National Parliamentarian (Vol.86, No. 2)

Volume 86, No. 2 | Winter 2025

NP

National Parliamentarian

Parliamentary Communication = Parliamentary Confidence

Decisions Without Meetings Stifle Debate . . . . . . . page 6 Striking a Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 10 NAP Youth Committee “Express Yourself ” Newsletter Competition Winner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 14

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 2023-2025 NAP Officers President Alison Wallis, PRP Vice-President Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP Secretary Deborah A. Underwood, PRP Treasurer Robert Schuck, PRP Directors-at-Large Beth Sapp James, PRP Tamara Harris, PRP Steven Cook, PRP District Director Representatives Lucy H. Anderson, PRP Lavon Moore, PRP Parliamentarian C.J. Cavin, PRP Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh Legal Liaison Daniel Ivey-Soto, PRP

National Parliamentarian Volume 86, No. 2 | Winter 2025

Contents

From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 President’s Message Parliamentary Communication = Parliamentary Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Features

Decisions Without Meetings Stifle Debate: Railroading by E-mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

By John R. Berg, PRP Striking a Balance: Board, Executive Boards, Executive Committees, and Fiduciary Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

By Steven Cook, PRP The Periodic Table of Order: A Scientific Approach to Parliamentary Procedure . . . . . 14

By Rudra Patel I Demand…! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

By Carl Nohr, PRP

Departments Test Yourself 2 Truths & 1 Lie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

By David Mezzera, PRP What’s Wrong? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

By Josh Martin, PRP Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Answer Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

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

NAP Connections New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . 32 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 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

Traci Bransford-Marquis, PRP npeditor@nap2.org

Assistant Editor Josh Martin, PRP

NP Review Committee

Ann Guiberson, PRP, Chair Lynna Gene Cook, PRP Kirk Overbey, PRP Nancy Sylvester, PRP

Parliamentary Research Committee

Michael Malamut, PRP, Chair Shannon Sun, PRP Michael C. Taliercio, PRP Rachel Glanstein, PRP, Committee Advisor C.J. Cavin, PRP, NAP Parliamentarian/Consultant

Special Consultant Ronald Dupart, PRP

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN®

(Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592) Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians® ©2024 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 e-mail. 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 86, No. 3 (Spring 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 1, 2025 Volume 86, No. 4 (Summer 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2025 Volume 87, No. 1 (Fall 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2025 2

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

From the Editor As the NAP President writes about parliamentary confidence, I write about parliamentary etiquette and volunteering.

Etiquette – Parliamentary procedure brings about a more sophisticated way of handling discourse and disagreements in discourse. The most sacred tenet of parliamentary procedure is the ability to have a discussion without: 1) losing your temper, 2) becoming emotional, 3) letting the opposing member speak, and 4) listening. Attending a meeting where parliamentary procedure flows (especially during debate) is intellectually stimulating just for the status of the quality of the debate. Conversely, any discussion with lack of respect for another member because you are unable to stay detached or not interrupt is exacerbating.

Volunteering – In a conversation with a unit volunteer, I was plagued with listening to her wax on about how busy and important she was. Such insecurity makes me wonder why we volunteer. I volunteer to find community and make a difference. I volunteer because I feel like I have more purpose. Members who don’t tell you how busy they are, are usually the busiest. I think of the NAP President (or any of you who volunteers as an officer in any organization) and the amount of work dedicated to that office, in addition to work, family, and other interests that must be balanced. I think of the silent NAP volunteers who do so much for the NAP community and when called to ask to volunteer for one more thing, they do it without lamenting how busy they are. They organize their time and prioritize.

So, in passing, I urge that we, the NAP community, adopt parliamentary confidence to exude parliamentary etiquette. And lastly, although we are all busy—just volunteer.

All for now.

Traci Bransford-Marquis, PRP NAP NP Editor, 2023-2025 npeditor@nap2.org Note Bene—included in NP 86-2 is the article from Rudra Patel, the winner of the NAP Youth Committee “Express Yourself ” Newsletter Competition. Please read his article and bio. On behalf of the National Parliamentarian, we are proud of you, Rudra. www.parliamentarians.org

3

President’s Message

Parliamentary Communication = Parliamentary Confidence “Developing confidence is like watching the sun rise.

First it seems very feeble, and one wonders whether it will make it. Then it shines and shines.”

— Chogyam Trungpa As students of parliamentary procedure, we know that while the foremost goals of our discipline are to achieve a maximum of fairness and efficiency in a meeting, there are many personal advantages as well. Confidence and empowerment are major benefits of parliamentary study.

A lucky few are born self-assured, but most of us must work toward appearing and being confident.

Parliamentary procedure establishes the rights of members. As human beings, many members have concerns or anxiety about speaking in public, especially if there is not universal agreement. Additionally, many people have difficulty in putting parliamentary procedure into practice.

If you fear public speaking, let parliamentary knowledge build your confidence. Are you confident that you can make a motion in meeting? Are you confident that you can speak in debate, even if you are the sole advocate? Are you ready to ask questions at the appropriate time? If you do not understand the process, do you know how to raise a parliamentary inquiry or request for information? Are you able to raise a point of order or to appeal the ruling of the chair? Unit meetings provide a wonderful way for members to build confidence by practicing these procedures in a nurturing environment.

Knowing the exact language to use brings poise and power to the speaker. The sample forms in the tinted pages of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) are a 4

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

quick source for the proper verbiage.

A major plus is that using the proper language also helps those less fluent in the language of parliamentary procedure, as well.

Be persistent in your quest for parliamentary knowledge and fluency. With application, you will learn something useful at every meeting and educational event.

If you did not use impeccably correct language, note that for future use and know that practical parliamentary skills will increase with time and experience. Be kind to yourself; building all skills takes practice.

Confident individuals have high standards but do not use their position, knowledge, or personal strength to undermine others. Along your journey, build confidence in others. Be generous to those who do not use perfect terminology or who do not fully understand the rules.

Rather than criticize, be a model of a good officer or member who teaches and leads others.

Being well prepared is another way to build confidence.

If you are presiding at a meeting, have a speaking role as an officer or chairman, or plan to speak in debate, think carefully about how the matter may unfold. Let this preparation build confidence. Learn how to write scripts, talking points, or outlines to be as persuasive as possible.

As parliamentarians, we should heed the advice in RONR, “Any presiding officer will do well to bear in mind that no rules can take the place of tact and common sense on the part of the chairman.” RONR (12th ed.) 47:6.

The deliberative assemblies of the world need parliamentary procedure and confident, empowered members to use it. Your participation and voice will make a difference.

Alison Wallis, PRP 2023-2025 NAP President www.parliamentarians.org

5

Decisions Without Meetings Stifle Debate Ra i l r o ad i n g

by

E - ma i l

By John R. Berg, PRP

The very first numbered page in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) (12th ed.) describes the nature of a deliberative assembly and includes a significant footnote that reads: “A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative assembly in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable.”

(See also 9:30-36). RONR (12th ed.) 1:1n1.

This article will address a common practice of voting outside of meetings, with its problem of restricted open debate, and how to properly make decisions with limited or no debate.

6

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

An essential characteristic of a deliberative assembly referenced above is that of debate in which all members have an opportunity to hear each other at the same time in the same place. Bylaws or other governing documents may permit electronic meetings with members participating remotely, but the other essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly must remain.

See RONR (12th ed.) 9:30-36 – Electronic Meetings.

The first characteristic of a deliberative assembly referenced above includes full and free discussion. The fatal flaw in voting by e-mail or other non-synchronous means outside of a meeting is the lack of that full and free discussion. The chair essentially denies the members the right to debate a motion before putting it to a vote in this manner. This is a serious infraction of basic parliamentary law.

A chair cannot unilaterally refuse to allow debate. Years ago, the author, as a member rather than as a

parliamentarian, asked a presiding officer after a meeting why debate was not asked for before the adoption of a particular motion. The presiding officer’s response was, “I didn’t want any debate.” That presiding officer failed the presiding officer’s duty regardless of whether or not anyone actually wanted to debate the matter.

A chair must never gavel through any measure or speed up the business and not permit debate. RONR (12th ed.) 43:7 states, in part: The right of members to debate or introduce secondary motions cannot be cut off by the chair’s attempting to put a question to vote so quickly that no member can get the floor—either when the chair first states the question or when he believes debate is ended. Debate is not closed by the presiding officer’s rising to put the question. If a vote has been taken or begun quickly and it is found that a member rose and addressed the chair with reasonable promptness after the chair asked, “Are you ready for the question?” or, by a pause or otherwise, indicated that the floor was open to assignment, then—even if the chair has announced the result of such a vote—the vote must be disregarded, the member is entitled to the floor, and debate begins or resumes. …

A chair’s refusal to permit debate is such an infringement upon the member’s rights that such dereliction of duty or misconduct is stated as grounds for removing a presiding officer for all or part of the meeting RONR (12th ed.) 62:10-15. See also this author’s “RONR 62: Removing an Ineffective Presiding Officer,” National Parliamentarian, Fall 2022.

When a committee chair or presiding officer of a body attempts to adopt a measure by polling the board or getting members’ consent through e-mail, texting, or any other means outside of an actual meeting (either in-person or, when authorized, electronic), the members are being denied the right to debate. That fact should be clearly pointed out to the chair by any member. If necessary, a Point of Order should be raised at the next meeting. The action taken without a meeting was null and void because it violated the procedural rules. Action taken in violation of procedural rules cannot be ratified at a later meeting RONR (12th ed.)

10:55.

Occasionally, a chair will be content in getting affirmative votes from only a majority of the voting members and then stop the polling and consider the action approved by a majority. This would be little different from only asking those known to be in favor of a proposition to vote and www.parliamentarians.org

7

not bothering to ask the others. The issue here is not just the fact that there was voting without a meeting for debate, but in the members losing their rights because firstly, a meeting was not held and secondly, some members were not even notified of the pending decision. The chair would be wrong to think that the opinions of the minority would not have affected the outcome because, if they had the right to debate, they may have been able to persuade some of those who were in the majority to change their votes. The right to debate and influence the votes of others is more powerful than a single member’s vote.

Serious flaws in attempting to conduct a deliberative process by e-mail are inherent in its very asynchronous nature. Not everyone checks their e-mail with the same frequency.

E-mail threads or strings can get very confusing, particularly when some members begin side e-mail conversations that include only part of the group. Being bombarded with a series of “Reply to All” comments can be overwhelming. It becomes difficult to determine which comments have been read by whom. In a physical meeting, members could step out briefly during debate at their own risk. Whereas e-mail deliberations may go on for days, no one can be expected to constantly monitor their e-mail 24/7.

8

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

There are various ways in which a decision can properly be made without debate.

• Unanimous Consent RONR (12th ed.) 4:58-63 permits the adoption of routine or non-controversial motions without taking a full vote.

The chair simply asks if there is any objection, essentially taking a negative vote first. If there is only one negative vote, the motion is not adopted and the matter must be opened for debate. Thus one member can force debate.

• A Consent Calendar RONR (12th ed.) 41:32, more commonly known as a consent agenda, is a way of adopting multiple measures with a single vote, typically without debate. While such action is technically open for debate, debate is typically avoided on the main motion by removing specific items from the consent calendar for separate debate. This can be done at the request of one member. Thus one member can force debate.

• Action Without Meeting is a term found in many state corporate statutes that permits a board of directors to make a decision without a meeting, provided that each member consents to the action in writing and the decision is noted in the minutes of the next meeting. Thus, one member voting “no” or abstaining can cause the action to fail. See District of Columbia Statutes §29-406.21,

Revised Code of Washington 23.03A.570.

• A Committee Report RONR (12th ed.) 51:2 “can contain what has been agreed to by every one of its members” when “it is impractical to bring its members together for a meeting.” This provision is similar to the corporate provision of action taken without a meeting, referenced above. In essence, the decision must be unanimous if there was no meeting held for debate. Therefore, one dissenting member (by abstaining or voting no) can cause the matter to fail because there was no debate.

• A motion to Suspend the Rules and take specific action (RONR (12th ed.) 25:4) by combining the two into one motion, is undebatable but requires a two-thirds vote for adoption. Thus, a minority greater than one-third can cause the action without debate to fail.

• The Previous Question RONR (12th ed.) §16 closes debate and brings the question to an immediate vote but requires a two-thirds vote.

Thus, a minority greater than onethird can force debate to continue.

While it is not always appreciated, when the maker of a motion is given the first opportunity to

debate, that opportunity could be used to immediately move the Previous Question, the adoption of which would effectively eliminate debate. RONR (12th ed.) 45:2.

Again, a minority greater than one-third can force debate to continue.

• A motion to Limit Debate RONR (12th ed.) §15 can not only limit debate but can eliminate it altogether for that action to which it applies. Again, a minority greater than one-third can force debate to continue.

• A motion can also be adopted without debate when there is no response to the chair’s questions, “Is there any debate?” or “Are you ready for the question?” However, there was an opportunity for debate in this case.

While a committee is technically not a deliberative assembly (RONR (12th ed.) 1:9, 1:24, 50:1), all committees, especially those with power to take final action (or that function as a board) should respect the rights of its members the same as in a deliberative assembly through voting and especially the right to debate. Making decisions without a meeting for debate should be limited as described above. NP

John R. Berg, PRP, was president of the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians 2017-2021 and has served as parliamentarian for a number of national organizations. In 2019 he was elected to the board of directors of the South Kitsap School District in Washington State and elected its president in 2021. www.parliamentarians.org

9

Striking a Balance: Board

Executive Boards

Executive Committees

Fiduciary Integrity

By Steven Cook, PRP

Introduction In the bustling conference room of a non-profit organization, the board members convene for their quarterly meeting. The air is thick with anticipation as they prepare to tackle significant decisions that will steer the organization’s future. These individuals, drawn from diverse backgrounds and experiences, share one common thread: a commitment to their fiduciary duties. These duties form the cornerstone of their responsibilities, ensuring that their decisions prioritize the organization’s best interests.

The Role of Boards, Executive Boards, and Committees Before diving into the heart of fiduciary duties, it is essential to understand the structure and roles of different governing bodies within an organization. Regardless of which role a given director serves in, they are bound by fiduciary duties.

• Boards of Directors are the overarching decision-making bodies responsible for setting the organization’s strategic direction, ensuring financial stability, 10

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

and maintaining stakeholder accountability. They provide governance and oversight, making high-level policy decisions and delegating day-to-day operations to the executive team.

• Executive Boards or Executive Committees are subsets of the main board, often composed of key officers such as the President, Treasurer, and Secretary. They handle more immediate operational decisions and can act swiftly when the full board is not in session.

This smaller group allows for more agile and responsive governance.

• Committees of the Board are specialized groups that focus on particular areas such as finance, audit, or governance. These committees conduct in-depth analyses and make recommendations to the full board, ensuring informed decision-making in specific domains.

Definition of Fiduciary A fiduciary is more than just a legal term; it is a profound commitment to

ethical stewardship. At its core, a fiduciary is someone entrusted to act on behalf of another party, prioritizing their interests above all else. For board members, this means placing the organization’s well-being ahead of potential personal gain.

Imagine Grace, a board member of a community healthcare non-profit organization and the CEO of a medical supply company. Grace’s role in the non-profit places her in a fiduciary position, requiring her to navigate potential conflicts of interest with utmost integrity. Her fiduciary duty demands that she make decisions solely in the best interest of the non-profit, even if it means foregoing a lucrative contract for her company.

Significance of Fiduciary Responsibilities Fiduciary responsibilities are the bedrock of trust in any organization.

They ensure that those in positions of power act with integrity, transparency, and accountability. For stakeholders— be they investors, employees, or beneficiaries—knowing that board members uphold fiduciary duties instills confidence in the organization’s leadership and future.

Consider the case of a philanthropic foundation managing substantial endowments. The board’s fiduciary responsibilities include prudent fund investment, ensuring that the foundation can continue its charitable work for generations. If the board members neglect these duties, the

foundation risks financial instability, potentially jeopardizing its mission.

Primary Duties Associated with Fiduciary Roles Fiduciary duties can be distilled into three primary obligations: the Duty of Care, the Duty of Loyalty, and the Duty of Obedience.

• Duty of Care: This duty requires board members to make informed and prudent decisions. They must stay well-informed about the organization’s activities, thoroughly deliberate, and seek expert advice when necessary. For instance, before approving a new initiative, board members should review all relevant data, ask critical questions, and consider potential risks and benefits.

• Duty of Loyalty: Fiduciaries must prioritize the organization’s interests above personal gains.

This involves avoiding conflicts of interest and ensuring decisions benefit the organization rather than individual members. For example, if a board member’s family business stands to gain from a board decision, the member must disclose this conflict and recuse themselves from related discussions and votes.

• Duty of Obedience: This duty requires adherence to the organization’s mission, bylaws, and legal requirements. Board members must ensure that the organization’s www.parliamentarians.org

11

actions align with its stated objectives and comply with applicable laws. For example, a board overseeing a historical preservation society must ensure that all projects align with the mission of preserving historical sites and comply with relevant heritage laws. This duty also requires boards to ensure that all financial and other legally required reports are filed correctly.

Practical Examples of Fiduciary Duties To illustrate these duties in action, let us revisit Grace, the board member of the community healthcare non-profit. During a board meeting, the proposal for a new health initiative is presented.

• Duty of Care: Grace reviews the proposal thoroughly, asking detailed questions about the project’s feasibility, budget, and expected outcomes. She suggests consulting with healthcare experts to validate the initiative’s potential impact.

• Duty of Loyalty: Grace notices that one of the proposed suppliers for the initiative is her medical supply company. Aware of her fiduciary duty, she discloses this conflict to the board and abstains from the vote, ensuring that the decision is made impartially.

• Duty of Obedience: Grace and her fellow board members ensure that the new health initiative aligns 12

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

with the non-profit’s mission to provide accessible healthcare to underserved communities. They review the organization’s bylaws and legal obligations to ensure compliance.

Elements of a Fiduciary Breach Not to be confused with a legal breach of duty, a fiduciary breach occurs when fiduciaries fail to fulfill their obligations, potentially harming the organization. This breach can take many forms, from negligence to intentional misconduct. Key elements of a fiduciary breach include: • Duty Exists: Duty of care is a legal and fiduciary term of art; duty of loyalty and duty of obedience are fiduciary ones.

• Breach of Duty: The fiduciary fails to act with care, loyalty, or obedience. For instance, a board member might approve a decision without adequate review, ignore a conflict of interest, or act outside the organization’s legal bounds.

• Causation: There must be a direct link between the breach and harm caused to the organization. This causation must be evident if a board member’s negligence leads to a financial loss for the organization.

• Damages: The organization must suffer tangible or intangible losses due to the breach. This could include financial loss, reputational damage, or operational setbacks.

Consider a case where a board member invests the organization’s

funds in a high-risk venture without proper due diligence, resulting in significant financial losses. This scenario demonstrates a breach of the duty of care, causation through the unwise investment, and damages in monetary loss.

Fiduciary Duties as a Guide to Ethical Decision Making Fiduciary duties serve as a moral compass for boards, guiding ethical decision-making. By adhering to these principles, boards ensure that their decisions are just, transparent, and in the organization’s best interest. This ethical framework helps navigate complex scenarios, balancing diverse stakeholder interests while maintaining organizational integrity.

For instance, during a board retreat, members discuss a controversial partnership with a corporation with a questionable environmental record. Applying fiduciary principles, they evaluate the partnership’s alignment with the organization’s mission, potential conflicts of interest, and the long-term impact on the organization’s reputation. Ultimately, they decide against the partnership, prioritizing ethical considerations and stakeholder trust.

Conclusion Understanding and upholding fiduciary duties is essential for effective governance. Boards, Executive Boards, and Committees of Boards must prioritize these responsibilities to foster trust, ensure ethical conduct, and drive their organizations toward sustained success. By balancing strategic objectives and fiduciary integrity, these governing bodies can make informed, ethical decisions that benefit all stakeholders.

As Grace and her fellow board members adjourn their meeting, they carry the weight of their fiduciary responsibilities. Their commitment to acting with care, loyalty, and obedience ensures that their decisions will steer the organization toward a future marked by integrity, trust, and success. Their dedication exemplifies the true essence of fiduciary duty, setting a standard for others to follow.

Special thanks to Carl Nohr, PRP, for his inspiration and leadership on the topic of fiduciary responsibility.

His insights continue to guide and encourage those who engage with this important subject! NP

Steven Cook, PRP, has been a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) since 2011. He is a Certified Parliamentarian (CP) in the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP). He presently serves as a member of the NAP Board of Directors as a Director-at-Large and the chair of the Audit Committee of the AIP. He also served on the NAP Bylaws Committee from 2019 to 2023, where he served as the chair from 2021 to 2023. Mr. Cook retired from the Department of Defense in 2021 after working for the National Security Agency for 42 years. He calls North Carolina home, where he and his wife Sandra, a PRP and a Commissioner on the Commission of Credentialing of NAP, live in Clayton. www.parliamentarians.org

13

NAP Youth Committee “Express Yourself” Newsletter Competition Winner

The Periodic Table of Order: A Scientific Approach to Parliamentary Procedure

By Rudra Patel • Student Age: 17 • Student Grade: 12th • Principal E-mail Address: camilla.burton@hcps.net • Organization Name: Middleton High School Science National Honor Society

The air thrums with the potential of scientific discovery in the halls of Middleton High School. And another form of chemistry unfolds within the officer meetings of the Science National Honor Society. I’ve come to realize that parliamentary procedure is not unlike the organization of chemical elements that forms the periodic table on our classroom walls.

The Nucleus of Order The heart of our meetings is the agenda, like the nucleus of an atom. It is the essence of order and a bulwark against the entropy of disorganization—structure in the chaotic sea of human discourse. It guides our energies toward a productive end, much as a well-designed experiment channels scientific inquiry towards enlightenment.

Elemental Motions: The Building Blocks of Deliberation Just as in Mendeleev’s periodic table, each motion has its own properties, valences, and uses that form the foundation of our deliberative chemistry: I. Main Motions (M): The fundamental particles that introduce new business into our organizational universe. Like hydrogen, main motions are the primordial matter from which decisions are ultimately forged.

II. Subsidiary Motions (Sb): Like transition metals, these motions help modify or dispose of main motions: catalysts of our debates, facilitating transformations and refinements.

14

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

III. Privileged Motions (Pv): Akin to noble gases in their elevated status and invoked out of necessity, these motions demand immediate attention.

IV. Incidental Motions (In): These are the halogens of our procedural world—reactive and relative to the manner in which business is conducted. They can change the course of debate with the sudden brilliance of a flame test.

V. Restorative Motions (Rm): Like the lanthanides and actinides, these motions are set apart, used to revisit decisions or bring back matters previously disposed of. They represent the cyclical nature of deliberation, the understanding that even in the realm of decision making, nothing is truly final.

The Bonding of Ideas: Intellectual Alchemy In chemistry, atoms form bonds to create molecules. In our meetings, ideas form through debate and discussion. The chair acts as a catalyst, facilitating the reactions and ensuring that every member can contribute, ideas melding like compounds in a perfectly balanced solution.

Valence and Voting: The Electron Exchange of Democracy In our scientific society, we understand that atoms have valence electrons that determine bonding behavior. In parliamentary procedure, each member’s vote acts as a valence force, making decisions with the same importance as those outer electrons.

“Those in favor of the motion, say ‘Aye’,” I announce, and the room is filled with affirmations, like electrons aligning in a shared orbital. In that moment the energy levels shift, the potential energy of indecision converting to the kinetic energy of action.

Balancing Equations: The Stoichiometry of Consensus Just as chemists must balance their equations, we in the Science National Honor Society must balance interests and opinions with equal diligence.

Robert’s Rules of Order serves as our periodic table, a guide to the elements of order, directing us in maintaining this equilibrium.

Consider this equation: Main Motion (M) + Amendment (Am)

Debate (Db)

Vote (V) = Balanced Decision (Bd).

www.parliamentarians.org

15

This alchemy ensures that a decision is a balanced reaction of ideas and procedures, a transmutation of individual thoughts into collective wisdom.

Conclusion: The Noble Pursuit of Order I rap the gavel to adjourn our meeting and am reminded of the noble gases—stable, complete, and satisfied in their perfection. Through the application of parliamentary procedure, we’ve achieved a state of procedural nobility, where every member’s voice has been heard and every decision has been made like a well-executed experiment.

In the crucible of the Science National Honor Society, we’ve discovered that the elements of order, when properly combined, create not just decisions, but a culture of respect, efficiency, and democratic spirit. It’s a noble pursuit, one that would make Madame Curie, Henry Martyn Robert, and Dmitri Mendeleev equally proud.

In the grand experiment of democracy, parliamentary procedure is both our methodology and our result. It transforms the raw materials of individual opinion into the refined product of collective decision making.

In mastering these principles, we prepare ourselves not just for the governance of a high school club, but for the responsibilities in the greater laboratory of life. NP Rudra Patel is a dedicated high school senior student, neurotech researcher, and aspiring entrepreneur. He also serves as the president of the Science National Honor Society and is passionate about STEM accessibility, biocomputation, and building noninvasive neuroprosthetics.

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

16

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

I Demand…!

By Carl Nohr, PRP

Under parliamentary law, members have rights. In meetings, such rights are in part expressed through the making of motions and other ways to direct actions of the assembly.

For most motions, a second is required to indicate that at least one other member wishes to pursue the action. A few such actions are so important that a single member may demand them.

In parliamentary usage, a demand is a peremptory request made by a single member that must be processed by the chair at the time it is demanded.

In many such cases, the chair must simply process the motion or answer the question it poses. In others, the response required of the chair is more complex. In some cases, the assembly may overturn the demand.

If urgency requires it, the making of some demands may interrupt another member already speaking or a member assigned the floor who has not yet begun to speak. Such demands may also be described as interrupting in addition to being peremptory.

Some demands may not interrupt.

Demands that may interrupt a speaker do not require recognition by the chair, although the member

making the demand may choose to seek the chair’s attention before stating his demand. In the category of non-interrupting demands, recognition by the chair is not required for making nominations and submitting proposals to fill a blank.

For further study, demands may be categorized as those which may interrupt another speaker, those which may interrupt another member who has been recognized, but has not yet begun to speak, and those which may not interrupt. The demands in these three categories are listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

It is well known that motions in small boards and committees generally do not require a second.1 Such motions may therefore be made by a single member but are not inherently peremptory and are not the subject of this article.

TABLE 1. Motions that may be made by a single member and may interrupt a person speaking in debate if urgency requires it.

1. Point of Order2 2. Parliamentary Inquiry3 3. Request for Information4 1 RONR (12th ed.) 49:21, 50:25 2 RONR (12th ed.) 23 3 RONR (12th ed.) 33:3-5 4 RONR (12th ed.) 33:6-10 www.parliamentarians.org

17

4. Request for Permission to Withdraw or Modify a Motion5 5. Division of the Assembly6 6. Call for separate vote(s) on one or more of a series of unrelated resolutions that have been offered by a single motion7 7. Call for separate votes on one or more of a series of amendments on which the chair has stated the question in gross8 8. Demand a ballot vote in disciplinary procedures9,10 9. Demand an individual roll call vote for a section of convention delegates11 10. Call for the Orders of the Day12 11. Calling a Member to Order13

frequency of usage. It is therefore suggested that individuals beginning their parliamentary education pay particular attention to the Standard Descriptive Characteristics20 of the top motions in the table and rely on an experienced chair or parliamentarian for advice through a parliamentary inquiry, a commonly used demand, when the member wishes to perform an action listed later in the table.

A Point of Order is a demand by a single member for a ruling from the chair as to whether correct procedure is being followed. This motion allows all members to participate in the management of the meeting. The member states the point, and the chair then rules on it. This ruling may be appealed from, which returns the

12. Request that the Minutes of the previous meeting be read14

5 RONR (12th ed.) 33:11–19

13. Raise a Question of Privilege

6 RONR (12th ed.) 29

15

14. Request Permission to Read Papers16

7 RONR (12th ed.) 10:25, 27:10 8 RONR (12th ed.) 12:14, 27:11, 51:48(b), 52:13, 52:23

15. Request Any Other Privilege17

9 RONR (12th ed.) 61:17

16. Request to Be Excused from a Duty18

10 RONR (12th ed.) 63:33

17. Audible Roll Call to verify quorum in an electronic meeting19 The motions or actions shown in Table 1 can be undertaken by a single member who may interrupt a person speaking in debate if urgency requires it. These motions have been ordered in the table according to the author’s experience in terms of utility and 18

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

11 RONR (12th ed.) 45:53 12 RONR (12th ed.) 18 13 RONR (12th ed.) 61:11 14 RONR (12th ed.) 41:9 15 RONR (12th ed.) 19 16 RONR (12th ed.) 33:20-21 17 RONR (12th ed.) 33:22 18 RONR (12th ed.) 32 19 RONR (12th ed.) Appendix, pp. 639, 643, 646, 648 20 RONR (12th ed.) 7

authority to the assembly to apply the rules of order as it sees fit.

A Parliamentary Inquiry is an excellent tool for members to use when they want to do something in a meeting but do not know how.

The member simply states, “I have a parliamentary inquiry.” After recognition, he then states what he wants to do, and the chair will explain the parliamentary procedure required to accomplish the member’s purpose.

Unless it is in order at that time, the member may not immediately pursue what the chair has explained but must wait until what the chair has suggested is in order.

A Request for Information is very useful to inform members before they vote on a motion. Requests are directed to the chair, who will either provide the information or designate someone to do so. One common variant of this motion is requesting that the chair restate the pending question. If the chair does not do it on his own, any member may demand that the pending question be restated by the chair prior to a vote, especially if there has been any debate or amendment since the question was last stated.21 A Request for Permission to Withdraw or Modify a Motion may be made in the interval between when the motion has been made and before it is stated by the chair. This is a way for a single member to manage his motion before the chair states it and the assembly takes over the

management of the motion.

The next three demands relate to voting rights. These demands reflect the right of members to know what they are voting on and to assure an accurate vote count.

A call for a Division of the Assembly may be made by a single member who doubts the determination by the chair of the outcome of a close voice vote. The member simply calls out “Division!” This does not demand a counted vote. If the member wishes to have a counted vote, he must make a motion to do so which must be seconded and supported by a majority.22 If the vote is uncertain, the wise chair may pause slightly before announcing the vote to allow a member to demand a division, or he may simply state that the chair is uncertain, and proceed to a division by a rising vote, or if still uncertain, a counted vote.

Calling for a separate vote on one or more of a series of unrelated resolutions that have been offered by a single motion is used to exercise the right of a single member of the assembly to know exactly what is being voted on, and to limit the vote to one issue at a time. This allows the assembly to cast their votes individually on various unrelated motions. After removal of the desired motions from the series, the remaining motions may be voted on together; then the 21 RONR (12th ed.) 4:37 22 RONR (12th ed.) 30:3, 4:53, 45:14 www.parliamentarians.org

19

removed motions may be voted on individually. This approach also applies to the adoption of standing rules at a convention. This set of rules is a group of separate main motions offered by the Committee on Standing Rules, and a single member may demand a vote on any of them individually.23 The vote is first taken on the remaining rules, then on those removed for individual consideration.

Similarly, demanding separate votes on one or more of a series of amendments on which the chair has stated the question in gross allows the member to limit debate and vote to one issue at a time. This can achieve a greater focus on a particular amendment or amendments that may be more controversial than the others.

If the amendments are conforming amendments, however, they may not be separated.24 The same process applies to multiple amendments proposed by a committee in its report on a motion referred to it.25 In some circumstances, a single member may demand a ballot vote.

When a vote is taken on a possible penalty for a breach of order in a meeting, any member other than the named offender may demand a ballot vote unless the proposed penalty is that the offender be required to leave the meeting room for all or part of the remaining meeting. In a trial, both the question of guilt and potential penalty must be voted on by ballot on the demand of a single member.

20

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

In large conventions, a roll call vote may initially be taken by calling for the votes from sections of the delegates rather than by calling for individual delegates to vote. If a single member doubts the outcome from a section, he may demand a poll of the section in which each delegate votes individually.

Call for the Orders of the Day is the lowest ranking privileged motion.26 Taking up the business of an assembly at the expected time according to the standard order of business or an adopted agenda27 is very important to support members’ rights to participate.28 A member may not specify a specific action by using this motion, but rather it is only a demand for the assembly to follow the agreed upon schedule. By the same motion, a member can similarly require that the assembly take up a general or a special order due to come up at the time29 and demand that a scheduled recess be declared if the chair overlooks it.30 Such a demand for the orders of the day, however, may be overturned by the assembly. The chair, acting 23 RONR (12th ed.) 59:32.

24 RONR (12th ed.) 12:15 25 RONR (12th ed.) 51:48 b) 26 RONR (12th ed.) 18:1 27 RONR (12th ed.) 41:1-4 28 RONR (12th ed.) 18:2 29 RONR (12th ed.) 14:17 30 RONR (12th ed.) 20:6-7

either on a motion by a member to do so, or on his initiative, may process the question, “Shall the orders of the day be followed?” A two-thirds vote is required to dismiss the demand for the orders of the day and continue with current business.31 After the pending business is disposed of, the motion to call for the orders of the day may be renewed.32 Calling a member to order is usually something the chair is expected to do. However, order in a meeting is everyone’s responsibility.33 If the chair overlooks an infraction, any member may state, “Mr. Chair, I call the member to order,” and provide an explanation if needed.

A request that the minutes of the previous meeting be read may be made by a single member. While the default rule is that the minutes are read, many organizations circulate copies of the minutes of each previous meeting as prepared by the secretary in advance. In this case, reading them is omitted unless any member requests that they be read.

The privileged motion to Raise a Question of Privilege may be made by a single member, as can a Request for Permission to Read Papers, or any other privilege, e.g., to give a presentation or address the assembly. Also, a single member may request to be excused from a duty.

In the sample rules for electronic meetings, RONR proposes that any

member may demand an audible roll call to verify the presence of a quorum.

It is the author’s experience that it can be difficult in electronic meetings to verify the number of members actually present in the sense of being attentive to the meeting. Another approach to determine the number of members present in large meetings is to use a breakout room, requiring that each member agree to go to the breakout room, thus verifying their presence. This is particularly important if the denominator for the vote is the number of members present, rather than the usual number of members present and voting.

TABLE 2. Motions that may be made by a single member and may interrupt a person who has been recognized but has not yet begun to speak.

1. Notice of Intent to introduce a motion requiring such notice34 2. Objection to the Consideration of a Question35 Next, there are actions a single member may perform that may not interrupt a member who is speaking but may interrupt someone assigned the floor but who has not started to 31 RONR (12th ed.) 18:8 32 RONR (12th ed.) 18:8 (a) 33 RONR (12th ed.) 61:1 34 RONR (12th ed.) 10:44-51 35 RONR (12th ed.) 26 www.parliamentarians.org

21

speak. These are listed in Table 2 and include giving notice of intent to introduce a motion requiring such notice, and the incidental motion, Objection to the Consideration of a Question.

There are several motions that either require notice, or benefit from notice if given by reducing the vote required to adopt.36 When no question is pending, a single member who desires to give notice is entitled to preference in recognition; but if unsuccessful, can interrupt pending business. Giving notice is in order even after it has been voted to adjourn if the chair has not yet declared the adjournment.37 Objection to the Consideration of a Question may be made by a single member who may interrupt a member assigned the floor but who has not yet begun to speak; as soon as another member has begun to speak, objection to consideration is no longer in order.38 TABLE 3. Motions that may be made by a single member that may not interrupt.

1. Call up a motion to Reconsider or a motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes39 2. Nominations40 3. Proposals for filling blanks41

The final category of motions that may be made by a single member are those that generally may not interrupt.

Despite not interrupting, most of them do not require recognition either but are in the nature of a response to the chair.

Nominations and proposals to fill a blank are similar in this regard.

“A nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion “that _________ be elected” to the specified position.”44 When the chair opens the floor, members may make nominations or give proposals to fill a blank without recognition.

The use of general consent, also referred to as unanimous consent, is a common practice used by chairs to efficiently use meeting time. The chair may seek general consent by saying, “Unless there is an objection, …”, followed by “Is there any objection?”

At this time, any single member may object, thereby demanding that the chair put the pending question to a vote. The member would usually not interrupt but would wait until the 36 RONR (12th ed.) 1:7 37 RONR (12th ed.) 21:10-12 38 RONR (12th ed.) 26:2 39 RONR (12th ed.) 37 40 RONR (12th ed.) 46

4. Objection to general or unanimous consent42

41 RONR (12th ed.) 12:92-113

5. Demand to remove an item from a consent calendar43

43 RONR (12th ed.) 41:32

22

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

42 RONR (12th ed.) 4:58-60 44 RONR (12th ed.) 46:1

chair asks if there is an objection and then answer in the affirmative. The member may seek recognition, but this is not required; common practice is for the member to simply state “I object,” without being recognized.

While commonly used to expedite non-controversial business of various kinds, general consent is specifically required to allow any resolution, motion, or paper to be put to a vote without being read.45 A related parliamentary tool used by many organizations is a consent agenda or as it is called in RONR, a consent calendar. A consent agenda contains items that are not likely to be controversial and is usually adopted by general consent. It is the right of a single member to demand removal of any item from the consent agenda for placement in its appropriate location in the business agenda for separate consideration.

Demand, request, motion, proposal, nomination, and objection are all words used to describe some actions that a single member may undertake.

Some of these words may be misused.

For example, a member who interrupts by calling out, “I demand the Previous Question!” This member does not

understand the motion for the Previous Question, which may not interrupt nor be demanded by a single member, but rather requires recognition, a second and a vote.46 Similarly, the phrase “I demand to be heard!” is not in order. What the person wants is not clear. He may wish to appeal the ruling of the chair on the order of speaking, may be dissatisfied with the outcome of a vote, or may be a non-member seeking permission to speak. Regardless of what the person intends, this is not a recognizable demand in the parliamentary sense. In any of these scenarios, the helpful chair will assist the member in stating correctly what it is they wish to do.47 Demands by single members are based on member rights under parliamentary law. They are an important part of the process of conducting business at a meeting.

The common demands should be understood by members, and all should be understood by a competent chair. NP 45 RONR (12th ed.) 4:37n11 46 RONR (12th ed.) 16:5 47 RONR (12th ed.) 47:7

Carl Nohr, 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. www.parliamentarians.org

23

Test Yourself

2 Truths & 1 Lie

By David Mezzera, PRP

Have you ever played the icebreaker “Two truths and one lie” where each person around the circle tells two actual truths about themself and one false statement about themself? The others in the group then try to guess which is the fabrication while learning some new things about the person being put on the spot. Some of the true statements may seem outlandish (but true) and some of the false statements may seem plausible (but not true!).

Let’s extend this activity to RONR and specifically to the 12th Edition. For each of the following 12 sets of statements (in honor of the 12th Edition), two are true and one is not true. Can you immediately pick out the term that is not found in RONR? Important: all of the questions are based on pages 1-714 of the text of RONR (including the Index but excluding the Preface and Introduction).

Answers and 12th Edition citations may be found on page 31 (and that’s the truth.)

1. The text contains the term (a) continued meeting; (b) supreme majority; (c) railroading.

2. The text contains the term (a) e-mail; (b) fax; (c) voice mail.

3. The text contains the term (a) signed ballot (b) open ballot; (c) keypad voting.

4. The text contains the term (a) Australian ballot; (b) serpentine vote; (c) straw poll.

5. The text contains the term (a) warden: (b) curator; (c) captain.

6. The text contains the term (a) boss; (b) moderator; (c) spokesman.

7. The text contains the term (a) lieutenant; (b) door keeper; (c) librarian.

8. The text contains the term (a) dais (b) stool (c) bookstand.

9. The text contains the term (a) pulpit; (b) lectern; (c) rostrum.

10. The text contains the term (a) docket; (b) hearsay; (c) affidavit.

11. The text contains the term (a) dialogue; (b) teleconference; (c) audioconference.

12. The text contains the term (a) sunshine laws; (b) open meeting; (c) transparency.

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

24

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

Test Yourself

What’s Wrong?

By Josh Martin, PRP

Can you spot the parliamentary blunders in the following stories?

Blunder #1 At the January meeting, the treasurer presented a financial report detailing the organization’s expenses and income for the past quarter. A member moved to adopt the treasurer’s report, and the motion was seconded. The chair called for a vote, and the motion to adopt the report was approved by majority vote.

The meeting then proceeded to new business. Where was the blunder?

Blunder #2 During the February meeting, the election of officers was underway. Votes were being cast by secret ballot. After the ballots were collected and counted, the chair announced the results without revealing the vote counts. Some members requested the vote counts, but the chair refused, stating that the counts were confidential. The meeting then moved on to other business. Where was the blunder?

Blunder #3 During the May meeting, after a lengthy discussion on several proposals, a member moved to adjourn the meeting.

The motion was seconded. The chair acknowledged the motion but decided to address one more important agenda item before putting the motion to adjourn to a vote. The meeting proceeded with additional business before eventually adjourning. Where was the blunder?

Answers are on page 31.

Josh Martin, PRP, is currently NP Assistant Editor. He joined NAP in 2009 and received the RP and PRP credentials in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Josh is also the current Treasurer and a past President and Vice President of the Minnesota State Association of Parliamentarians. He is a former member of the NAP Bylaws Committee and served as Technical Editor for the third and fourth editions of Robert’s Rules of Order for Dummies by Alan Jennings, PRP. www.parliamentarians.org

25

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. 85, No. 1, Fall 2023, p. 30.

Questions should be e-mailed to npquestions@nap2.org.

Bylaw Amendment No Longer a General Order

Q

Question: I recall in the past, when a member gave notice at a meeting of their intent to introduce a bylaw amendment at the next meeting, it was placed in the minutes of that meeting, and placed on the agenda of the next meeting, under Unfinished Business and General Orders. However, when I recently gave notice of an intended bylaw amendment, although it was placed in the minutes of that meeting, I wasn’t recognized to bring it up until we reached New Business on the agenda. Shouldn’t the chair have called for it as a general order under Unfinished Business and General Orders?

Answer: In the previous edition of RONR, the 11th edition, when notice of a bylaw amendment was given, the bylaw amendment consideration was specified as a general order. RONR (11th ed.) p. 596, ll. 25-27 stated: “When notice has been given of a bylaw amendment, it becomes a general order for the meeting at which it is to be considered.”

However, in the new 12th edition of RONR, the sentence referred to above was deleted from the parallel provision. RONR (12th ed.) 57:14.

Therefore, although the notice of a bylaw amendment should still be noted in the minutes of the meeting at which it was announced, it would no longer be specified as a general order. The bylaw amendment consideration would be brought up under New Business instead of Unfinished Business and General Orders.

26

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

Normally, for an item to become a general order, the assembly as a group decides to define the item as such, rather than allow one member the power to create a general order. The change in the 12th edition of RONR is consistent with this general standard. If the assembly wishes to take up the proposed bylaw amendment under Unfinished Business and General Orders, they may vote to make it a general order or to adopt an agenda listing the item as such.

Additionally, bylaw amendments may arise out of reports, especially if the assembly has a bylaws committee, and consequently could be considered under Reports in the order of business or on the agenda, but notice requirements (if any) must also be met.

What does a “vote of those present” mean?

Q

Question: Our bylaws must be amended by “a 2/3 vote of those present in person or by proxy.” Our bylaws also authorize voting by a ballot mailed to the entire membership rather than conducting the vote at a special meeting. It was decided to conduct the vote on the bylaw amendment by mail ballot, and mail ballots were mailed to all members in my organization in accordance with the bylaws. Of the 150 people in my organization, 144 people returned ballots on the bylaw amendment. Of those, 45 voted neither for or against the proposed bylaw amendment, 71 voted in favor, and 28 voted against.

The president contends that the bylaw amendment passed because more than 2/3 of those voting (71 out of 99) voted in favor of the proposed bylaw amendment. Is our president correct? Was the bylaw amendment adopted? Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR) (12th ed.) is our parliamentary authority.

Answer: Unfortunately, your president is mistaken. The bylaw amendment was not adopted. The language “2/3 vote of those present in person or by proxy” is different than the typical requirement of a 2/3 vote, which is 2/3 of those present and voting; in other words, 2/3 of eligible votes cast.

RONR (12th ed.) 44:7. RONR specifically cautions against these sorts of voting conditions. “Voting requirements based on the number of members present–a majority of those present, two thirds of those www.parliamentarians.org

27

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

present, etc.–while possible, are generally undesirable. Since an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote, these bases deny members the right to maintain a neutral position by abstaining. For the same reason, members present who fail to vote through indifference rather than through deliberate neutrality may affect the result negatively.” RONR (12th ed.) 44:9. Had the vote been held in a meeting, then the voting requirement would be 2/3 of those physically present in the room. The blank ballots that did not indicate a preference on the proposed bylaw amendment are treated as abstentions. RONR (12th ed.) 45:31. If this had occurred at a meeting and just the ballots returned were counted, the bylaw amendment would not have been adopted. If the ballots were cast at a physical meeting, and all present returned ballots, 144 ballots were returned between the votes in favor, votes against, and abstentions, reflecting 144 present at the meeting. 96 votes in favor would have been required to adopt the bylaw amendment.

However, this vote was conducted by mail, and the concept of who is “present in person” for a mail vote is nebulous. If a mail ballot is sent to all members, then is receiving a ballot sufficient to constitute being “present in person” for the vote or does a member need to return the ballot count as “present in person” for the vote? RONR does not explicitly address the subject.

However, the concept of quorum in the context of a mail vote is illuminating here. In a meeting, the “quorum refers to the number of members present, not to the number actually voting on a particular question.” RONR (12th ed.) 40:1. Questions concerning the appropriate “quorum for mail vote” have been previously addressed in this publication. The question of the quorum for a mail vote was answered with, “quorum is the number of members entitled to vote who must be present at a meeting in order that business can be legally transacted. In a mail vote, there is no need for this legal precaution, as each member receives notification and a ballot.” Q&AIII, p. 152, q. 556. Or, in response to the question of “what constitutes a majority of the mail votes— a majority of those voting, a majority of the total board membership, or a majority of the quorum?” the answer was that a “majority of the mail votes is a majority of the votes cast as it would be if the members were present at a meeting. No one can be compelled to vote. The question 28

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

of quorum is unimportant because every member of a board receives a copy of the motion and has the opportunity to vote, just as if he had been present at a meeting.” Q&AIII, p. 195, q. 720. Accordingly, simply receiving a mail ballot has been found to be equivalent to being present at a meeting. Applying that logic here to this question concerning the bylaw amendment vote, if 150 mail ballots were distributed, then 100 would be required to be in favor to approve the bylaw amendment.

Since only 71 votes were in favor, the bylaw amendment was not adopted.

Is the Role of the Resolutions Committee Exclusive?

Q

Question: Our organization holds an annual convention, with a resolutions committee. Our bylaws are fairly simple and say just that all main motions shall be reviewed by the resolutions committee, which shall review main motions for form and make recommendations as to each motion. See RONR (12th ed.) 10:30 (4). This is contrary to the recommendation of RONR (12th ed.) that main motions should generally be reviewed by a committee with substantive authority over the subject matter of the motion, if there is such a committee. RONR (12th ed.) 59:67, 74–75. A bylaw amendment was proposed by a local chapter and the bylaws committee wants to recommend that the proposed amendment not be adopted. This is contrary to the resolutions committee’s recommendation to approve the proposed amendment. Can the bylaws committee oppose the resolutions committee? RONR (12th ed.) is our parliamentary authority.

Answer: As your organization’s parliamentary authority is RONR (12th ed.), the bylaws committee is largely right in this case. The bylaws committee can certainly report its recommendation on the bylaw proposal as part of its own report. By prearrangement, this should be scheduled before the resolutions committee reports. This is typically the case for standard committee reports which do not require action and usually occur before the resolutions committee reports on a number of proposed motions.

RONR (12th ed.) 59:55 (6)–(7). In some organizations, resolutions are referred by rule or custom to other relevant committees for recommendation, in addition to the resolutions committee. For example, it is recommended to include financial impact as part of the www.parliamentarians.org

29

&

Test Yourself

Questions Answers continued

resolutions committee report. AIPSC (2nd ed.) 25.49. This is often made by the finance or budget committee. Even when it is not the custom for additional committees to make recommendations on pending resolutions, other relevant committees may choose to make a recommendation, as in this case. Typically, as a courtesy, these additional recommendations are included in the presentation of the motion, after the recommendation of the resolutions committee, as part of the resolutions committee’s report. AIPSC (2nd ed.) 25.48.

A delegate representing the local chapter that proposed the motion would generally be granted recognition as the maker of the motion, if there is no rule that the resolutions committee is considered the first speaker for all referred motions. (The resolutions committee is not always the proponent, as it may recommend against the motion or make no recommendation.) RONR (12th ed.) 42:9 (1), 59:73, 59:80–81.

See Lena LaNelle Hardcastle, Parliamentary Law Rules and Procedures for Conducting Conventions (Stuart Books 1982) p. 133. In many organizations, by custom, the resolutions committee chair or reporting member may, as part of the introduction of the resolutions committee’s recommendation, include the recommendations of other committees and their rationale.

By prearrangement, a representative of the bylaws committee could also be recognized as the first speaker against the motion. RONR (12th ed.)

42:9 (3), 59:82–83. In this case, the chair or reporting member of the bylaws committee should be recognized to make the con speech.

It should be noted that resolutions or reference committees have separate procedures under AIPSC (2nd), which has an entire chapter, Chapter 25, devoted to reference committee procedures.

Questions & Answers Research Team No Image Available Michael Malamut, PRP, Chair 30

Shannon Sun, PRP

Michael C. Taliercio, PRP

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

Rachel Glanstein, PRP, Committee Advisor

C.J. Cavin, PRP, NAP Parliamentarian, Consultant

Answer Keys

Test Yourself

2 Truths & 1 Lie from page 24 1. (a) Page 667 (Index only) (b) Nay (Super majority closest) (c) Page 698 (Index only)

7. (a) Nay (b) 47:40 (c) 47:40

2. (a) 1:1n1 (b) 1:1n1 (c) Nay

8. (a) Page 669 (Index only) (b) 3:7 (c) Nay

3. (a) 30:1 (b) Nay (c) Page 681 (Index only)

9. (a) Nay (b) 3:7 (c) Page 703 (Index only)

4. (a) Nay (b) Page 706 (Index only) (c) 45:72

10. (a) Page 673 (Index only) (b) 63:4 (c) Nay

5. (a) 47:40 (b) 47:40 (c) Nay

11. (a) Nay (b) 9:33 (c) 9:33

6. (a) Nay (b) 3:10 (c) 45:53

12. (a) 9:28 (b) 57:14 (c) Nay

What’s Wrong? from page 25 Answer #1 The treasurer’s report should not be approved. No action is to be taken unless the report is submitted for audit, in which case it is the auditors’ report which is approved. RONR (12th ed.) 48:24 Answer #2 The teller’s report must be read, and recorded in full in the minutes.

Under no circumstances should it be omitted. RONR (12th ed.) 45:39-40 Answer #3 The chair should have taken the vote on the motion to adjourn, which requires a majority for adoption. There is no indication the motion was not in order. The chair could have notified the assembly of the important business, but he cannot unilaterally decide to continue the meeting.

RONR (12th ed.) 21:6

www.parliamentarians.org

31

NAP Connections

NEW Professional REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NAP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians: Carole Albright (NC) Andrea Hazzard (EL) Kelly Lucas (MD) Marsha McFadden (EL)

Elizabeth McFarland (TX) Carol Prahinski (MI) Justin Schmidt (BC) Cherise Story (TX)

Ashley Stuart (OK) Crystal Thomas (EL) P. Troy White (NE)

Silent Gavels* NAP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Joyce Eagles (VA)

Edward Janz (FL)

Stephen Small (KY)

New Members* NAP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Laura Barrett (ON) Camden Bell (IN) Tanya Blackshear (GA) Richard Boeth (TN) Allison Boyd (BC) Verna Bullock Lewis (NJ) Shea Burden (OH) Deborah Carter (NY) Dionne Coker-Appiah (MD) Cherise Cole (DC) Ben David Hensley (CO) Andreana Dobbs (IL) Tekisha Everette (MD) Marquetta Faulkner (TN) Pamela Franklin (TX) Joycelyn Franklin (TX) John Frazer (VA) Theresa Friday (FL) Ivan Greuter (KS) Terri Haase (CA) Fhelix Hernandez (FL) Jessica Herzog (HI) Anita Jackson (TX) Lawrence Johnson (DE) Armand Johnson (IL)

Joel Jones (WV) Elizabeth Jordan (EU) Henry Koerner (MN) Eliza Kragh (MT) Michael Lawlor (ON) Cherie Lee (TX) Khalilah Marbury (TX) Annjeannette Mitchell (FL) Deborah Morris (TX) Megan Mularz (NJ) Carolyn Murchison (NC) Diana Nelson (IL) Brian Oliver (IA) Erin Oxland (ON) Evan Patterson (AL) Brooke Peterson (IL) Carolyn Phelan (TX) Brenda Phillips (GA) Manushag Powell (AZ) Laura Prather (TX) Judith Rawls (TX) Lonette Robertson (TN) Shaunice Starks (TX) Gary Stocking (NE) Tiffany Taylor-Lee (TX)

Maryann Tobin (FL) Calvin Tonini (WA) Joshua Topliffe (NL) Samira Vetter (CO) Gagan Voonna (NJ) Ruth Wenger (AZ) Jared Wight (MO) Ja Rai Williams (TX) Andrika Wills (TX) Lisa Wright (MI) Michael Zuvanich (AL)

Thank you instructors!

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Edna Arrington Rita Cloman Kay Crews Cheryl Edwards Emma Faulk Pamela Harmon Gail Knapp Donna Mitchell

* For the period September 1, 2024 through November 12, 2024 32

National Parliamentarian • Winter 2025

experience

Prepare yourself for a unique cultural

ia

Augu

nventi

Phoenix Arizona

Co

NA

h Bienn

l

P

t 45

n

-24

o

st

20

, 2025

Sheraton Grand at Wild Horse Pass, Arizona Featuring the NAP Biennial Business Meeting

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