National Parliamentarian (Vol.87, No. 1)

NP

Volume 87, No. 1 | Fall 2025

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 10 Illegal, But In Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 12 So You Want to Be a Mentor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 2025-2027 NAP Officers and Advisors President Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP Vice-President C.J. Cavin, PRP Secretary Donna Mitchell, PRP Treasurer Mark Apodaca, PRP Directors-at-Large Corliss Baker, RP Tamara D. Harris, PRP Ramona Hill, PRP District Director Representatives Steven Cook, PRP Justin Pappano, PRP

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN

Volume 87, No. 1 | Fall 2025

Contents

From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 President’s Message Rooted in Legacy, Igniting Our Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FEATURES Notice This, Too! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Carol Prahinski, PRP You Can’t Make This Stuff Up! (Just some fun reading) . . . . 10 Rick Sydor, RP-R and David Mezzera, PRP Illegal, But In Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Jonathan M. Jacobs, RP So, You Want to Be a Mentor? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Donna J. Thompson, PRP DEPARTMENTS Test Yourself Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Parliamentarian Al Gage, PRP

NAP Connections

Interim Executive Director Wanda Sims, PRP

NAP Educational Foundation Presents Tribal Governance Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Legal Liaison Kevin Judd, PRP

Membership Dues Rate Changes Announced for 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 National Association of Parliamentarians® 2023-2025 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

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

New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . 34 Silent Gavels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 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

Carl Nohr, PRP npeditor@nap2.org

Assistant Editor

Beverly Przybylski, PRP

NP Review Committee

Traci Bransford-Marquis, PRP, Chair Ann Guiberson, PRP Sandy Olson, PRP

Parliamentary Research Committee Ronald Dupart, PRP, Chair Rosalie Stroman, PRP Al Gage, PRP, Parliamentarian

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® ©2026 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 (18th 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. Authors should include a short biography note and a headshot for publication.

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 87, No. 2 (Winter 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1, 2025 Volume 87, No. 3 (Spring 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 1, 2026 Volume 87, No. 4 (Summer 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2026 2

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

From the Editor I begin with my appreciation for the privilege of serving as your National Parliamentarian Editor, and my gratitude for those serving with me on the NP team, as listed on the masthead, and the contributing authors.

The theme for this biennium is Rooted in Legacy, Igniting Our Future. What does this mean for the National Parliamentarian?

Our publication has a long history of serving the members. Volume 1, No. 1 of Parliamentary Pickles was published in 1938, eight years after the founding of NAP. Mrs. C.W. Cooper, one of the charter members, took the name from a radio broadcast of the same name. One of the original purposes of the publication was to consider “… the cause and solution of a great variety of predicaments into which our organizations and our members as such, get ourselves.”. Mrs. Cooper concluded the inaugural article with: “Parliamentary Pickles are “friendly”, still greater in “variety” and as a mental “appetizer” – well, taste ‘em and see.” Despite this endearing description, the name was changed after only two quarterly editions to the more prosaic National Parliamentarian®.

What does the future hold for us? The editor recognizes that the publication has been polished through the work of many hands to its current state. Respecting this, the format and content will continue largely unchanged. However, NAP is a member-based organization, and the needs of members and the organizations we serve are evolving. There are changes in legislation, information management, electronic meetings, societal interactions, and artificial intelligence. As part of the collage of services the organization provides to members, we will consider any opportunity to better meet members’ needs.

Let us know what you think! In the meantime, as you receive the items in each edition, we invite you to “taste ‘em and see.”

Carl Nohr, PRP NAP NP Editor, 2025-2027 npeditor@nap2.org www.parliamentarians.org

3

President’s Message

Rooted in Legacy, Igniting Our Future With a sense of profound humility and great honor, I extend my gratitude to our delegates for electing me to serve as the 2025-2027 President of NAP. I want to thank everyone who has reached out since I was elected to offer your congratulations, encouragement, and support.

My theme for this biennium is “Rooted in Legacy, Igniting Our Future.” I chose this theme because I believe our history represents not a static memory but a living foundation for what will come. Our legacy of excellence, professionalism, and community holds the fertile ground from which we will cultivate new ideas, new members, and a new vision for our organization.

Honoring our past empowers us to innovate boldly for the future.

My vision for NAP is simple: to be guided by our mission and to deliver on our guiding principles. This vision embodies two pillars of thought: empowerment and innovation.

First, empowering our members. I will listen to diverse voices, be guided by our governing documents, and be relentlessly member-focused. We will implement innovative and targeted strategies to grow and retain our valued members and actively welcome the next generation. We will continue to build a vibrant online community through NAP University. Our strength originates from our network of units, associations, and districts, and we will work together to ensure your voices are heard and initiatives move forward.

Secondly, innovation. I understand and respect the concerns of our long-term members. I see you, and I hear you. My leadership is about building a forwardlooking vision while honoring the strong foundations that have been built. We will also seek to increase our non-member revenue stream through strategic partnerships and other initiatives.

These two new years signify a new chapter for our organization – one where we are united in our purpose and empowered to serve. Let’s move forward together.

Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP 2025-2027 NAP President 4

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

NOTICE THIS, TOO! Carol Prahinski, PRP

In ancient parliamentary practice, at each house of legislature, bills were read three separate times on three separate days before final passage (Mason, p. 504 (1)). Today, this practice remains prescribed by many government constitutions “to prevent hasty and ill-considered legislation, surprise or fraud, and to inform the legislatures and public of the contents of the bill” (Mason, p. 504).

The concept of previous notice stems from this ancient practice.

Previous notice is an “announcement that a motion will be introduced…”

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR (12th ed.) 10:44). It can be given in writing when the secretary distributes the notice with the call of the meeting or orally at the preceding meeting (RONR (12th ed.) 44:10). If made orally, the next meeting must be within a quarterly time interval (10:44).

In the first article, “Notice This,” published in last quarter’s National Parliamentarian, we focused on the notice of the meeting, which is an announcement of meeting time, location, and, frequently, includes the agenda and draft minutes. For this article, we investigate the second RONR

definition of notice: previous notice.

We researched when previous notice is required or suggested, the voting thresholds, its process, and its scope.

When is Previous Notice Required?

Robert provides a broad guideline on when to provide previous notice to members: “…Give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious disagreement” (RONR (12th ed.) 10:45).

In addition, RONR guides us that previous notice is required or suggested (to reduce the voting requirements) for the following situations: • To amend or rescind the constitution or bylaws (2:8; 8:14; 56:50) • To adopt, amend, or rescind the special rules (2:22; 8:14) o To add a standing committee with certain conditions and it is not listed in the bylaws (50:8) o To adopt special rules for disciplinary proceedings (63:32n10) • To amend or rescind the standing rules (2:23) • In conventions, to amend or rescind parliamentary standing rules and ordinary standing rules (59:36) www.parliamentarians.org

5

• To bring a question again to the assembly (6:25) or committee (35:2(7)), specifically: o Motions to rescind or amend something previously adopted (35:8) o Motions to discharge a committee (36:4(7)) and o Motions to postpone a scheduled event (14:3) • “…To elect a chairman pro tem to hold office beyond the current session (in the event of illness or disability of both the regular presiding officer and his alternate)…” (8:16) • To elect and fill a vacancy (46:49(d) and 62:16) • To remove an officer (62:16) • To share the board meeting minutes and executive session minutes with non-board members (49:18 and 49:19).

The rights of a member – such as the right to vote – and members – including the rights of absentees – cannot be suspended even with previous notice (25:10; 25:11).

Voting Thresholds A fundamental principle of decision making is that the assembly adopts the choice with a majority vote in a properly called meeting (1:6).

However, the requirement of more 6

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

than a majority vote arises where: • Required by law • Provided by a special rule of the organization or • Required under general parliamentary law to protect normal rights of the minority, absentees, or some other membership group (1:6).

Although many decisions are processed with a majority of those present and voting (44:10), more stringent thresholds may be placed on the adoption of certain motions, such as those mentioned in the previous section: when is previous notice required? Typically, these voting thresholds, listed here with an increased level of assembly agreement, could include: • A majority with notice • Two-thirds vote • Two-thirds vote with notice and/or • A majority of the entire membership.

“The vote of a majority of the entire membership is frequently an alternative to a requirement of previous notice…” (44:9(b)).

When a high voting threshold is required, previous notice enables the members to reduce the required threshold and arrive at the meeting prepared for the anticipated business.

For example, if a member wants to amend something previously adopted,

instead of two-thirds vote without notice, the voting threshold could be a majority with notice. Since there was previous notice, members could research and contemplate the action before the meeting and arrive prepared to decide (or add direction to the business).

The Process Notice may be given orally or in writing. When preparing a motion, it is important to perfect it and review the rules on how to give the notice.

Figure 1 reflects several possible processes to give the notice. If it is given orally at a meeting, the motion is considered at the following meeting (within a quarterly time interval).

At times, however, the rules of the organization require it to be in writing (10:47) to be disseminated before the meeting (56:51). Some assemblies require the motion’s exact wording; others may require only a general

statement (56:51), but it must be accurate and complete so members can determine what amendments are in order (10:47). The bylaws, special rules, and customs can guide the member to the required form of submission.

For oral notice, when no question is pending, the chair should give preference to a member who wants to give previous notice (42:13(4)(d)).

If the member is unable to obtain the floor, he may interrupt pending business when another person has been assigned the floor but has not yet begun to speak. He may also speak after the motion to adjourn was adopted, but the chair has not yet declared the meeting adjourned.

(10:48; 21:10). “The secretary then records the notice in the minutes (10:50).”

A member could also send a written notice to the secretary

Figure 1. The Process of Previous Notice www.parliamentarians.org

7

requesting that it be included with the call of the meeting, which is sent to every member at the expense of the society (10:51).

When previous notice has been given, the chair’s preference for recognition is given to the member who makes “a motion for which previous notice has been given” (42:13(4)(f)). “… It is usual to wait for the member who gave notice of these motions to move them; but if the maker does not, any member can do so.” (35:3).

Scope When considering the content of the notice – orally or in writing – “the notice becomes invalid if the motion is amended beyond the scope of the notice” (10:47). “No subsidiary motion to amend is in order that proposes a change going beyond the scope of the notice which was given, for the reason that adoption of such a motion will destroy the effect of the notice…” (35:4).

Robert provides an example of a notice to amend by striking out $10 and inserting $25 for the dues amount. Any amendment between $10 and $25 would be in order; however, amendments to reduce the dues below $10 or increase it above $25 would not been in order, even with unanimous consent. This limitation on scope protects the members who 8

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

oppose the amendment but might have attended the meeting to vote against it if the proper notice had been given (57:11).

At a recent convention of the NAP delegates, concern on scope was raised several times. In one example, with a bylaw amendment to strike out, a member moved to insert a phrase citing the example in the previous paragraph. The justification was that by inserting the phrase, the body would be selecting a middle ground.

However, the chair ruled the motion beyond the scope of notice since the possible passage hadn’t been conveyed in advance to the members.

Although the member’s intent was a middle ground, the bylaw proposal didn’t provide flexibility to establish the middle ground; the motion to strike out was a binary decision that either the organization keeps the current language, or strikes it out.

Conclusion The philosophy of notice – both previous notice and notice of a meeting – is that members have a right to know in advance of any significant decisions so that they recognize the importance of attending the meeting and can contemplate and deliberate the pending business.

The process of previous notice starts with a member recognizing that their intended motion may cause

serious disagreements. The governing documents and parliamentary authority guide us on which motions should use previous notice, and the established voting requirements for those motions, with or without previous notice.

Once previous notice has been given, either orally or in writing, the member can bring the motion to the next meeting within a quarterly time period for the assembly’s thoughtful deliberation.

Epilogue With the recent publication of “Notice This!” in the National Parliamentarian, one of my mentors guided me to the Code of the District of Columbia, Section 29-405.05 Notice of Meeting that provides specific guidance on meeting notice that all members should be aware of: “(a) A membership corporation shall give notice to the members of the date, time, and place of each annual, regular, or special meeting of the members. Except as otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws, the notice shall be given no fewer than 10 nor more than

60 days before the meeting date.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the articles, or the bylaws, the corporation shall give notice only to members entitled to vote at the meeting.”

If the unit or association of NAP hasn’t incorporated its domicile, they must follow the laws of the District of Columbia where NAP is incorporated, and the state governments where our units and associations are located (such as the COVID laws in the early months of 2020,) unless exceptions are provided by the law.

Thus, unless incorporated elsewhere, units and associations should plan to give notice between 10 and 60 days, but at a minimum 10-day notice for their meetings. Therefore, some units and associations may need to amend their bylaws, standing rules, or customs to conform to the DC Code. NP BIBLIOGRAPHY Mason, P. Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1953.

Robert, H., III, Honemann, D.H., Balch, T.J., Seabold, D.E. and Gerber, S. Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 12th edition, PublicAffairs: Hachette Book Group, New York, NY, 2020.

Carol Prahinski, PRP, serves as a parliamentarian and provides training for international, national, state, and local organizations. She is a director for the Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians and a member of three units in Florida and Michigan and the FSAP. She is a retired professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University and a Past International Director for Toastmasters International. www.parliamentarians.org

9

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up! (Just some fun reading) Rick Sydor, RP-R and David Mezzera, PRP

Prior to the 12th edition of RONR, parliamentarians were frequently confronted with organizations and groups that would refer to a “supermajority” or a “two-thirds majority” in their meetings and dealings. We parliamentarians would cringe and diplomatically point out that although these terms may be used in the “outside” world, they are not used in the “parliamentary” world.

A vote would require a majority or two-thirds to pass, never some combination of the two.

But things changed a little with the publication of the 12th edition.

A number of terms – not heretofore found in the text or index of prior editions – found their way into the index of the 12th edition. Examples of terms (frequently used in the “outside” world but not used previously within the pages of RONR) that were added included: continued meeting, railroading, queue, recusal, and – ready for this one? – supermajority.

Yep. Check out the index on pages 709-710. And there it is! The examples used there refer the reader to situations where a vote requirement needs something greater than a majority in order to pass, such as two-thirds, three-fourths, previous notice or a percentage of the entire membership.

10

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

Interestingly, though, the specific word “supermajority” appears only once outside of the index: in a footnote on page 648 of Scenario D in the Appendix; but never even in the actual text.

But back to the first paragraph and the understanding that nonparliamentarians (and groups they inhabit) are likely to misuse the term “majority.” Too often, they represent what a majority is not! The two authors have been keeping their ears and eyes open over the years for ways people try to define or use the concept “majority.” In almost all of these cases, those terms crop up and make the notion of a “simple” majority not too simple. Even this term “simple majority” does not appear in RONR. There is no need for it. You either have a majority (more than half of those voting) or you don’t. The closest that RONR comes to using this particular term is in (14:4(7)) where we read: “Requires a majority vote in its simple and usual form.”

And what is a majority? Some of the definitions we are sure you’ve all heard (and cringe when you hear them) refer to a majority as “1 more than half,” or “51%” or also possibly “50% + 1.” We all know why these are

no-noes. But what about other “out there” terms people use to explain or define a majority vote? Here’s a true list of such terms heard by – or seen written by – the authors beyond “supermajority.” Some even appeared in formal organizational rules to define a majority vote for the group.

Others appeared in meeting minutes to validate the decisiveness of a vote.

Some were just used incorrectly by chairs to explain how a vote was to be taken. The following have all really been used. You can’t make this stuff up!

• simple majority (as opposed to a complicated one?)

• two-thirds majority (already mentioned) • ordinary majority (as opposed to an abnormal one?)

• clear majority (which is needed in Canada) • solid majority (as opposed to a liquid one?)

• special majority (as opposed to a general one?)

• requisite majority (as opposed to who knows what?)

• won by a majority of 10 (how many is that?)

• distributed majority (what?)

Rick Sydor, RP-R, is a 25-year member of NAP. He also is a Past International Director of Toastmasters International and serves many Toastmaster Districts around North America as their Parliamentarian.

• large majority (yeah, it had better be large) • absolute majority (whatever that means) • just a majority (at least it’s that much!)

• slight majority (heard on the BBC) • vast majority (that’s really a lot) • majority of the quorum (really confuses things – see below) If you want to do some homework, think back on how you might have heard this last term (quorum) used – or misused – outside of the parliamentary world. The authors’ list of “quorum” uses or misuses include: “full quorum,” “a rolling quorum,” “a legal quorum,” “a supermajority quorum,” “a disappearing quorum” (which we find in the California code for nonprofit boards), and even “a quorum is a majority of those present.” This may be from a confusion of the RONR explanation of a quorum at a mass meeting, which is “simply the number of persons present at the time, since they constitute the entire membership at that time.” (40:2(1)) As with incongruous uses of “majority” mentioned above, you can’t make these up either! NP David Mezzera, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians and a past District Eight Director.

www.parliamentarians.org

11

Illegal, But In Order Jonathan M. Jacobs, RP

Suppose that the Asnem Society is considering making their clubhouse less likely to be damaged by fire. Several ideas, including installing a sprinkler system, increasing the number of fire extinguishers, and installing an alarm system, were considered, but they were rejected. A member is recognized and says, “I move that we line the building’s walls with asbestos.” However, in the city where the clubhouse is located, there is a municipal law against using asbestos in buildings. Should the chair rule the motion out of order?

Though this might surprise some people, a point of order that putting asbestos in the walls is out of order because it violates the law should not be well taken. The chair should not rule the motion out of order solely on the ground that it authorizes something illegal.1 Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR (12th ed.)) does provide that “when any action has been taken in violation of applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law,” it creates a breach of a continuing nature (RONR (12th ed.) 23:6c).2 Banning the use of asbestos in buildings, however, is not a violation of any “procedural rules prescribed” in any law, nor is it a violation of any other stricture described in RONR 12

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

(12th ed.), 23:6.3 What may further surprise many people is that rule was not always the case.

Prior to the Tenth Edition of RONR, adopting something that was a violation of law would create a breach of a continuing nature. The Ninth Edition of RONR noted that there were exceptions to the rule that a point or order had to be raised at the time the breach occurred. These exceptions included “when a motion was in violation of law” as stated in RONR (9th ed.), 251. Even if the “asbestos use” motion had been adopted, and the assembly moved on to other business, a point of order could still be raised that the action was illegal, if the assembly was using the Ninth Edition.

The transition to the current language occurred in RONR (10th ed.) 244 (17-18). In the preface to that edition, the authorship team of the day gave the rationale for this change.

They stated, “References to federal, state, and local laws are restricted, whenever appropriate, to procedural rules prescribed by such laws, in recognition of the fact that rules of parliamentary procedure are concerned with the process by which a deliberative assembly arrives at a decision, and not with the wisdom,

or even legality, of the decision itself.” (RONR (10th ed.) XXI). So the stated reason is that non-procedural violations are beyond the scope of parliamentary procedure. The motion may not be ruled out of order on the basis that it authorizes an illegal action. There may still be some violation of the law, but it is not procedural in nature. The society cannot legitimately assert that because the action is in order, it suddenly becomes legal, however. There is clearly a difference between if a motion authorizes an illegal act and if the motion is in order. This distinction has been recognized since RONR (10th ed.).

There may be another reason for the limitation of the points of order on purported violations of law. The organization may wish to violate a law in order to challenge that law in court. By removing the broad “violation of law” basis for a point of order, RONR (12th ed.), like the two before it, does make it easier for a society to challenge laws that it considers unjust. With that constraint removed, however, that society may find itself in legal jeopardy, but it is the society’s choice to face that jeopardy. NP

END NOTES 1 In many cases, a motion that proposes an action that violates the law would be dilatory. In many cases, e.g., a motion to violate a law to test the legality of a law, the action would not be dilatory.

2 A good example of a procedural rule of law can be found in Pennsylvania Public School Code, Section 508: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/ cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck. cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1949& sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act= 14&chpt=5&sctn=8&subsctn=0.

That section provides that “The affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the board of school directors in every school district” is necessary to do certain things, like hire teachers, principals, and superintendents, and approve text books. Adopting those motions with a vote of less than a majority of the entire membership would still create a continuing breach, even if the district wished to test the validity of the statute in court.

3 See also RONR (12th ed.) 10:26 (1).

WORKS CITED Robert, Henry M., III, et al. 1990.

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.

9th ed. Scott, Foresman.

———. 2000. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. 10th ed. Perseus Publishing.

———. 2020. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. 12th ed. PublicAffairs.

Jonathan M. Jacobs, RP, is the former president of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians, Inc. He tried to retire, but that did not work out.

www.parliamentarians.org

13

So, You Want to Be a Mentor?

Donna J. Thompson, PRP

The study to become a credentialed parliamentarian is very intensive.

The guidelines or suggestions in this article are written to help you become an effective mentor to your mentees.

By definition, a mentor is a person who is knowledgeable and is willing to share their knowledge of the proper parliamentary procedure contained in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition (RONR).

During your mentor-mentee relationship, you will serve as their coach and advisor for the performance of proper parliamentary procedure, consultant on solving complex parliamentary situations, and a role model by demonstrating proper parliamentary procedure during your mentoring sessions. Through your sharing, support, and encouragement, the mentee will gain valuable parliamentary knowledge and application skills.

During your initial work with a mentee, you should help the mentee identify both their strengths and their weaknesses. This activity can be accomplished by proposing a scenario 14

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

in which the mentee is given an agenda for a non-profit organization from which to prepare a meeting script. Through role-play with the completed script, the mentor could access presiding, script writing, and other parliamentarian skills. Once this activity is completed, you will use this information to assist your mentee in developing lesson plans or activities that will help the mentee build on their strengths and eliminate their weaknesses. During the testing process for either the Registered Parliamentarian Certification Examination (RPCE) or Professional Registered Certification Examination (PRPCE), the candidate is expected to use the exact wording and procedures that are identified in RONR. The testing may include serving as a presiding officer, serving as a parliamentarian, teaching parliamentary procedure, writing a business meeting script, and/or writing a proper set of meeting minutes or financial report.

Remember, all of your mentoring or coaching activities must be completed before your mentees

register and receive their testing materials from the Commission on Credentialing. Be sure your mentees are prepared before encouraging them to register for the certification examination. Usually the mentormentee will meet at least once a week for parliamentary practice sessions.

These sessions will require the mentee to complete assignments that will prepare them to more adequately handle parliamentary situations.

Remember, parliamentary credentialing means that you are an expert in assisting others in conducting and managing good meetings. This professional status requires a great deal of study and preparation as well as a big cost ($400 for RPCE examination and $600 for PRPCE examination). This study and monetary cost are only part of being a credentialed parliamentarian. Study and knowledge never end and require dedication to this profession.

• Determine with your mentees how written homework assignments will be distributed.

Guidelines for Mentors for RPCE or PRPCE The guidelines outlined in this document are written to help you provide assistance to your mentee to successfully meet the criteria for either the RPCE or PRPCE. These guidelines can apply to your work with one mentee or a classroom.

• Motion Script Cards

Zoom • Set up Zoom classroom contacts with your mentees.

• Professional Practices in Parliamentary Procedure, Third Edition

• Adapt your teaching techniques for the Zoom format.

• Test Yourself (to be available in August 2025)

• Establish rules for class conduct for mentor and mentees.

Resource materials on the NAP webpage for RPCE • Under the heading Credentialing: o Test dates o Exam rules o Sample questions o Criteria for Credentialing (written by the Commission on Credentialing, revised 2/9/2024) • Under the NAP University heading: o Parli prep 2025 o RP training series Bookstore • Pathways to Proficiency, What Was Done • RP Training Series • Your Governing Documents • Robert’s Rules of Order In Brief, 3rd Ed. • Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th ed.

• Pointers on Parliamentary Procedure

www.parliamentarians.org

15

Resource

materials on the NAP webpage for PRPCE • Under the heading Credentialing, read: o “The PRP process” which describes the testing procedure o Criteria for Credentialing (written by the Commission on Credentialing, revised 2/9/2024) Bookstore • Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th ed.

• Pathways, Scriptwriting • Pathways, Voting • Pathways, What Does It Say in Bylaws • Pathways, In My Opinion • Pathways, Presidentially Speaking • Pathways, What Was Done • Pointers on Parliamentary Procedure • Study Bundle for Presiding/Serving free download • PRPCE Training Files • Professional Practices in Parliamentary Procedure, Third Edition Actual Work with Mentees • Contact your mentee or mentees within one week of your assignments.

• Once you have met with your mentees, set up times and dates for classes that are workable for all members.

• Establish rules for participating, e.g., speaking during class, handling of homework assignments, feedback, and answering questions.

• Develop homework assignments that will help your mentee meet the criteria identified in the Criteria for Credentialing that was written by the Commission on Credentialing.

The Commission has identified the performance expectations for both the Registered Parliamentarian and the Professional Registered Parliamentarian. The Commission will be judging your mentee based on those performance expectations.

Note: All your mentoring activities, such as sending and grading homework assignments, answering questions, must be completed before your mentee registers for the RPCE or PRPCE and receives the pre-course materials. You will not be able to communicate with the mentee after the mentee’s registration.

Note: During the testing process, the candidate is expected to use the exact wording found in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition when processing motions. NP

Donna J. Thompson, PRP Mentor-Mentee Coordinator Professional Development Committee 2023-2025 16

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

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.

Questions should be emailed to npquestions@nap2.org.

In responses to questions, the following abbreviations are used: RONR

Henry M. Robert et al., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed. 2020)

PL

Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Law (1923)

PP

Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Practice (1921)

Q&AII

NAP Questions & Answers II (1970)

Q&AIII NAP Questions & Answers III (1997) Q&AIV NAP Questions & Answers IV (2010) AIPSC

American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (2012)

Demeter George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure (Blue Book ed. 1969) Keesey

Ray E. Keesey, Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed. 2018)

Mason

Paul Mason, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure (2010 ed.)

Riddick Floyd M. Riddick & Miriam M. Butcher, Riddick’s Rules of Procedure (1985) POI

AIP Parliamentary Opinions (1982)

POII

AIP Parliamentary Opinions II (1992)

POIII

AIP Parliamentary Opinions III (2008) (electronic only)

Citations to earlier versions of Henry M. Robert’s rules of order are abbreviated as follows: RO

Editions 1-3, Robert’s Rules of Order

ROR

Editions 4-6, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised www.parliamentarians.org

17

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers

continued

Objection to Consideration of a Motion to Clarify an Ongoing Maintenance Agreement

Q

QUESTION: A director serves on a small board for a condominium. At a previous meeting, the board adopted a motion to select a contractor to install and then maintain solar panels for our building. A few months later, the director realized that the board should clarify the next steps to take with the contractor and the utility company. With previous notice before the next meeting (to allow for a majority vote, rather than a two-thirds vote or a vote of the majority of the entire board if raised as new business, RONR (12th ed.) 35:2 (7)), the director proposed a motion to amend the previously adopted motion to select a contractor for installation and maintenance. RONR (12th ed.) 35:1-11.

Another member objected to the consideration of the motion. RONR (12th ed.) 26:1. The president took an immediate vote and the objection was sustained by a two-thirds vote, so the motion was not considered at all. Was Objection to Consideration allowed in these circumstances and was it handled correctly by the president?

ANSWER: A motion to raise an Objection to the Consideration of a Question allows a group to avoid even debating a particular motion and to reject its consideration with a two-thirds vote. (RONR (12 ed.) 26:1-9). This motion may only be applied to original main motions (and petitions and communications not from a superior body) because once the group has already involved itself in the subject, it is too late to object to further consideration. See RONR (12th ed.) 10:6, 26:2 (2).

A main motion brings business before a group and may only be made when no other motions are pending. An original main motion introduces a substantive question on a new subject. RONR (12th ed.) 6:2, 10:3. An incidental main motion must both: (a) propose an action described by a specific parliamentary term, e.g., secondary motions (subsidiary, privileged, or incidental motions) made while no other motions are pending or motions that bring up a question again; and (b) not mark the beginning of a particular involvement of the assembly in a substantive matter, as an original main motion does. (Like all main motions, however, it can be made only when nothing is pending, and it brings business before the assembly.) Action that can be proposed by the incidental main motions 18

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

&

Questions Answers

Test Yourself

continued

may relate: (a) to further steps in dealing with a substantive matter in which the assembly’s involvement has begun earlier; or (b) to procedure, without direct reference to a particular substantive item of business. RONR (12th ed.) 10:4. It must be noted that incidental main motions either (1) do not mark the beginning of the involvement of a group in a substantive matter and instead relate to further steps regarding the same matter, or (2) relate to procedure without a specific reference to a certain item of business. See RONR (12th ed.) 10:2-4.

The motion To Amend Something Previously Adopted as described by the questioner would fall into the category of incidental main motions because the board has already begun involvement in the solar panel project, the maintenance aspect of project was ongoing, and the new motion was to clarify the next steps to be taken. RONR (12th ed.) 35:1. Therefore, the president should have ruled the Objection to the Consideration of a Question out of order. If the original motion had only addressed installation, and the installation was completed, and the board then wanted to add a maintenance contract, even with the same contractor, that would be an original main motion, because the mandate of the motion for the installation project had been fully executed. RONR (12th ed.)

35:6 (b). Even though the motion to approve a maintenance contract also involved the solar panels and the same contractor, it was a completely new contract and new authorization from the condominium was required. As an original main motion, the motion to approve a maintenance contract in those circumstances would have been subject to an Objection to the Consideration of a Question.

It is possible that an Objection to the Consideration of a Question could have been applied to the motion made if the rule that it applies to, the original motion, is suspended first. Under RONR (12th ed.) 25:2(7), a two-thirds vote is generally required to adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules. Interestingly enough, if the group had the two-thirds vote necessary to sustain the objection, they likely had the two-thirds vote necessary to suspend the rule relating to applicability. This is effectively what was done when no timely point of order was raised to the improperly raised the Objection to the Consideration of a Question. Although the president failed to address the matter properly when the Objection to Consideration arose, the decision of the body will stand because of the lack of a timely challenge. The director who feels that clarification of the previously adopted motion to select a contractor would still be useful could renew the motion to amend something previously adopted, with previous notice, RONR (12th ed.) 38:1, for consideration at a future meeting. www.parliamentarians.org

19

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers

continued

Mention in the Minutes of an Objection to a Vote Announcement

Q

QUESTION: Recently, our neighborhood improvement association addressed a policy matter over which the members were deeply divided at a membership meeting.

The matter was decided by a slim majority. Two members on the losing side were so unhappy with the decision of the body that they stood up and announced their objection to the decision, and requested that their objections be recorded in the minutes. At the time, so as not to exacerbate that situation, the request was allowed by general consent. Now members are questioning the inclusion of the objections because they say it is inappropriate in the minutes. Who is right? RONR (12th ed.) is our parliamentary authority.

ANSWER: Both sides on this dispute are right, to a certain extent. The members who say that objection to a vote should not be in the minutes are right. On the other hand, the objections were allowed to be entered in the minutes by general consent.

Therefore, the assent of the body is effectively an assent to suspension of the rules concerning the contents of minutes and methods of including nonstandard material in the minutes. Therefore, it is binding on the body. This opinion provides additional detail as to the policy reasons that dissents should not be included in the minutes.

The primary source for considering the standard content of minutes is the detailed discussion in RONR (12th ed.) 48:2-8. Nowhere in the discussion is objection to a vote result mentioned. RONR (12th ed.) 48:3 does state: “[A] majority vote may direct the inclusion of specific additional information [outside that specified as standard in 48:4-5] in the minutes of a particular meeting.”. The text does not, however, specify what “additional information” is appropriate to include in the minutes and does not specifically mention the particular circumstance of objections to vote results. It is clear, however, that any such “additional information” is not standard, and requires a special procedure.

It should be noted that RONR (12th ed.) 48:3 was added in the most recent edition of RONR. The parallel treatment of minutes in prior editions does not include similar wording. See, e.g., RONR (11th ed.) 468-73; RONR (10th ed.)

451-56. This suggests that the phenomenon of members requesting inclusion of nonstandard material of various sorts in minutes has become more common in recent years.

It is understandable that members might request that their opposition to a vote for action be recorded in the minutes after seeing directors do that at a board 20

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

&

Questions Answers

Test Yourself

continued

meeting. Recording a director’s objection in board minutes is a requirement under most state nonprofit corporation laws and many community association acts. See ABA, Model Nonprofit Corp. Law (4th ed. 2021) § 824(d). The rationale for this statutory rule is that members of the board of directors hold fiduciary obligations to the corporation, see ABA, Model Nonprofit Corp. Law (4th ed.

2021) § 830, and can be held liable for conduct in violation of their fiduciary obligations when they act in their decision-making role on the board, see ABA, Model Nonprofit Corp. Law (4th ed. 2021) § 831. Objecting to a board decision in the minutes is a way of absolving directors from liability by informing their colleagues on the board that the dissenting member believes that the decision is a violation of the board’s fiduciary obligations in the governance of the corporation.

“Section 824(d) serves the important purpose of bringing the position of the dissenting director clearly to the attention of the other directors.” ABA, Model Nonprofit Corp. Law (4th ed. 2021) § 824 Official Comment. If a director is present at the meeting, the objection made promptly at the meeting “prevents a director from later seeking to avoid responsibility because of unexpressed doubts about the wisdom of the action taken.” ABA, Model Nonprofit Corp. Law (4th ed.

2021) § 824 Official Comment. Because the right of directors to object is statutory, and it is difficult to police as to the rationale of the objecting director, over time directors in some organizations have incorrectly used an objection on the record to indicate political disagreement with the decision made (meaning “political” as relevant to the internal disputes within the organization, which may also relate to public political issues). Although the desire to do so may be understandable, particularly in highly contentious times, it can be divisive, which is contrary to the intent and purpose of the deliberative process.

The statutorily permitted use of an objection on the record is therefore extremely limited and is inapplicable in member and delegate meetings where the participants do not hold fiduciary obligations to an organization. Aside from those limited situations when the statutory right to object supersedes the standard rules, RONR (12th ed.) 2:2, 2:18, 56:49 fn1, general principles of the deliberative process hold that dissenting members of an organization should refrain from criticism of a decision made through the deliberative meeting process. “[T]he minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, [should] gracefully . . . submit and . . . recognize the action as that of the organization, and cheerfully . . . assist in carrying it out, until they can secure its repeal.” Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Law p. 4 (1923). See id. p. 329 (“While the question is under consideration members are free to express their opinions, always observing the rules of debate. After the question has been decided it is the duty of the www.parliamentarians.org

21

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers

continued

defeated party to acquiesce in the decision and to refrain from further criticism.”); Demeter p. 6 (“The basic or unwritten duties of a member are as follows: . . . To accept the final decision of the majority without animosity or violence . . . . One must demonstrate sportsmanship in the forum of a deliberative body . . . as much as in the field of sports.”); AIPSC2d 3.9, 3.13. All members of the organization share the commitment to support the organization’s object (or purposes) as stated in the articles of incorporation, constitution, or bylaws. RONR (12th ed.) 2:5, 2:9-10, 56:18; Robert, Parliamentary Law p. 329; AIPSC2d 3.1, 3.9, 3.15.

Although other parliamentary authorities do not explicitly preclude recording of objections to action on a policy basis, Keesey pp. 159-60 states, in regard to the closely analogous situation of recording an abstention: [T]here is seldom a good reason to do so in most organizations, except in the case of a conflict of interest, particularly on executive boards whose members are considered fiduciaries for the organization. . . . [I]f a member’s personal or financial interest in the outcome of a vote warrants a request that the record show an abstention from voting, the practice is defensible. On the other hand, any widespread practice of recording abstentions for other reasons, such as disagreement with the result or concerns about liability for participating in the decision-making process, would appear to reflect a misunderstanding of the true meaning of exercising the privilege not to vote.

All of the above general principles inform the Committee’s opinion on this issue: As a general matter, members’ objections to a vote are not part of the standard content of minutes. They should not be included in the minutes, except when statutorily required, or when approved by the members in an appropriate manner.

In this case, inclusion of an objection to a vote outcome in the minutes was approved by unanimous consent. Although nonstandard and not desirable from a policy perspective, the Committee has not found in the literature any reference to a fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure, RONR (12th ed.) 25:9-13, that would prohibit the inclusion of such an objection by general consent.

Questions & Answers Research Team

Ronald Dupart, PRP, Chair 22

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

Rosalie Stroman, PRP

Al Gage, PRP, Parliamentarian

NAP Connections

NAP Educational Foundation Presents

ER IST REG OW N PH OE NIX

Tribal Governance Workshop

The day prior to the convening of the 45th National Association of Parliamentarians® (NAP) Biennial Convention in Chandler, Arizona, the National Association of Parliamentarians Educational Foundation (NAPEF) sponsored an educational workshop for tribal leaders and staff, tribal members, and others engaged in tribal governance.

The NAPEF hosted the workshop, entitled The Road to Better Governance, at the convention hotel, which is located on tribal land known as the Gila River Indian Community. The workshop attracted 35 attendees, nearly half of which were citizens of tribal nations within the United States.

Ronald R. Stinson, PRP, the president of the NAPEF, opened the workshop at a luncheon that preceded the presentations. Corrina Pino, an elder of Akimel O’otham, delivered a blessing, and NAPEF President Stinson presented her a copy of the 12th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. Shana D. Robedeaux, PRP, Daniel A. Ivey-Soto, JD, PRP, and C.J. Cavin, JD, PRP, all of whom work with tribal nations, gave presentations on governing documents, the main motion, and the subsidiary motions, respectively. For the day’s final presentation, Ramona Marsalis-Hill, DA, PRP, an NAPEF trustee, moderated a panel composed of Ms. Robedeaux and Messrs.

Ivey-Soto and Cavin as she fielded questions from the attendees.

To conclude the workshop, both NAPEF President Stinson and NAP President Wallis, JD, PRP, delivered closing remarks.

The National Association of Parliamentarians Educational Foundation (NAPEF) is a non-profit organization that provides funding for parliamentary education offerings, grants, and scholarships.

To learn more about NAPEF, visit www.napef.org. www.parliamentarians.org

23

NAP Connections

Membership Dues Rate Changes Announced for 2026 At its meeting prior to the convention, the NAP Board of Directors approved an increase in national member dues rates for the 2026 membership year.

This marks only the second time in 16 years that the NAP has raised dues. The new increase is significantly below the current rate of inflation: while a dollar in 2018 – the last time dues were changed – now holds only 78 cents of its original value, the cost of providing member services continues to rise. The updated dues rate will appear on the 2026 invoice that members will receive later this year.

24

Member Class

New Dues Rate

Regular Member

$ 99

RP

$ 128

PRP

$ 156

Retired RP and PRP

$ 99

Student

$ 49

Student RP

$ 64

Student PRP

$ 78

Youth Groups

$ 30

Clubs Affiliated Before 1953

$ 113

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

NAP Connections

National Association of Parliamentarians

®

2023-2025 H I STO RY The National Association of Parliamentarians® (NAP) began the biennium in Atlanta, Georgia, and ended the biennium in Phoenix, Arizona.

The theme for the biennium was “Let Us Reason Together.”

NAP Board of Directors The following officers were elected for the 2023-2025 NAP biennium: president: Alison Wallis, PRP; vice president: Carl Nohr, PRP; secretary: Mona Calhoun, PRP; treasurer: Robert Schuck, PRP; directors-atlarge: Steven Cook, PRP; Tamara D. Harris, PRP; and Beth Sapp James, PRP. The following district directors were elected to serve as district representatives on the Board of Directors: Lucy Anderson, PRP, District 6 and Deborah Underwood, PRP, District 4.

At a special board meeting held on September 30, 2024, the board accepted resignations from Carl Nohr, PRP, as vice president and Mona Calhoon, PRP, as secretary. Deborah Underwood, PRP, was elected secretary, and Mona Calhoun, PRP, was elected vice president. At a special meeting on October 15, 2024, Lavon

Moore, PRP, District 3 Director, was elected District Representative on the Board of Directors.

Installation of Officers On Saturday, September 9, 2023, Past President Ron Stinson, PRP, installed the 2023-2025 Board of Directors and District Directors.

Commission on Credentialing The existing members on the Commission were C.J. Cavin, PRP, Chair; Darlene Allen, PRP; David Jackson, PRP; Sandra Cook, PRP; Steven Walls, PRP; and Susan Eads Role, PRP. When Steven Walls passed away in August 2024, Shawn Paine, PRP, was elected by the Board of Directors to fill the vacancy. Between September 2023 and July 2025, the Commission granted 20 RP and 23 PRP credentials, with eight more under review for August 2025.

At the 44th Biennial Convention, www.parliamentarians.org

25

NAP Connections

delegates elected the following members to serve terms on the Commission on Credentialing: Four-Year Term: Sandra Cook, PRP Steve Walls, PRP David Jackson, PRP Two-Year Term: Henry Lawton, PRP Sandy Olson, PRP. Advisors and Consultants The following individuals were appointed by President Wallis: Parliamentarian: C.J. Cavin, PRP Legal Liaison: Daniel Ivey-Soto, PRP. Professional Responsibility and Member Discipline Members: The Board of Directors elected Steven Britton, PRP, Chair; Atul Kapur, PRP; Evan Lemoine, PRP; and Vivian Walton-Smalls, Esq., PRP. NAP Board Committee Appointments The following board committees were appointed: Board Effectiveness: Carl Nohr, PRP, Chair.

Budget & Finance: Robert Schuck, PRP, Chair; Carl Nohr, PRP; and Cyndy Launchbaugh, Executive Director/Advisor.

26

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

Minutes Approval: Beth Sapp James, PRP, Chair; Deborah Underwood, PRP; and Steven Cook, PRP. Personnel: Ron Stinson, PRP, Chair; Carl Nohr, PRP; and Lucy Anderson, PRP. Policies and Procedures: Mona Calhoun, PRP, Chair; Tamara D. Harris, PRP; and Lucy Anderson, PRP. Pricing: Mona Calhoun, PRP, Chair; Robert Schuck, PRP; and Tamara D. Harris, PRP. Standing Committee Appointments The Board of Directors approved the following members to serve on Standing Committees: Bylaws: Ramona Hill, PRP, Chair; Tannis Nelson, PRP; Elizabeth Haynes, PRP; Justin Pappano, PRP; Rachel Glanstein, PRP; and Corliss Baker, RP. Communications: Kendra O’Toole, PRP, Chair; Mary Grant, PRP; Todd Crowder, PRP; Susan Eades Role, PRP; and Priscilla Murphy, RP. Educational Resources: Carol Johnson Davis, PRP, Chair; Kevin Connelly, PRP; Theljewa Garrett, PRP; Shawn Paine, PRP; Richard Brown, RP; Marsha Thornton,

NAP Connections

PRP; Beverly Przybylski, PRP; Lori Fink; R. Denise Everson, RP; Laura Meade, PRP; and Bennyfer Bridgewater, PRP. International Services: Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP, Chair; Aurora Vignau; Clyde Waggoner, PRP; District One (to be elected); Tamara D. Harris, PRP; Lavon Moore, PRP; Deborah Underwood, PRP; Laura Meade, PRP; Lucy Anderson, PRP; Kevin Connelly, PRP; and Marilyn Newman, PRP. Membership Examiners: Mary Remson, PRP, Chair; Emma Faulk, PRP; Valerie Martin, RP; Johnine Clark, PRP; and Sabra Pachecho, RP. Membership Extension and Retention: Robert Schuck, PRP, Chair; Carl Nohr, PRP. • District One: Pleshette Shelton, RP, (elected October 22, 2023) • District Two: Tamara D. Harris, PRP • District Three: Lavon Moore, PRP • District Four: Deborah Underwood, PRP • District Five: Laura Meade, PRP • District Six: Lucy Anderson, PRP • District Seven: Kevin Connelly, PRP

• District Eight: Crystal Thomas, PRP, (elected April 18, 2025).

Professional Development: Steve Glanstein, PRP, Chair; Esther Heller, PRP; Lynna Gene Cook, PRP; Donna Thompson, PRP; Ron Herbison, PRP; Tyna Davis, PRP; and Susan Eads Role, PRP. Youth: Donna Mitchell, PRP, Chair; Miriam Simmons, PRP; Thomas Holmes, PRP; Sean Schilke; Valencia Broadus; Ronald J. Arruejo, RP; Lyria Zhu; Olivia Hale, RP; and Amy Gao. Special Committees and Other Appointments The following special committees and positions were appointed: Special Committee on Partnerships: Theljewa Garrett, PRP, Chair; Steven Cook, PRP; and Deborah Underwood, PRP. Style, Editing, Proofreading: Shmuel Gerber, PRP, Chair; Peggy Jared, RP; Kay Crews, PRP; Paul McClintock, PRP; Ronald Dupart, PRP; and Connie Deford, PRP. Technology: David Whitaker, PRP, Chair; Brandon Walters, PRP; Nate Thompson, Greg Goodwiller, PRP; Kay Crews, PRP; Carla Patrick-Fagan, RP; Beverly Przybylski, PRP; Daisy Matthews, PRP; Shealese Russell-Reams, RP; and Ashley Stuart, RP. www.parliamentarians.org

27

NAP Connections

National Parliamentarian: • Editor: Traci BransfordMarquis, PRP • Assistant Editor: Josh Martin, PRP • Review Committee: Ann Guiberson, PRP, Chair; Nancy Sylvester, PRP; Lynna Gene Cook, PRP; Kirk Overbey, PRP. • Question and Answer Team: Michael Malamut, PRP, Chair; Shannon Sun, PRP; and Michael Talericio, PRP. • Special Consultant: Ronald Dupart, PRP. Webmaster: • Kirby Glad, PRP. Further Appointments and Resignations In addition to resignations noted above, the following resignations occurred during the 2023-2025 biennium: • Traci Bransford-Marquis as chair of the Professional Responsibility and Member Discipline Committee • Susan Eads Role, PRP, Communications

28

• Kendra O’Toole, PRP, Chair, Communications • Amy Gao, Youth Committee.

The following additional appointments were made during the 2023-2025 biennium: • Lenita Compton Bunch, PRP, Membership Examiners • Lyle Kleman, PRP-R, Communications • Regina Williams, RP, Style Editing and Proofreading • Sharon Williams, RP, Technology • Roberta Berry, RP, Technology • Mohith Gajjela, Youth Committee • Jennnifer Levy, Youth Committee • Steven Cook, PRP, Board Effectiveness Chair, replacing Carl Nohr, PRP • Mona Calhoun, PRP, Personnel, replacing Carl Nohr, PRP • Daniel Ross, PRP, International Services Chair, replacing Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP

• Brandon Walters, Technology

• Adam Hathaway, RP, Communications Chair, replacing Kendra O’Toole, PRP

• Marilyn Newman, PRP, District Eight Director

• Regenia Moore Lee, Communications.

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

NAP Connections

2024-2025 NAP Leadership Conference: • Cherise Story, PRP, Conference Coordinator • Christina Emmert, PRP, Assistant Conference Coordinator • Mary Q. Grant, PRP, Workshop Coordinator.

2025 Convention Appointments: • Kathleen Clark, RP, Convention Coordinator • Barbara Posler, RP, Assistant Convention Coordinator • Al Gage, PRP, Workshop Coordinator • Troy White, PRP, Assistant Workshop Coordinator.

NAP Headquarters Staff: At the start of the biennium, the full-time staff consisted of Cyndy Launchbaugh, Executive Director; Cheryl DeShon, Member Services Manager; Susan Bradley, Member Services Assistant and Sales; Alexandra Blair, Education and Events Manager; Dane Petersen, Marketing Communications Manager; and Tracy Short, contract bookkeeper. In May, NAP welcomed Miranda Jones, Membership and Fulfillment Manager. Cheryl DeShon retired in January 2024 and Susan Bradley

retired in May 2024. At the close of the biennium, Past President Wanda Sims, PRP, was hired to serve as Interim Executive Director.

NAP Events 44th Biennial Convention: The 44th Biennial Convention was held in Atlanta, GA on September 6-10, 2023, with over 300 registrants in attendance. Corliss Baker, RP, served as Convention Coordinator and Lavon Moore, PRP, Assistant Coordinator. Members were able to attend virtually by purchasing the live streaming workshops.

2024 Leadership Conference: The 2024 Leadership Conference was held virtually on August 9-10, 2024, with 186 registrants in attendance. Cherise Story, PRP, served as Conference Coordinator.

Christina Emmert, PRP, and Regenia Moore-Lee, PRP, served as Assistant Conference Coordinators.

2024 NAP Training Conference: The 2024 NAP Training Conference took place in a hybrid format at the Hilton Palacio del Rio in San Antonio, TX from September 5-8, 2024, with 395 members registered. Two hundred and sixty-seven attended in person and one hundred and twenty-eight www.parliamentarians.org

29

NAP Connections

virtually. Sheryl C. Womble, PRP, served as the NAP Training Conference Coordinator; Paula E. Miles, Assistant Training Conference Coordinator; Edwin K. Miles, PRP, Workshop Coordinator; and Deborah L. Arrington, PRP-R, Assistant Workshop Coordinator.

2024 NAP Annual Membership Meeting: The NAP annual membership meeting was held on Thursday, September 5, 2024, during the NAP Training Conference in San Antonio, TX. The president and treasurer gave their annual reports.

2024 Spring Conference: The second annual virtual Spring Conference was held on April 20, 2024, with 285 participants in attendance and the theme “Democracy in Action.” The Conference Coordinator was Miriam Simmons, PRP. Susan Eads Role, PRP and Nathan Thompson were the Assistant Conference Coordinators. The Spring Conference offered a total of 10 continuing education unit credits through 10 one-hour educational sessions.

2025 Spring Conference: The third annual virtual Spring Conference was held May 31, 2025, with 224 members registered and 172 participants attending live.

30

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

The theme was “Parliamentary Solutions.” The Conference Coordinator was Miriam Simmons, PRP, and the Assistant Coordinator was Susan Eads Role, PRP. The Spring Conference offered a total of 10 continuing education unit credits through 10 one-hour educational sessions.

NAP Membership: NAP ended 2023 with a total of 4,841 members.

As of January 1, 2024, NAP had 4,842 members compared to 5,289 on January 1, 2023.

A summary of categories follows: This 9% decrease is attributed to the drop in new members in 2023 from 816 to 361 and reflects success in retaining these members. By January 4, 2024, 51% of members renewed their membership for 2024. The total number of members renewed by March 1 was 4,005, or 82%. This is slightly lower than last year at this time when 85% had renewed.

The number of renewals per membership category were: 344 Professional Registered Parliamentarians (PRP); 70 Professional Registered Parliamentarians Retired (PRP-R); 604 Registered Parliamentarians (RP); 39 Registered Parliamentarians Retired (RP-R); 2,908 Regular

NAP Connections

Members; 32 Student Members; 1 Student Professional Registered Parliamentarian; and 7 Student Registered Parliamentarians.

New Units: • North Carolina: Three new units were chartered. They are the Piedmont Triad Unit, Eastern Carolina Unit, and the Greater Triangle Unit.

• Ontario, Canada: The Maple Leaf Unit.

• Texas: The Texas Triangle Unit.

Committee Achievements Educational Resources: The Educational Resources Committee developed a PowerPoint presentation for inclusion in the parliamentary toolbox on Disciplinary Procedures. They edited “Parliamentary Speaking,” and “Master the Meeting.” They updated the “Presiding Study Guide” from the 11th to the 12th edition and developed a new online learning tool featuring the 1200 RP questions.

Membership Examiners (ME): The Membership Examiners Committee combined into one bank 200 membership exam questions to be used by NAP administered exams. The committee reviewed and approved

special accommodations requested by two examinees. They also approved test questions for use in the non-proctored course developed by MERC in their “We Want You” membership campaign.

They approved test questions for use in the non-proctored NAP University membership exam.

Membership Extension and Retention Committee (MERC): Implemented the “We Want You” membership campaign and hosted 2 four-week sessions in NAP University with over 200 participants.

Professional Development Committee (PDC): The PDC completed a revision of the manual Professional Practices in Parliamentary Procedure.

The committee also provided a workshop and materials for the mentoring program.

Policy: The Board of Directors approved proposed revised policies and procedures of the National Association of Parliamentarians Operational Policies and Procedures Manual (NAPOPP).

Substantive Actions by the NAP Board of Directors • Approved the FY 2024 proposed budget www.parliamentarians.org

31

NAP Connections

• Approved the membership reinstatement fee to be reset to $0 for March 1, 2024-March 31, 2024 • Approved the Leadership Conference registration fee of $50 • Approved the National Training Conference (NTC) early-bird registration fees of $539 for full registration and virtual $359 • Approved the full conference onsite student registration fee of $165 for the NTC • Approved the revision of the NAPOPP to go into effect at the start of the next biennium • Approved the date of May 31, 2025, and fee of $149 for the virtual Spring Conference • Approved the Membership Examiners request to drop the membership exam pass rate from 80% to 75% • Approved a $15 dues increase to go into effect in the next membership year • Approved the New Orleans Marriott for the site of the 46th Biennial Convention on dates August 25-29, 2027.

The following appointments were approved: Convention 32

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

Coordinator, Cherise Story, PRP; Assistant Coordinator, Regenia Moore-Lee, PRP; and Assistant Workshop Coordinator, Brandon Walters, PRP. • Approved the Hyatt Regency in Birmingham, Alabama for the site of the National Training Conference on dates within August 22-31, 2026. The following appointments were approved: NTC Coordinator, Edward Moore, PRP; Assistant NTC Coordinator, Carol Austin, PRP; Workshop Coordinator, Tyna Davis, PRP; and Assistant Workshop Coordinator, Sharon Reed, PRP-R. 2025 45th NAP Biennial Convention The 45th NAP Biennial Convention was held at the Sheraton Grand at Wild Horse Pass, in Phoenix, Arizona, August 20-24, 2025. Kathleen Clark, RP, served as the Convention Coordinator and Barbara Posler, RP, was the Assistant Coordinator.

Al Gage, PRP, served as Workshop Coordinator and Troy White, PRP, served as Assistant Workshop Coordinator. There were 322 full conference registrants in attendance, 12 one-day registrants, and 294 voting delegates. The in-person convention

NAP Connections

featured educational workshops, a Past Presidents Luncheon, and an Awards Luncheon hosted by the Membership Extension and Retention Committee. NAP business was addressed at five business sessions, District meetings, and a Closing Banquet. The National Association of Parliamentarians Educational Foundation held a free workshop for tribal leaders, conducted an annual meeting open to all NAP members, and hosted a Gala Dinner.

• Secretary: Donna Mitchell, PRP

Welcome to the NAP 45th Biennial Convention: President Alison Wallis, PRP, called the convention to order and introduced the guests and dignitaries. The president provided a report, noting that 23 board meetings had been held. She provided highlights of activities during the biennium.

The treasurer provided a report, sharing financial information noting membership statistics.

Commission on Credentialing: The following members were elected to terms on the Commission on Credentialing:

Bylaw Amendments: The delegates addressed twelve proposed bylaw amendments.

Elections NAP Board of Directors, 2025-2027: The following officers were elected for the 2025-2027 biennium: • President: Mona Calhoun, PRP • Vice president: C.J. Cavin, PRP

• Treasurer: Mark Apodaca, PRP • Directors-at-large: Ramona Hill, PRP, Corliss Baker, RP, and Tamara D. Harris, PRP. The following district directors were elected to serve as District Director Representatives on the Board of Directors: Steven Cook, PRP, District 3 and Justin Pappano, PRP, District 4.

Four-Year Term: Fashika Willis-McClelland, PRP Darlene T. Allen, PRP Shawn Paine, PRP. Two-Year Term: Michael Wagner Diggs, PRP. Installation: On Saturday, August 23, 2025, Past President Wanda Sims installed the members of the 2025-2027 Board of Directors. The newly-installed President, Mona Calhoun, PRP, delivered remarks and announced her theme “Rooted in Legacy, Igniting Our Future.”

At the conclusion of the program, Immediate Past President Alison Wallis and President Mona Calhoun adjourned sine die. www.parliamentarians.org

33

NAP Connections

NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NAP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians: Amy Brown (SC) Richard Halverson (HI)

Jane Kane (NC) Topher Logan (NEAP)

Deborah Mulvey (CO) Carolyn Murchison (NC)

NEW PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS* NAP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians: Daniel Carroll (TX)

Tamika Davis-Cannon (DE) Joshua Erisman (MO)

Jacquita Wright-Henderson (DE)

SILENT GAVELS* NAP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Gladys Bransford (EL) Pat Farrell (TX) Brenda Jessel (GA)

Virginia Johanson (TX) Veronica Neal-Formey (DC) Diana Nolan (LA)

Marie Plaisir (NY) Verna Reed (OH) Peggy Thomas (VA)

NEW MEMBERS* NAP welcomes the following individuals as new members: Tiffany Criss (KS) Stephen Aaron (GA) Patricia Bowers (EL) Alexus Dansby (TN) Arthur Allen (MD) Helen Bramlett (FL) Adrienne Davis (NY) Tameka Altadonna (PA) Toni Bransford (MD) Evelyn Davis (EL) Yuriko Anderson (FL) Nathaniel Broughton (ON) Rogers Davis (TX) Rosita Aristoff (FL) Joshua “Fox” Brown (NC) Ralph Armstrong (GA) Victoria Bryant-Riggins (FL) Jacquelyn Delight (CA) Ilia Desjardins (VA) Charmaine Arredondo (WA) Willie Byrd (GA) Rebecca Dolan (WA) Juana Ayala (FL) Rita Carlson (IA) Robin Dole (NJ) Helena Baker (IL) Shelby Carlson (AK) Edward Dougall (ON) Ashley Ballard (GA) Regina Carter (NJ) Julia Bernath (GA) Klahrinz W. B. Catubig (PH) Megan Early-Soppa (SC) Fatima Elhorry (NC) Lance Bilbrew (GA) Sheila Chhutani (TX) Judith Farabaugh (VA) Ramone Billingsley (AL) Sandy Clarke (DE) Julie Finn (CO) Scott Blackford (BC) Justin Cobb (MD) Linda Foor (FL) Kimberly Blade (LA) Patrick Conley (SC) Alisha Ford (SC) Jhanalyn Blount (TX) Audrey Cooper (TX) Bonnie Foster (SD) Ramona Boggins (OH) Jamila Cooper-Lee (VA) Lisa Gadson (FL) Sharonne Bonardi (MD) Evangeline Council (VA) * For the period May 23, 2025 through September 8, 2025 34

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

NAP Connections

NEW MEMBERS* (CONTINUED) William Galvin (NY) Emilie Garrelts (OK) Andrew Gerst (DC) Fiona Gilbert (AB) Trey Gordner (HI) Sandra Gould (PA) Christian Gowan (FL) Audrey Grace (DC) Marsha Grayson (PA) Sharon Green (NY) Annamarie Groenenboom (MI) Ben Gutscher (CN) Glen Harmon (TX) Kelle Harper (MD) Tishaun Harris-Ugworji (VA) Landon Harvey (AR) Sara Haskins (NEAP) Diana Hays (VA) Howard Heavner (IL) Valerie Heban (OH) Chantal Hess-Taylor (TN) Breezi Hicks (FL) Leah Hill (IL) Rachel Hitch (NC) Leah Holmes (WA) Theresa House (EL) Jacqueline Houser (TN) Thomas Huffman (WV) Johnny Itticheria (IL) Rasheda Jackson (IL) Cherrl-Lou Jacobson (CA) Latoya Jeffers (NY) Jan Johnpier (NY) Monique Johnson (TX) Takisha Johnson (MI) Lisa Jolly (MS)

Katrina Jones (MD) Michelle Kaigler (FL) Jane Kane (NC) Emily Kasbohm (NEAP) Kathy Kendrick (MS) Ronda Kennedy (MS) Kelly Kim (MI) Brandy King (TX) Edward King (MI) Karmen King (LA) Kristine Klassen (MI) Fern Klement (MO) Angela Kohls (KS) Andrew Kok (MI) Jackie Krull (WI) Chantelle Kurzawa (ON) Ryan LaPointe (MD) Jacqualynn Leak-Braynen (FL) Alfred Lee (TX) Dean Lent (MI) Wyatt Lesmeister (SD) Sharon Lockhart (KS) Monterry Luckey (DE) Megan MacDonald (BC) Star Marra-Revers (FL) Jennifer Marshall (WA) Jamerson Mayberry (TX) Zena McClain (EL) Dorothy McClendon (MO) Madeleine McDonald (AZ) Shannon McHenry (AZ) David McKenzie (NEAP) Justin McLaughlin (CA) Tiffany Melvin (TX) Jamie Meyer (OK) Lonnette Miller (CA)

Siriwan Mobley (MD) Jessenia Monge (FL) Jacob Morabito (VA) MaryEtta Morris (EL) Jonathan Moules (CA) Samantha Musser (DC) Charles Neher (AB) Patricia Nicholas (FL) Rachel Nicholas (NC) Marilynn Noble (MD) Diana Nunez (TX) Sharon Orr (BC) Ernest Owens (PA) Azure Palmer-Dominguez (AK) Angela Parks (DC) Steve Parry (IL) Janet Patrick (AZ) Trina Patrick (OH) Nicholas Peasley (OR) Robin Pirtle (MD) Roberta Stephani Podbielančik (WA) Rob Podley (FL) Capsun Poe (HI) Sonya Ponds (MD) Marla Posey-Moss (MD) Emily Powell (TX) Genardra Pugh (VA) Gail Quann (MI) Tim Redgrave (TX) Dionna Ricks (MD) Moriah Robles (AZ) Jennifer Roll (WA) Karen Rosvold (AB) Paulette Ryans (EL) Jenny Salvo (WI)

* For the period May 23, 2025 through September 8, 2025 www.parliamentarians.org

35

NAP Connections

NEW MEMBERS* (CONTINUED) Sophia Santiago (NJ) Marcella Sarmiento (AZ) Veronique Scott (TX) Lenore Sears (PA) Gannon Seyer (MO) Yolanda Shanks (FL) Nzinga Shaw (GA) Theresa Shaw (TN) Alicia Sheridan (NEAP) Cathy Sieber-Lowe (CA) Elaine Simpson (TX) Carmen Smith (GA) Orin Smith (WI) TréSina Steger (ND) Lisa Stewart (AL) Paul Stewart (SC) Gaylene Stupic (OK) Sonya Swanson (TX) Kalilah Taite (FL) Hariri Thomas (TX) Sandra Thomas (AL)

Karen Thompson-Jackson (AL) Sonya Tilghman (EL) Lakeesha Trim (VA) Kathleen Turner (TX) Gerrod Tyler (MD) Matthew Vanetten (NY) John Vines (AR) Mark Walsh (BC) Patrice Warner (NJ) Erin West (AR) Lawson Wetli (SC) Beverly Prejean White (TX) Tonya Whitehead (MI) Shirley Wilborn (VA) Dr. Rhudine Wilkes (VA) Gena Williams (KS) Joseph Williams (ID) Kellie Williams (TX) Tylene Williams (NJ) Velma Williams (AL) Yolanda Williams (NC)

Ellen Williamson (MO) Stephanie Bradley Wilson (WI) Isannah Winley (NY) Virginia Wolfe (NJ) Dawn Wright (FL) Patrick Wynne (NY)

Thank you instructors!

A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members: Cheryl Allen Kay Crews Emma Faulk Theljewa Garrett Twylah Jenkins Adrian Stratton Jacquita Wright-Henderson We Want You!

* For the period May 23, 2025 through September 8, 2025

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

36

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025

EXCITEMENT IS BUILDING

Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Photo by Leah J. Holder Wiggins, Grace Browning Unit

2026

NAP Training Conference & Annual Meeting Birmingham, AL

August 26-30, 2026 Hyatt Regency Birmingham – The Wynfrey Hotel 1000 Riverchase Galleria Birmingham, AL 35244 www.parliamentarians.org

37

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 38

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2025