises the president …. officers …. and members….) www.parliamentarians.org

15

registration desk. A sign inviting members to stop in for a discussion on the meeting’s procedural questions serves to complete these arrangements. Advance notice can be sent out with the notice of meeting that this accommodation for the members will be available for approximately one hour before the meeting.

Member questions can range from the simplest to those of considerable complexity—typically they concern basic procedure or particulars related to the required language needed for various motions. However, the subject range is invariably unlimited.

The experience of this writer has been very positive respecting such a service.2 When hostile or upset members are informed that they will have reasonable access to the parliamentarian, perceptions considerably lessen that a “full end run” by the board is underway. It serves to create a more level playing field and the sense that a fair and unbiased process will apply for all concerned. In addition, members who had planned to orchestrate a procedural horror show at the meeting may tend to be far less inclined to do so if the retained (unbiased) parliamentarian is made available. Taking on the board in a procedural contest is one thing but attempting to match expertise with a trained procedural expert is a far different engagement.

One caveat respecting this service is important to emphasize. Members dropping in for discussion with the parliamentarian must be advised at the outset that, although the parliamentarian is available to answer various questions posed, no part or aspect of the discussion will be treated as confidential. Parliamentarians must not place themselves in a position where planned member actions are discussed that they are in any respect unable to fully communicate to the meeting chair. NP 2 RONR (12th ed.) 47:49 (…. there is no set rule for the number of additional functions a parliamentarian may be asked to perform ….)

Pat Knoll, RP, joined the National Association of Parliamentarians® in 2002, and has served as a meeting parliamentarian and presiding officer for over thirty years.

16

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

Life Span of a Motion Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

The beauty of Robert’s Rules of Order is that every motion can be proposed, handled, and disposed of swiftly. The member’s rights are protected and the will of the majority rules as each motion is handled through this life span of development.

However, most motions and procedures have a life span that may limit or expand on this simple description of handling a motion.

Let us ignore the motions that clearly reverse, renew, or amend finalized decisions such as the motion to Reconsider, to Rescind, and to Discharge a Committee. Also, let us ignore the rules in the bylaws that allow for their own suspension.

Let us review some neglected facts about the life span and limitations on the handling and the execution of a motion: 1. Quarterly Time Period Unless a motion is referred to a committee, all business not completed within a quarterly time period must be reintroduced as a new proposal at the next quarterly time period. For example, an annual convention may not approve the minutes of the previous annual convention.

However, those minutes can be approved if the minutes are presented by a minutes approval

committee. RONR (12th ed.)

21:7(c). Life span impacted!

2. Election Process Any business that has not been completed or is not in the hands of a committee when a board, or a part of a board, is replaced by the election process, must be reintroduced as a new proposal after the election. RONR (12th ed.)

21:7(c), 49:22. Life span impacted!

3. Life Span of Two Sessions Some motions, if not fully executed by the end of the next session in a quarterly time period, cease to be in force. For example, if a motion that is Laid on the Table is not Taken from the Table by the end of the next session in a quarterly time interval, the motion to Lay on the Table dies. RONR (12th ed.) 17:8.

Similarly, if a Motion to Reconsider is not called up by the end of the next session in a quarterly time interval, the motion to Reconsider falls to the ground. RONR (12th ed.)

21:7n6. Additionally, a voting body may order a recount only before the end of the next session in a quarterly time interval. RONR (12th ed.) 45:41. Life span impacted!

4. Demands Some motions are so powerful that they are referred to as Demands. www.parliamentarians.org

17

These motions may interrupt a speaker, do not need a second, are neither amendable nor debatable, and do not need a vote for approval. For example, unless the chair rules as dilatory a call for Division, the chair is obligated to retake a vote in a more accurate manner. Similarly, a Call for the Orders of the Day is just as powerful.

The adopted agenda must be followed, unless a 2/3 negative vote rejects the question calling for proceeding to the orders of the day, RONR (12th ed.) 18:8(a), or a 2/3 affirmative vote Suspends the Rules or adopts an extension on the Limits of Debate, RONR (12th ed.)

18:8(b). Life span impacted!

5. The Lesser Forms of the Motion to Refer If a motion is referred to a Committee of the Whole or a Quasi Committee of the Whole, the resulting vote is reported and has the status of a recommendation which the assembly has the opportunity to consider. These recommendations are not the final decision of the assembly until the assembly votes on them. On the other hand, if a motion is referred to Informal Consideration, the votes taken under Informal Consideration are the votes of the assembly and need not be taken again. RONR (12th ed.) 52:2. Additionally, speeches made in either of these versions of refer do not count against the member’s right to 18

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

debate the same question later at the assembly. RONR (12th ed.)

13:21. Life span impacted!

6. Consequences of Discharging a Committee If a committee is discharged, the life span of the referred motion is affected depending on whether the motion was referred by a Subsidiary Motion or by an Incidental Main Motion. If a Subsidiary Motion referred the motion, then the motion simply becomes immediately pending.

However, if an Incidental Main Motion referred the motion, then the motion dies when the committee is discharged.

RONR (12th ed.) 36:10-11.

Life span impacted!

7. Object to the Consideration of a Question The motion to Object to the Consideration of a Question may be raised only for new motions.

It may not be raised if any debate or subsidiary motion (except Lay on the Table) has been introduced.

RONR (12th ed.) 26:2(2). However, an Incidental Main Motion does not mark the beginning of a particular involvement of the assembly, as a Main Motion does.

It implies that it relates to business already introduced. So, Object to Consideration of an Incidental Main Motion may not be raised at all. RONR (12th ed.) 10:4.

Life span impacted!

8. An Ex-Officio Member’s Rights in a Committee or Board There is some confusion common to board members that affects the life span of a motion related to the vote and the quorum. If an ex officio is under the authority of the society (i.e., member, employee, or officer), that member has the same rights and obligations as any other member and is counted towards the quorum. On the other hand, if an ex officio is not under the authority of the society, that individual has the same rights to participate as any other member, but none of the obligations. An ex officio who is not under the authority of the society does not count towards the quorum. RONR (12th ed.)

49:8. [Ex officio = noun; Ex-officio = adjective, per RONR usage.] Life span impacted!

9. Member Changes their Vote Except for ballot voting or other secret voting, RONR (12th ed.)

45.8), or when some electronic equipment makes it impossible to change one’s vote, RONR (12th ed.) 45:50, a member may change their vote up to the time that the result is announced.

Life span impacted!

10. Lack of a Second The purpose of the requirement for a second is to prevent time from being wasted when only one member wishes to introduce a

motion. RONR (12th ed.) 4:12.

Once debate or subsidiary motions are introduced, it is clear that more than one individual wishes the assembly to handle the motion. The lack of a second is then immaterial. RONR (12th ed.)

4:13. The lack of a second is never considered a breach of a continuing nature, so a Point of Order would not be in order once debate has begun. RONR (12th ed.) 23:6. Life span impacted!

11. Right to Abstain from Abstaining No member can be compelled to vote. RONR (12th ed.) 45:3.

However, no member may be prohibited from voting even if the member has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common with the other members. RONR (12th ed.) 45:4. The right to vote may be denied only through disciplinary proceedings. RONR (12th ed.) 45:1. However, the society’s bylaws typically place a fiduciary duty on board members to be the voice of their constituents.

Abstaining violates the objective of most society’s bylaws. Life span impacted!

12. Delegation of Board Authority It is typical for a society’s bylaws to allow a board to act in the name of the society between the meetings of the membership and to assign duties to committees it may create and supervise.

However, as a general principle, the board may not delegate its www.parliamentarians.org

19

authority to a subordinate group.

In other words, the board cannot empower a committee to act independently in the name of the board. RONR (12th ed.) 49:12.

Life span impacted!

13. Exhausted Limits of Debate The right to debate a motion is an essential element in the making of rational decisions in a deliberative assembly under Robert’s Rules of Order. So any rule that affects debate must be well understood by the participants in a meeting.

• Let us look at a simple situation. Assume that neither Previous Question nor Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is in force.

• Assume that a Main Motion is temporarily disposed of either by a motion to Refer, to Postpone to a Certain Time, to Lay on the Table, or to Reconsider, as is common in meetings.

• Assume that later the Main Motion is brought back to the assembly, but either in a different meeting, or day, or session.

• The life span of a member’s right to debate is impacted according to when the Main Motion comes back.

a. Main Motion comes back on the same day: If a member has spoken or has exhausted their rights to debate, their rights to debate are still reduced or exhausted when the motion comes back. RONR (12th ed.)

13:21, 14:19, 34:6, 37:21. b. Main Motion comes back on a different day or at the next session: If a member has spoken or has exhausted their rights to debate, their rights to debate are restored as if the member had not yet spoken. RONR (12th ed.)

13:21, 14:19, 34:6, 37:22.

Conclusion A motion’s life span of development follows the same six steps each time— proposed, seconded, stated, debated, voted upon, and announced results.

This consistency assures that the members’ rights, and the will of the majority are respected. Nevertheless, every motion has unique properties which result in advantageous or disadvantageous variations on the expected life span of a motion’s development. The better-informed participants are, the more likely they will win. NP

Lorenzo R. Cuesta is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian. He 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 20 years. He is a frequent contributor to the National Parliamentarian® and an annual workshop presenter at NAP conventions and training conferences. (http://www.roberts-rules.com, parliam@roberts-rules.com) 20

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

Book Review

A Book Review Donald A Fishman

Jim Slaughter, Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules, Fifth Edition. Parliamentary Procedure Press, 2022. 240 pp.

This is the fifth edition of a book first published in 1982. The new edition contains all the strengths of the earlier versions, but it also includes a section on electronic and hybrid meetings that is greatly needed by organizations in our pandemic-influenced environment.

The author, Jim Slaughter, is a talented and versatile practitioner who has become one of the country’s most respected parliamentarians.

Slaughter, an attorney and awardwinning author, has worked as an in-the trenches parliamentarian for organizations such as the American Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO, the National League of Cities, and the Oncology Nursing Society among the over forty-five national and international groups listed on his resume. In addition, Slaughter has served as a parliamentarian for a long list of condominium associations, religious groups, state associations, and corporate clients. Above all, Slaughter has both the academic

and practical credentials to provide a helpful guide to explain the complexities of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) 12th ed.

This book retains its earlier format, but with updated references to the pages in RONR (12th ed.).

The premise of the book is that it seeks a “middle space” between those parliamentary books that oversimplify RONR and leave too much to the discretion of a chair and the intimidating complexities of reading RONR with its thoroughness and the depth of its provisions. The overriding goal of the book remains similar to earlier editions: To increase the number of well-run meetings and help members fulfill their organizational goals with meaningful and knowledgeable participation.

The organizational scheme of the book is similar to earlier editions.

After a brief discussion of the order of precedence, the author develops a question-and-answer format to handle a wide range of motions, and then he discusses topics such what constitutes www.parliamentarians.org

21

Book Review

a quorum, types of meetings, boards, minutes, voting, nominations, elections, bylaws, the role of the chair, and the duties of the parliamentarian.

One of the most anticipated topics in the book is the section on electronic meetings.

Slaughter begins by noting that RONR only allows electronic meetings if they are authorized in the bylaws.

The same principle holds true for the use of virtual committee meetings.

Slaughter emphasizes that RONR envisions the purpose of meetings to be deliberative, and if members cannot see and hear one another adequately, then deliberations have not occurred. Virtual meetings, therefore, face the obstacle of needing to be authorized by either statute or bylaw, and they must provide for appropriate oral and visual interaction.

Slaughter also notes that the phrase “hybrid meeting is not described in RONR and has no exact definition.”

He writes that the most frequently used definition of the term “hybrid” is a meeting where some members are in-person, and some members participate electronically. For a small board, such a practice might be common and not too complicated.

However, Slaughter warns for a hybrid convention, such a practice might be difficult to arrange. Writes Slaughter: “It is difficult to combine votes in a room taken by voice or rising with electronic votes of those participating virtually. Most likely a system will be needed in which everyone votes electronically, even those physically present at the meeting.”

22

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

Slaughter notes that RONR (12th ed.) includes a 15-page appendix of “Sample Rules for Electronic Meetings” on pages 635649. Sample model rules include how to handle in-person participation alongside virtual engagement.

However, Slaughter states that there are no “generic electronic rules” for all organizations, and that RONR provides only a starting step as we transition into this digital realm where meetings increasingly will occur online.

Slaughter is at his best in providing an excellent summary of the potential problems and issues separating in-person and virtual meetings. Among the nine points that he stresses are: 1. The importance of providing technology with effective connections for appropriate engagement; 2. Recognizing different meeting dynamics; 3. Less transparency in switching from real-time to online meetings; 4. Less individual engagement in virtual meetings; 5. Different tone for the sessions; 6. Different voting dynamics; 7. Greater difficulty in working out conflict in an online setting; 8. Groups taking longer to transact business in virtual meetings; and 9. Regulating the use of a chat button on video sharing platforms while deliberations are occurring in a virtual meeting so that a shadow conversation does not influence the proceedings of the assembly.

Book Review

Slaughter concludes the electronic meetings section with intelligent and common sense advice: “Virtual meetings have many positive benefits, and with time, might become more identical to in-person meetings.

However, it’s currently worth weighing the advantages and disadvantages of meeting in-person versus virtually when deciding how to convene a particular meeting or resolve a specific issue.”

There are two other important strengths of this book worth highlighting.

First, the book is designed to solve problems and the author is willing to share his years of experience to make RONR more meaningful to the readers.

In fact, the book has great explanatory power, and there are several scripted conversations to illustrate the flow of a particular motion. Second, the book makes astute comparisons with how parliamentary authorities other than RONR would handle a particular issue. As a result, there are more references to Sturgis1, Demeter2, Keesey3, and other resources than

a reader might expect. Slaughter’s approach is both ecumenical and fair.

This book is useful for several different audiences. For the beginning parliamentarian, the logical and easy-to-follow text provides a clear understanding of the provisions in RONR. For the moderately active parliamentarian, the book is organized by topics, and it is easy to find an issue under discussion. For the veteran parliamentarian, Slaughter provides a useful interpretation of RONR plus he breaks new ground with electronic meetings. There also are eighteen pages of notes on sources that identify key works in the literature of the field.

Overall, this is a well-written, thoughtful, and useful book. It is likely to be a good guide to RONR. In fact, Slaughter’s work yields more than a good quota of insights for beginning, moderately active, and veteran parliamentarians. Some may use the book as a reference work; some as a refresher; still others will find it an indispensable companion to help lessen the intimidating effects of the 714 pages of RONR.

1 Alice Sturgis, Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th Edition. Revised by the American Institute of Parliamentarians. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

2 George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure; For the Legal Conduct of Business in All Deliberative Assemblies, 3rd Edition. Severna Park, Maryland: American Institute of Parliamentarians, 2001.

3 Ray E. Keesey, Modern Parliamentary Procedure, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2018.

Donald A. Fishman, Ph.D. Northwestern University, is the assistant chair of the Department of Communication at Boston College.

He is a two-time recipient of the Phifer Award for Outstanding Scholarship in Parliamentary Procedure from the Commission on American Parliamentary Practice (CAPP). www.parliamentarians.org

23

Book Review

A Book Review Michael Mouritsen, RP

Andrea G. McDowell. We the Miners: Self-Government in the California Gold Rush.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2022, Harvard University Press, 327 pp.

In popular imagination, the California Gold Rush was part of the ‘wild west’— lawless, violent, and chaotic. In a lively and well-researched challenge to this view, however, historian and law professor Andrea G. McDowell documents how, largely in the absence of formal state government, miners held orderly meetings and made decisions by majority vote to regulate their communities, build infrastructure, run companies, and conduct criminal trials.

We the Miners: Self-Government in the California Gold Rush is a remarkable story of the power of parliamentary procedure in moderating what was otherwise a life of rough frontier justice. Over 100,000 men flooded into California during the peak of the gold rush between 1848 and 1855, most of them from the eastern United States where, as members of the many church groups 24

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

and civic associations that flourished in most American towns, they had learned basic rules of order—what McDowell calls the vocabulary and culture of meetings. “The main advantage of a shared knowledge of how to ‘do’ meetings,” she writes, was the ability of “large groups of strangers to act together on very short notice”.

It was not until 1850 that California joined the Union, but there was no effective government or law enforcement in much of the state for years afterwards. Using diaries and letters, as well as newspaper accounts and other primary sources, We the Miners describes the use of parliamentary procedure as a form of governance in matters that would ordinarily belong to the legislature, municipalities, or the courts.

Although criminal trials were obviously held in ‘Judge Lynch’s

Book Review

Court’, they were almost always very formal, with an elected jury, a chairman to preside, and a secretary to take minutes. Witnesses were called and the accused was given a chance to speak. Motions were made from the floor and adopted by majority vote, and the record was sent to the newspapers to show that the participants had acted properly.

The concept of voting and majority rights, however, did not encompass foreign miners or the native population. French and Mexican miners were often ejected from the mines by vote, and atrocities against natives went unpunished, highlighting the weakness of a purely majoritarian system that failed to recognize fundamental rights. It would be another twenty years before Henry M. Robert published

his Pocket Manual of Rules of Order (in 1876), which balanced both individual and group rights in the first comprehensive and consistent procedure for use by voluntary groups.

Andrea McDowell believes the centrality of parliamentary procedure to miners’ self-government has been overlooked by scholars, in part because 19th century writers took the formalities for granted, while modern readers likely find them boring.

“Sheriffs, posses and vigilantes of popular literature” may seem more exciting, but the real story of the Gold Rush is “one of chairmen and committees, motions and resolutions, elections [and minutes]”—in other words, exactly the book every parliamentarian should love!

Michael Mouritsen, RP, a former president of the Parliamentary Society of Toronto, writes a blog that can be found at MichaelMouritsen.ca.

www.parliamentarians.org

25

Book Review

A Book Review Donald A. Fishman

Jim Slaughter, Robert’s Rules of Order Fast Track: The Brief and Easy Guide to Parliamentary Procedure for the Modern Meeting, DK Publishing, 2022. 192 pp.

There is a lucrative market among today’s readers for tools that help simplify complex subject matter.

A primer may be defined broadly as a textbook designed to serve this purpose. The best primers contain language characteristically simple, clear, and easy-to-follow. Jim Slaughter’s entry into the fast-track primer market is entitled Robert’s Rules of Order Fast Track: The Brief & Easy Guide to Parliamentary Procedure for the Modern Meeting.

Slaughter identifies the purpose of the book in clear and straightforward terms: The book is “designed to get you up and running for your next meeting as quickly as possible. In other words, it puts you on the fast track to mastering the basics of parliamentary procedure.”

Slaughter begins the book with an insightful discussion of the levels of formality for meetings. He informs his readers that much of Robert’s 26

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) was designed for large membership meetings and conventions, but that school boards, city council meetings, religious groups, and homeowner associations can benefit from proper parliamentary procedure. Moreover, he discusses which procedures are “best suited for large assemblies and when relaxed procedures may be appropriate for a committee or smaller board.”

Slaughter offers several comments on flexible levels of formality in meetings.

He advocates the overarching principle that the larger the group, the more formal the procedures; smaller groups may use more relaxed procedures. In groups with a large number of members, fairness dictates that the rules be rigorously enforced, and procedures strictly followed. Slaughter writes, “The level of formality can vary depending on the size, nature, and purpose of the group.” In addition,

Book Review

Slaughter offers the reader the Goldilocks Rule 1: “The meeting procedure should be ‘tailored’ for the particular assembly based on its size and the work to be accomplished.”

Elsewhere, Slaughter asserts that “meeting procedures should be like clothes—they should be made to fit the organization they serve.”

This book is logically organized.

Its first two chapters deal with fundamental concepts necessary to use parliamentary procedure. From the start, Slaughter informs his readers that although other parliamentary authorities exist, such as Sturgis’ The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure or Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedures, Robert’s Rules of Order is the “800-pound gorilla of the parliamentary world.” He points out that RONR is the most popular and easiest authority to locate.

Motions, he states, take up only one-third of RONR (12th ed.) while the remainder is devoted to the nuts and bolts of meeting management, such as suggestions for presiding officers, how to take minutes, and strategies for dealing with disruptive members. Chapter Two has several very helpful comments related to the need that a parliamentarian knows the pertinent state laws, corporate articles, the organization’s bylaws, and special rules of order. Slaughter stresses that “a violation of higher-level governing

authority may be disastrous and have consequences long after a meeting.”

Chapters Three, Four, Five, and Six explore how business is brought before the assembly and what motions are used to advance or defeat a proposal. Slaughter’s treatment of these items offers clarity on the use of a main motion, subsidiary motions, privileged motions, the order of precedence of motions, and the amendment process. Slaughter highlights the most frequently used motions. He also offers the reader advice on when to make an incidental motion, object to the consideration of a question, and advance motions that revisit an issue decided earlier.

Chapter Seven focuses upon voting. This chapter examines a broad range of options with helpful information on the use of proxies, voting by mail, absentee voting, and the increasingly popular use of rank-choice voting. Slaughter also has a strong section on the improper use of straw votes to test opinions on an issue. Chapter Eight discusses officers and nominations. Chapter Nine discusses the types of meetings— regular, special, and executive sessions.

Chapter Ten examines electronic meetings and electronic voting. Here, Slaughter covers information missing from many earlier primers. Slaughter observes that during the pandemic, many states authorized emergency

1 The Goldilocks rule is a concept that human beings are most productive and motivated when they are challenged, but only a moderate amount. If the challenge is too big or difficult, the individual does not want to complete it because of that reason. www.parliamentarians.org

27

Book Review

orders that allowed organizations to meet online and vote electronically with no meeting at all. Slaughter notes that evidence of how the world is changing can be seen in that RONR (11th ed.) devoted three pages to electronic meetings while RONR (12th ed.) contains significantly more information, including “15 pages of sample rules for electronic meetings.”

Of course, RONR tends to focus on in-person meetings, but Slaughter provides a forward-looking discussion of electronic meetings based on the limited materials in RONR as well as some guidance and tips on running a virtual meeting. In fact, Slaughter provides a helpful list of suggestions for handling electronic meetings, e.g., how to limit debate, and possible problems with certain kinds of motions.

This chapter may offer newcomers some provocative thoughts.

Chapter Eleven and Twelve deal with administrative issues, e.g., formulating the order of business, creating reports, writing minutes, using committee minutes, and what should not be contained in the minutes.

There also is a useful “minutes template” to guide newcomers. Above all, this is one of the best discussions available for writing and approving an organization’s minutes and provides a good refresher for veteran parliamentarians.

The final chapter is devoted to solving problems, and how proper parliamentary procedure can “prevent many issues from ever becoming problems.” Topics covered include the problem member, the problem chair (the out-of-control presiding officer) and developing a good meeting plan to anticipate problems before they emerge. Here Slaughter draws upon his years of experience as a parliamentarian, offers examples of disruptive members, and provides strategies to make meetings more effective.

Overall, this is useful and instructive work.

Its clear language, telling examples, and adroit strategies make it a primer worth recommending to both novice and veteran parliamentarians.

The book covers the basic elements of parliamentary procedure, or what has often been referred to as the “Core Procedure.” Slaughter employs a conversational voice, provides clear summaries of key concepts, and offers astute recommendations for some vexing issues. It is likely that this book will become one of the most prominent introductory works on parliamentary practice and a helpful guide for conducting meetings over the next decade.

Donald A. Fishman, Ph.D. Northwestern University, is the assistant chair of the Department of Communication at Boston College.

He is a two-time recipient of the Phifer Award for Outstanding Scholarship in Parliamentary Procedure from the Commission on American Parliamentary Practice (CAPP).

28

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

In Other Words

Test Yourself

By David Mezzera, PRP

If you’re into quizzes, puzzles and challenges, be sure to check out the upcoming series of “Quiz Bundles” that will soon be made available by the Educational Resources Committee of the National Association of Parliamentarians®. In the meantime, here’s a teaser to get you started and have some fun with a parliamentary-term challenge.

Words in common English vernacular sometimes have a connotation that differs from their normal denotation. In the case of the following terms, each has a connotation that is synonymous to a parliamentary word. The first letter of the parliamentary term is provided to give you a hint; and the number of letters in the parliamentary word is indicated.

Here’s a sample: plebiscite = B ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ or V ___ ___ ___ Answer: B A L L O T /V O T E 1. nook = R ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 2. plank = B ___ ___ ___ ___ 3. reword = A ___ ___ ___ ___ 4. chasm = B ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 5. seat = C ___ ___ ___ ___ 6. workbench = T ___ ___ ___ ___ 7. knock (down) = F ___ ___ ___ ___ 8. dissection = D ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 9. unmarked = B ___ ___ ___ ___ 10. symmetry = O ___ ___ ___ ___ 11. fire (weapon) = D ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 12. capitulate = Y ___ ___ ___ ___ 13. institutionalize = C ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 14. movement = M ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 15. thingamajig = O ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 16. barb = P ___ ___ ___ ___ 17. playbill = P ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 18. whinny = N ___ ___ 19. countermand = R ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 20. furl = R ___ ___ ___ Answers on page 38.

David Mezzera, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians and past District 8 Director.

www.parliamentarians.org

29

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: Why does RONR use the two different terms, “dies” and “falls to the ground”, when they appear to mean virtually the same thing?

Answer: The two terms often do appear to mean the same thing, namely, that the motion or pending business may no longer be considered at the same meeting or session, depending upon the context (e.g., regular meeting vs. convention). However, there are some nuances that might be considered: 1. An obvious use of “dies” in RONR is “a motion dies for lack of a second.” RONR (12th ed.) 38:2. We would not use the term “a motion falls to the ground for lack of a second” because there is really no motion under consideration that would fall to the ground.

2. An item that has been laid on the table “dies” if not taken from the table within the proscribed limits. RONR (12th ed.) 17:8.

3. If a subject is referred to a committee as an incidental main motion, and then that committee is discharged, another main motion would be needed to bring it before the assembly, otherwise the subject “dies.” RONR (12th ed.) 36:11.

4. Unless otherwise stipulated, any agenda item not taken up when the meeting or session adjourns “falls to the ground” upon adjournment. RONR (12th ed.) 6:12(4). Those items may be taken up again at the next meeting under unfinished business or introduced at the next session as new business. RONR (12th ed.) 21:7.

30

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

5. Customs also “fall to the ground” if they conflict with a rule and a point of order is raised to cite the conflict. RONR (12th ed.) 2:25.

It is difficult to make a sweeping generalization about the use of the two terms. More often than not, it seems that it is a subject that dies, and a motion that falls to the ground. It might also be persuasive to consider the earlier work of Robert’s Rules of Order: 1. “After the business has been taken care of, it should be moved to ‘take from the table’ the motion that was laid aside and seconded.

This should be done at the same session or the very next meeting—otherwise it lapses and the motion is dead [emphasis ours].” Robert’s Rules of Order, with a Modern Guide and Commentary by Rachel Vixman and introduction by Floyd M. Riddick, Jove Publications, New York, 1967, p. 137.

2. “… in a body elected for a definite time (as a board of directors elected for one year), unfinished business shall fall to the ground [emphasis ours] with the expiration of the term for which the board or any portion of them were elected.” Ibid, p. 34.

Practically speaking, in an ordinary deliberative assembly the two terms may be used interchangeably, with the above caveats.

Q

Question: A motion was made to hold the annual meeting at our club’s headquarters in January. Debate ensued and an amendment was offered to hold change the place to the district offices in Hawaii and the month to June. During debate on the amendment, a member notices that the club’s bylaws prohibit holding meetings in January, February, and March, and raises a Point of Order.

The chair declares the Point of Order well taken and rules the main motion out of order, which causes the amendment to fall to the ground along with the main motion.

Was this correct? Shouldn’t the chair have waited to see if the substitute amendment was adopted or lost before ruling on the Point of Order?

Answer: The main motion when originally moved was an improper motion, since it would conflict with the bylaws of the club regarding the month of the meeting, and should have been ruled out of order by www.parliamentarians.org

31

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

the chair. RONR (12th ed.) 39:5. However, the chair instead allowed debate on the main motion, and then an amendment that would change the date to a time period allowed by the bylaws.

There is a timeliness requirement to raise a Point of Order—that is, it must be raised promptly when the breach of the rules occurs.

One of the exceptions to the timeliness requirement is if a main motion that has been adopted conflicts with the bylaws of the club.

See RONR (12th ed.) 23:5-6.

The main motion was pending, hadn’t yet been adopted, and an amendment had become the immediately pending question.

Therefore, the chair should have ruled the Point of Order not well taken, since it was not raised promptly when the breach occurred, and the exception to the requirement that the Point of Order be timely was not met.

If the amendment to change the month of the meeting was subsequently adopted, then the main motion as amended would have been in order to adopt. If the amendment was instead lost, then the chair would have to rule the main motion out of order since it would be improper as stated due to the conflict with the bylaws. If somehow, the main motion as originally stated was adopted, it would still be null and void because of the conflict with the bylaws. See RONR (12th ed.) 39:5.

In the situation described, after the chair ruled the Point of Order well taken, and the main motion and amendment fell to the ground, a member still could have made a new main motion to hold the annual meeting in a time period allowed by the bylaws.

Q

Question: Our club held its elections at our annual meeting in July, and the audio equipment at the meeting wasn’t the best. The microphone and speakers had some technical difficulties while candidates were giving their nominating speeches. It was a small group, and no one complained that they couldn’t hear the candidates and no one raised a Question of Privilege regarding the matter.

Balloting began and the meeting was in recess to for the casting and counting of the ballots. During the recess, a member mentioned to a candidate that their speech was “unintelligible”. That candidate approached the president and stated that at least one

32

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

member couldn’t hear their nominating speech and wanted to give the speech again.

The president denied the candidate’s request, and the election concluded. The candidate that wanted to give their nominating speech again was elected, and the meeting adjourned without any further comments about the audio equipment.

Did the president make the right decision? Should the candidate have been allowed to give the nominating speech again?

Answer: Yes, the president made the right decision. RONR (12th ed.) 45:6 provides that a vote may not be interrupted beginning from the time that any member has voted until all have presumably voted.

It’s possible that a Point of Order regarding the conduct of the vote could have been raised after the result was announced, although the president may have ruled the Point of Order not well taken since it wasn’t raised during or immediately after the nominating speeches, at least before any voting began. An adverse ruling from the president could have then been appealed to the group, since the assembly itself is the judge of a question arising incidental to the voting as indicated by RONR (12th ed.) 45:10.

The president could inform the member to next time to Raise a Question of Privilege prior to the voting, and the president either could have ruled that the nominating speeches should be given again, or submitted the question to the assembly for its determination. RONR (12th ed.) 19:1-17.

In the future, it’s suggested to ensure the audio equipment is functioning well enough for all speeches to be heard prior to the commencement of any voting, and to have members speak up immediately if there is a problem.

Questions & Answers Research Team

Rachel Glanstein, PRP

Lyle Kleman, PRP-R

Azella Collins, PRP

Timothy Wynn, PRP, Parliamentarian/Consultant

www.parliamentarians.org

33

NAP Connections

U pdate fr o m t h e

Commission on Credentialing C.J. Cavin, PRP

Change in Direction In September 2022, the Board decided that a change in the direction of credentialing was needed.

Four new Commissioners were elected. Those new Commissioners are David I. Jackson, PRP; Sandra Cook, PRP; Steven W. Walls, PRP; and the author, C.J. Cavin, PRP. They joined Commissioners Susan Eads Role, PRP, and Darlene T. Allen, PRP. In addition, the Commission elected Commissioner Cook as Secretary and the author as Chair of the Commission. Commissioner Role remained as Vice-Chair.

The Board charged the Commission with the following tasks: 1. Provide a fair analysis and review for the candidates that have been in the current Registered Parliamentarian® (RP) credentialing program; 2. Review and make a recommendation on the current RP credentialing program; 3. Determine the sustainability of the credentialing programs; and 4. Implement an RP system that meets the needs of NAP’s members.

The Commission carefully reviewed the charges from the Board and quickly sprang into action. After a series of virtual meetings, the Commission met in person in Maryland to consider the options and work on moving NAP’s credentialing programs forward.

This meeting laid the groundwork for the critical 34

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

NAP Connections

work that would come next, including the recommendation and awarding of the Registered Parliamentarian credential and the development of the new exam procedures. The Commission meets weekly to meet its established internal and public deadlines.

There also were some logistical matters the Commission tackled, including managing and sorting all of the existing Commission files. The prompt transfer from the former Commissioners provided the opportunity to get up and working very quickly, for which the author expresses sincere appreciation to former Chair Thomas J. (Burke) Balch and former Credentialing Administrator Rosalie H. Stroman, PRP. Under the bylaws, the Commission on Credentialing will have full authority to implement changes to the credentialing programs only upon it voting to activate the relevant bylaw amendments and remove the provisos. The Commission has not taken this step because it presently is not prepared to undertake fully the Registered Parliamentarian and the Professional Registered Parliamentarian credentials as would be required under the bylaws. Due to this restriction, the Commission must work collaboratively with the relevant NAP Committees to ensure compliance with the bylaws and cooperation with those currently responsible for recommending changes.

The Commission worked extensively with the Membership and Registration Examiners Committee (MREC) and the Professional Development Committee (PDC) to ensure the RP and the PRP are of high quality, attainable for members, and sustainable for NAP. Working together produced significant results in a very short amount of time. The author thanks MREC Chairman Patricia A. Cauley, PRP, and PDC Chairman Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP, for their advice and cooperation. The entire Commission extends thanks to members of both committees for their diligence and commitment to NAP’s credentialing excellence. www.parliamentarians.org

35

NAP Connections

Awarding Registered Parliamentarian Credentials First, the Commission identified ongoing issues with the RP program hosted and implemented using the Schoology platform. After an audit, the Commission identified the RP candidates in the Schoology platform and recommended how to resolve the backlog. The recommendation was any active RP candidate that successfully completed Step 1, Parts 1 through 7, and attempted Part 8 would meet the requirements to earn the RP credential. This recommendation was approved by both MREC and the Board and resulted in nearly 80 new RPs. Many of those nearly 80 candidates were in the Schoology program for years without having been able to earn an RP. This outcome was unfair to those dedicated candidates and, therefore, unacceptable to the Commission. Until March 1, 2023, any active RP candidate may complete the Schoology RP credentialing process on the Schoology platform, which did not adequately support the credentialing process. After that date, NAP will discontinue its use of the Schoology platform. In addition, the Schoology RP program closely resembled an assessment-based certificate program rather than one for certification.1 Such a program is inconsistent with NAP’s past practice and expectations of our membership.

Further, the original design of the Schoology RP program was not completed or implemented.

Before the 2022 NTC, the Commission changed the requirements for Step 3, which previously required serving as a parliamentarian simulation. This approach was scrapped in order to announce that the Schoology RP program was complete.

One frequently asked question is what was the rationale for determining Step 1, Part 1 through 7, 1 Defining Features of Quality Certification and Assessment-Based Certificate Programs (2010, Institute for Credentialing Excellence) 36

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

NAP Connections

and attempting Part 8 was sufficient to earn the RP credential. The Commission and MREC evaluated the program and level of difficulty. The panels determined this standard was equivalent, if not more rigorous, than the legacy RP Exam, which included a test bank of 1,200 published questions and answers covering four parts of the exam. The recommendation included eight parts of the Schoology RP program; the questions were not known in advance and were more complex.

Conclusion The Commission is committed to sharing regular updates with the NAP Board of Directors and the membership. This first article outlines the most important work the Commission has accomplished to date but includes only a fraction of the actions and decisions it has made. The next edition will include an overview of the new Registered Parliamentarian exam and information related to an updated version of the Criteria for Credentialing.

For updated information on the Registered Parliamentarian process, please visit https://www.parliamentarians.org/rp-credential/, The Commission will attempt to place an update in every edition of the National Parliamentarian for the foreseeable future.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the Commission at commission@nap2.org.

C.J. Cavin is a licensed attorney, Professional Registered Parliamentarian and Certified Parliamentarian-Teacher. He is the full-time parliamentarian for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, chair of the NAP Commission on Credentialing, the Parliamentarian for the American Institute of Parliamentarians, vice-president for the American College of Parliamentary Lawyers, and president of the Oklahoma State Association of Parliamentarians. www.parliamentarians.org

37

Test Yourself

Answer Key In Other Words from page 29

1. RECESS

11. DISCHARGE

2. BOARD

12. YIELD

3. AMEND

13. COMMIT

4. BREACH

14. MOTION

5. CHAIR

15. OBJECT

6. TABLE

16. POINT

7. FLOOR

17. PROGRAM

8. DIVISION

18. NAY

9. BLANK

19. RESCIND

10. ORDER

20. ROLL

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Teresa Addison (WA) Carole Albright (NC) Maxanne Anderson (BM) Shannon Bailey (EL) Mumtaz Bari-Brown (NJ) Michael Barry (TN) Tiana Beard (EL) Kevin Beaulieu (ON) Bruce Bergman (CA) John Bieker (BC) Zenda Bowie (GA) Muriel Brinston (MS) DeVette Brown (MI) Melanie Brunson (EL) James Bundy (TX) Terry Burns (MO)

Richard Burridge (PA) Jonathon Cihlar (CO) James Coccola (BC) Benjamin Cohen (FL) Victoria Cohen (CA) Gwenneth Corujo (MD) Phyllis Cowans (NJ) Paul Crawford (ON) Diane Curtis (NJ) Steven Davis (KS) Leslie DeLong (LA) Dominique Dentan (IL) Diane DeVries (CA) Todd Ellis (MI) Joshua Erisman (MO) Jared Evans (GA)

Willie Evans (MD) Robert Fish (WV) Kimberly Fisher-Alexander (MI) David Fry (NY) Janis Gallagher (NC) John Ginther (BC) Curtis Gomulinski (TN) Marianne Grano (MI) David Gray (MB) Jeffery Gray (KS) Thomas Greco (SD) Marcelo Guerra Hahn (WA) Jennifer Gysler (CA) LeQuandra Hale-Banks (NY) Emiley Hatten (FL) John Heineman (NE)

* For the period September 15, 2022 through December 16, 2022 38

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* continued Sharon Henderson Sanders (EL) Mary Hickman (TN) Vicki Hill Brooks (IL) Laura Jacksack (IL) Clayton James (GA) Finos Johnson (AR) William Johnson (TN) Debra Jones (FL) Dianne Jones (FL) Ramona Jones (PA) Charles Kasin (ND) Meaghan Kauffman (CA) John Kitchens (KS) George LeGrand (NC) Barbara Lewis (TX) Kelly Lucas (MD)

Cean Mack (EL) Christopher Marston (VA) Kurtis Mayz (IL) Jason Michener (MI) Jacqueline Moore (FL) Keenya Mosley (GA) Lezell Murphy (MD) Kelly O’Malley (VA) Eleanor Peterson (MS) Linda Peterson (FL) NaSheena Porter (NJ) Jerry Preston (MI) Andrea Price (OH) Samantha Rodwell (AB) Yvonne Roussel (ON) Jennifer Russell (WI)

Gyda Sabaugh (NY) Linda Sarfaraz (TX) Justin Schmid (BC) Dawn Schroeder (AZ) Jim Schultz (NE) Lou Seabourn (TX) Thomas Shakow (DC) Paul Sheehan (NY) Karen Sheils (NY) Andrew Smith (NJ) Cassandra Stroud Conover (NC) Dave Szollosy (ON) Marshall Vanarsdall (FL) Peter White (NE) Myra Willis (ON) Michael Wilson (PA) Brandon Woodard (TN)

NEW Professional REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians: Virginia Altman (MN) Kevin Connelly (WA) Ryan Foor (NE) Steve Glanstein (HI) Cynthia Gresham (Y)

Steven Hicks (VA) Daisy Matthews (MD) Paul McClintock (WA) Robert Moore (OH) George Nassar (TX)

George Nassar (TX) Lance Neward (UT) Skip Novakovich (WA) Daniel Nowiski (MI) Judith Reynolds (IL)

Jim Slaughter (NC) Marsha Turner (MD) Barbara Volk (NC) Susie Wright (OH)

Silent Gavels* NP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: E. Tonya Greenwood (NJ)

Doris Lowrie (DC)

Peola McCaskill (DC)

New Members* NP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Tonya Adkism (TX) Susan Aitken (FL) Patricia Alaman (TX) Dawn Alvan (GA) Alan Anderson (UT) Sandra Barber (TX) Roxsand Beckles (TX)

Antonio Belmar (VA) Tobi Bray (TX) Valerie Brown (IL) Jenifer Burns (GA) Camesha Busby (TX) Bryn Callahan (IL) Jessie Cannon (CA)

Jackilyn Capper (AB) Dottie Chicquelo (DC) Savannah Cobb (FL) Cathy Conwright (TX) Mona Cooper (MD) Sherri Coulibaly (MI) Erica Courtenay-Mann (TX)

* For the period September 15, 2022 through December 16, 2022 www.parliamentarians.org

39

NAP Connections

New Members* continued Therese Covell (OH) John Cunningham (NS) Landria Davis (TX) Wanda Davis (TX) Michael DellaVecchia (PA) Marsha DeShields (NJ) Audrey Doman (DC) Carlisa Dorsey (TX) Yasma Dunkley (TX) Nettie Eaton (FL) Shanika Edwards (TX) Marian Evans (AR) Marion Evans (NC) Erin Feld (CA) Samantha Ferguson (TX) Denesia Fore (TX) Aurelio Garcia (PR) Laura Genovich (MI) Catherine Georges (NY) Nakellia Gibson (TX) Henry Gueary (KS) Shana Gunner (TX) Pamela Gutter (IL) Nathaniel Hall (IL) Valerie Hancock (IL) Lonniesha Hart (NC) Adrienne Hawkins-Turner (IL) Daniel Heins (VA) Anita Henderson (VA) Sandra Henson (TX) Johnnie High (TX) Cory Holland (DC) Brian Horton (KY) Sheng Huang (CN) Richard Isaacson (MI) Yolanda Jennings (TX) Kyrese Johnson (MD) Keisha Jones (TX) Tarrance Jones (TX) Emily Jurmu (AZ) L. Denise Kimbrough (DC)

Paul Knopf (CA) Cynthia Kohlmann (DE) Andrew Kordonowy (ND) Sechyi Laiu (HI) Nicole Lawrence (TN) Fadil Lee (CO) Jacqueline Lee (TX) Joanne Lin (WA) Crystal Lotterberry (TX) Vahnita Loud (TX) Katie Mattison (MN) Kira McCoy (TX) Karla McGary (TX) Lisa McIntye (MD) Amanda McNew (KY) Beverly Moore (TX) Nina Morris Richardson (TX) Sonja Nelson (TX) Joan Parks Saunders (TX) Wayne Paulter (NJ) James Perryman (GA) LaAndra Peterson (TX) Gussie Powe (CA) Melissa Precht (KS) Gerry Prince (AB) Timothy Psiaki (WA) Alexander Reid (DC) Patricia Roach (CA) Cindy Rocha (TX) Philip Ruiz (TX) Jaye Sandstrom (ND) Karen Schultz (WA) Wendy Shea-Tamag (CO) Albert Siebring (AB) Louise Sirisko (ON) Kimberly Slingluff (VA) Donna Smith (TX) Anthony Snyder (MI) Dolly Spencer (TX) Tanya Spencer (TX) Byron Temple (TX)

Sharon Temple (TX) Wonda Traylor (TX) Felipe Vasquez de Velasco (ND) Jonathan Vehar (SD) Karl Walker (GA) Seanna Wesson (TX) Shawn Whitley (TX) Danielle Wilborn (TX) Robert Williams (TX) Shelly Williams (MD) Juanita Wills (DC) Michelle Young (DC) Lyria Zhu (CA)

Thank you instructors!

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Anissa Buckner Kevin Connelly, PRP Kay Crews, PRP Barbara Davis, RP Susan Draftz, PRP Janet Ferguson John Galera Mary Grant, PRP Lori Hiraoka Sonya Johnson-Clark, RP Lovene Knight, RP Henry Lawton, PRP Cynthia Mayo, PRP Michelle Martineau Justin Pappano, PRP Victor Ruiz Kathleen Southerland Beverly Tatham, PRP Deborah Underwood, PRP Michael Wagner-Diggs, PRP Fashika Willis, PRP Nichole Wilson

* For the period September 15, 2022 through December 16, 2022 40

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023

Call to Meeting At la n ta • G eo rg ia

44th

NAP Biennial Convention September 6-10, 2023 • Expert-led educational sessions • Parliamentary procedure in action • Informative interactive workshops • Welcoming southern hospitality

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 42

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2023