Page 1


National Parliamentarian Volume 76, No. 3 | Third Quarter 2015

Take Aim at your Future.


Save the date for the

2016 NAP

Training Conference

August 26-28, 2016 Omni Interlocken Resort Broomfield, CO Look for details and registration information on the NAP website.


National Parliamentarian Volume 76, No. 3 | Third Quarter 2015

Contents 2014-2015 NAP Officers President Ann Guiberson, PRP Vice-President Mary L. Randolph, PRP Secretary Ann L. Rempel, PRP

From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 President’s Message Create Your Future Through Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FEATURES Not Robert Enough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Taking NAP’s Credentialing Program to a New Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Treasurer Evan A. Lemoine, PRP

Bylaws 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Directors-at-Large Steve Glanstein, PRP James N. Jones, RP Jim Stewart, PRP


District Director Representatives Denise Irminger, PRP Daniel Ivey-Soto, PRP

Motion Spotlight Division of a Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Two Minutes of Procedure Appealing from the Chair’s Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Parliamentarian Leonard M. Young, PRP

Parliamentary Language Confusing Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh

Test Yourself Quick Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Mystery Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Find It! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Answer Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

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

NAP Connections Remembering Carl Ann “Jimmy” Stickeler . . . . . . . . . . . 28 In Memoriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . 29


National Parliamentarian


Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 S. Main Street • Independence, MO 54050-3808 816.833.3892 • 888.627.2929 •

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 (16th 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 “Assign and Transfer Copyright” form with their submission, granting NAP the copyright or permission to publish.

Submission Deadlines Fourth Quarter 2015 First Quarter 2016

September 1, 2015 December 1, 2015


Tim Wynn, PRP P.O. Box 54, Lake Helen, FL 32744

Assistant Editor

Carol A. Henselder, RP

Parliamentary Review Committee John Rempel, PRP, Chairman Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP Sharon Reed, PRP


(Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592) Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians ©2015 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

From the Editor

From the Editor In this issue, Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP, looks for the influence of General Henry M. Robert in his review of less popular parliamentary manuals; James Stewart, PRP, and the Special Committee on Education and Credentialing tackle the sizable task of reorganizing the credentialing process; and Judith Reynolds, PRP, provides a simple and convenient way to view the composition of bylaws. As always, members are encouraged to submit articles and photos that may be of interest to the NP readership.

Tim Wynn, PRP Editor 2

National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

President’s Message

Create Your Future Through Certification Have you ever been inspired by one of your fellow parliamentarians? When you’ve watch really good presiding officers, have you wished you could conduct meetings as skillfully as they do? Or maybe you have thought to yourself, it must be wonderful to be able to quickly respond with just the right answer to a parliamentary question. The good news is that you can do all these things. You can become an inspiration as a skillful parliamentarian. You can be that person who is able to get the right answer at the right time to those who need it by taking the steps to become a registered parliamentarian now. Earning the registered-parliamentarian designation can be very rewarding and self-fulfilling. The NAP registered-parliamentarian exam has been redesigned so that you can study, practice, and refine your knowledge in bite-sized chunks. The exam has five parts that you can take separately: Part I. Research Part II. Motions and

Related Procedures Part III. Meetings, Sessions, Conventions, and Related Procedures Part IV. Officers, Elections, Boards and Committees, and Related Procedures Part V. Rules of the

Assembly and Related Procedures


Being able to take each part separately enables you to concentrate on one section and really learn it thoroughly. Another significant study aid is the new In Order study guide. In this version of the 1200 questions, all the questions within a part are arranged in the order they appear in RONR. That way, you can study the material in context and it should make more sense that way. All across the country there are many study groups that have formed. Some are even online. It is exciting to see so many inspiring parliamentarians working with those who are aspiring parliamentarians. In my own online group, one member recently completed all five parts of the exam and is now a registered parliamentarian. It will be such a great joy at the convention in September to recognize her and all the others who have taken the step forward. Being a registered parliamentarian is a distinction that sets you apart from others. It’s an investment in yourself that shows your friends, your peers, and even your employers that you are committed to the profession. If you enjoy parliamentary procedure and are good at what you do, why not back that up with the registered-parliamentarian (RP) certification. The registered-parliamentarian certification program, sponsored by NAP, has helped define and establish professional standards in this fascinating field, and it fosters recognition of those individuals who possess special expertise. A Recognized Path to Success

Among NAP members, the registered-parliamentarian program is respected and appreciated. Not only is the certification a mark of distinction throughout the profession, but it offers you a wide range of important benefits. Here is what the NAP registered-parliamentarian certification can do for you: Expanded Knowledge: By reading, studying, and preparing for the exams, you’ll gain a thorough, up-to-date understanding of every aspect of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, including a look at how to apply it to the meetings, documents, and other functions so essential to the organizations to which you belong. Growth Opportunities: Certification tells your peers, your friends, people in your workplace, and members of organizations that you are motivated, accomplished, and current in your knowledge of parliamentary procedure. It indicates that you are actively working to maintain high standards in the field.


National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

Heightened Recognition: The registered-parliamentarian designation attests to experience, knowledge, ability, accomplishment, leadership, and contributions to your organization and to the general public. Designations raise the level of respect among colleagues who participate in organizations with you. Once you have it, proudly display your RP designation with your name on letterhead, business cards, and all forms of address. Standards of Excellence: With frequent changes in parliamentary procedure, whether they are subtle or major, the role of leaders is redefined and the certification program is clearly a valuable way to master the knowledge, begin to develop skills, and achieve professional excellence. Personal Growth and Satisfaction

• Improves your credibility and qualifications • Builds invaluable personal and professional confidence • Opens new doors for opportunities for leadership and service in your organizations • Advances your knowledge and skills to the next level • Allows you to become the go-to resource in a wide variety of settings • Gives you the potential to earn income Those NAP members who take the step to grow to the fullest extent are helping to create not only NAP’s future, but their own as well.

Ann Guiberson, PRP NAP President


Not Robert Enough Lorenzo Cuessta, PRP

The crucial role of a set of rules of order is to provide the members of a deliberative assembly with a concise, complete, and consistent method of preserving their rights. After all, there is nothing magical about rules except that they protect rights.


or the past 15 years that I have been serving boards, assemblies, and conventions, I have witnessed how members can rely on Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR) for protection. I have studied other reputable parliamentary authorities, but because they are not common in the current meeting environment, I have set them aside. On the other hand, I have served organizations that use other sets of rules of order, which claim to be modern and brief. Each of these “modern and brief ” entities claims that RONR has certain disadvantages that the “modern and brief ” entities have vastly improved upon. Among the claims against RONR are the following: “RONR is too arcane, outmoded, ritualistic, and written for another time.”

I have copies of scores of “modern and brief ” entities written in the past 50 years claiming to be the next RONR replacement. None of their efforts have produced a viable replacement. In reality, longevity is the strongest proof of merit. “RONR uses Latin words.”

Half of the Latin words in RONR are part of the modern English language. The other half are used so infrequently that one could employ RONR successfully for 20 years without ever using these few Latin terms. 6

National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

“Cannot use RONR without a Parliamentarian.”

Most association members have grown up with RONR in their college, employment, and community life, observing how RONR is utilized. Additionally, there is an abundance of workshops, textbooks, and websites to teach members RONR. There is no such educational support for the “modern and brief ” entities. RONR is not an obstacle to member or officer recruitment; unknown entities are. Furthermore, if an association is serious about its reason to exist, it probably is incorporated and has an involved budget. The association would not cease to grow merely because now it will need an attorney and a CPA. Why should it cease to grow because its complexity and size leads it to need a parliamentarian? “RONR is complex and complicated.”

There are two ways to simplify a set of rules of order. Neither is beneficial, productive, or advisable. a. Place members’ rights under the authority and discretion of the presiding officer. b. Omit procedures that protect members’ rights and include only the minimum, basic procedures. The “modern and brief ” entities lack an explanation on debate protocol, serving in committees, disciplinary action, reversal of decisions, removal of elected officials, convention procedures, handling of complex situations, electronic meetings, preference in recognition, etc. “RONR includes too many unnecessary motions that add nothing.”

See the previous explanation. In the past year I have worked with three of these “modern and brief ” entities. • Rosenberg’s Rules of Order:

The majority rules, but the chair has a great deal of discretion over all members’ rights. The chair’s ruling is the final word, though the body could try to overrule the chair. Rosenberg Continued next page


Not Robert Enough Continued tries to sound like Robert, except this 10-page booklet’s oversimplification forces members to surrender their rights to the chair. • Atwood’s Rules for Meetings:

This 175-page book sounds like Robert but is presented as a glorified glossary of terms as if the terms could stand alone without being affected by other parliamentary concepts. These concepts are confusing because many incidental motions are treated as main motions. Atwood promises to free the members from the common mistakes that make so many meetings a waste of time, yet offers less than RONR in regards to debate protocol and proper handling of business. It is aimed at trade unions, but claims that it is ideal for all types of associations. • Tortorice’s Modern Rules of Order:

exclusively to the chair are the agenda, call the question, announcement of a vote, recess, adjourn, minutes, reports, withdrawal of motions, adjourned meetings, suspend the rules, and divide a question. Additionally, a motion may be adopted based on the chair’s “sense of the assembly.” The chair’s ruling on a document of governance may not be appealed, and the members have no right to a secret vote. What I discovered in all of these cases was that the members perceived that their rights were treated too casually, that the chair was a tyrant, and that their voice had little value. RONR is not ancient, complicated, or irrelevant. It is practical, logical, complete, and evolving with the needs of modern societies. The “modern and brief” entities just do not have enough Robert in them to make them practical, efficient, and democratic. In these cases, “modern and brief” feels “inexperienced and incomplete.”

This booklet promises procedures that promote efficiency, decorum, and fairness in a form that can be easily mastered. It claims that these ideals can be accomplished only if significant authority is given to the chair and claims only the chair can conduct matters in the best interest of the organization. Tortorice clarifies that his rules of order are to serve simply as guidance to the chair.

References Atwood, Roswell. (1956) Atwood’s Rules for Meetings. International Association of Fire Fighters.

Among the many powers that Tortorice’s 60-page booklet gives

Tortorice, Donald. (2014) The Modern Rules of Order. Chicago, Il: ABA Publishing.

Robert, General Henry M. (2011) Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. Rosenberg, David. (2011) Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. Sacramento, CA: League of California Cities.

Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP, is the current President of the California State Association of Parliamentarians. For 15 years he has served as parliamentarian for local, state, and national boards, assemblies, and conventions. He teaches a 3-hour interactive workshop on Robert’s Rules and Effective Meeting Management to communitycollege boards, Special Districts, and nonprofit boards. 8

National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

Motion Spotlight

Division of a Question What happens if a pending motion contains several parts that the assembly would prefer to consider separately? The assembly can divide the question. Any member may move to divide the pending question, which requires a second and a majority vote. Who determines where the motion is divided? The motion to Divide the Question should specify the exact division when it is offered by a member. The assembly, by amendment, can change how the question is to be divided. Can a motion be divided into more than two parts? Yes, provided that each part can stand alone. Can a motion be divided after it has been debated? Yes. Can a motion be divided after it has been amended? Yes. Can a motion be divided while an amendment is pending? No, the amendment must be disposed of or withdrawn before a division of the main question is in order.


Taking NAP’s Credentialing Program to a New Level James H. Stewart, PRP

Credentialing is one of the most powerful ways of proving excellence, both as a professional and as a credentialing organization. It signifies that the certified professional has completed a course of study designed specifically to meet predefined requirements and that the organization has met, and continues to meet, standards for quality improvement. In short, regardless of the profession, certification is a recognized symbol of excellence—provided the credentialing organization meets established standards.


National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015


here are three primary organizations that set the standards for the accreditation of credentialing programs: the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which established the international standard for certification programs; the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which developed U.S. standards for the accreditation of certification programs based on the ISO standards; and the Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE), which also sets standards for the accreditation of professional certification programs. Each of these organizations has rigorous standards, which require that a program “deliver an assessment based on industry knowledge independent from training courses or course providers.� Programs that have been accredited as meeting these standards are recognized as offering the best in quality and education and training. All certification programs must meet the following basic criteria: 1. The organization giving and administering the credential must be separate from the people receiving the certification. 2. The certification and the education for that certification may not be controlled by the same people. 3. The standards are expressed as a body of knowledge (BOK) that is developed by industry professionals through a thorough and rigorous process that guarantees participation of all interested parties, ensuring they are a product of a consensus-type process and represent current real-world knowledge and practice. 4. The credential must be time limited to ensure the person holding the credential maintains current knowledge. 5. The BOK is periodically updated, through the same rigorous process, to meet changes in the industry. 6. The process of assessing the knowledge and competence of the person seeking or renewing a credential shall also follow rigorous and comprehensive evaluation and validation using established psychometric principles and processes.

Addressing the Issue The National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) certification program currently only meets criterion #4: it is a time-limited certification. Because education is its primary mission, NAP established a Special Committee on Education and Credentialing (SCEC) at the urging of its members during the 39th Biennial Convention in 2013. The SCEC was tasked with examining the association’s current education and credentialing programs and recommending how both could be enhanced to increase their value and credibility.


Over the next year and a half, the committee consulted experts in the education and credentialing industry and sought input from members. It quickly reached the conclusion that NAP must separate its education and credentialing programs, which are currently one and the same. It needed to develop a body of knowledge through a consensus-building process with members, adjust the charge of the Professional Development Committee, and create a Commission on Credentialing. The first task of defining the body of knowledge came to fruition in April 2015 when the BOK was published and distributed to all NAP members. Live webinars gave members an opportunity to learn more about the BOK and even volunteer to assist in the next steps of developing a curriculum based on it. The BOK goes a long way toward meeting criterion #3, but will need to be tweaked over the next few years to meet the rigorous standards required for certification. Our current approach to certification is akin to the students deciding what will be tested and how the testing will be done. Input is provided by NAP’s president and the board of directors, the convention body, the Professional Development Committee, and the credentialing-course instructors. But there is no single entity that is actually in charge or has the final say over the process. This has led to the ever-changing and somewhat chaotic process that we have had for many years. Three Options There are three approaches or methods for creating a credible credentialing program that meets established standards. One is to hire a credentialing management company (yes, those do exist) that not only creates the program, with the help of the association as content experts, but also administers all aspects of the credentialing program. This is a very expensive and time-consuming process, and NAP simply does not have the resources or the volume of credentials that justify taking this path. If we were issuing thousands of credentials each year, it might be more viable. The second approach is to create an independent association to create and administer the program. This would be a 501(c) (6) organization without members in the conventional sense, whose only function would be to administer the credentialing program. While it is feasible for NAP to do this, the committee felt that we are not quite ready for this step (perhaps in a few years). Option three—which the SCEC recommends—is to create a semi-independent body within NAP to administer the credentialing program: the Commission on Credentialing (CoC). It would be modeled after the NAP Ethics Committee. 12

National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

The CoC would be composed of six members serving three-year staggered terms; this would remove them from the regular election and appointment cycle. The members would be elected by the board of directors and could be removed by the board; the commission members would elect their own chair (criterion #1). Commission members could not serve on the board of directors or teach credentialing classes while serving on the commission (criterion #2). The Commission would have full control over the criteria for credentials (RP and PRP are Registered Trademarks owned by NAP and would be the basis of the program, but other credentials are possible); the assessments of knowledge tools (tests, demonstrations, writings, etc.); and the certification renewal process (criterion #1). It would also regularly—and rigorously—review and evaluate the standards and the assessments that are needed and currently lacking from our process (criteria #5 and #6). The removal of the credentialing program from the Professional Development Committee not only satisfies criterion #2, but it also allows the committee to concentrate solely on advanced education, which is, after all, the primary reason NAP exists. Other Recommendations Because education is NAP’s core purpose, the SCEC is also recommending the membership test be eliminated. NAP is an educational organization, and yet we say to those who want to join us, “Go learn it first; then come to us.” Not only is this a barrier to membership, it is contrary to our purpose. While some accept the challenge and rejoice at the accomplishment of passing the exam, there are far more who do not even consider membership because we have a test. According to NAP staff, the vast majority of phone and e-mail inquiries about membership end when the requirement for a test is disclosed. Research shows that very few organizations require membership applicants to first pass a test. The SCEC believes strongly that it is time to open NAP membership to all who wish to learn parliamentary procedure without proving they know it first! Positioning NAP’s education and credentialing programs for the future will require several changes to the bylaws. The convention body will consider those changes when it meets in September 2015 for NAP’s 40th Biennial Convention.

James H. Stewart, PRP, is the current Chair of the Special Committee on Education and Credentialing.



1O1 Judith Reynolds, PRP

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.) covers the nine basic bylaw articles in 22 pages (570-591). I have found the following outline useful in a variety of settings, from a five-minute overview of the order and content recommended in RONR, to the cornerstone of a lesson on bylaws, to the foundation of a revision. For additional resources on bylaws, start by downloading NAP’s governing documents and also their sample bylaws for units and associations at I.





MEMBERS A. maximum membership B. classes of members, qualifications/eligibility C. fees/dues 1. due date, notification 2. delinquent dues, dropping members


National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

D. resignation E. honorary members if applicable IV. OFFICERS

A. officers 1. qualifications/eligibility 2. duties (other than in the PA) B. nominations and elections C. terms–length and limitations D. removal from office E. filling vacancies


MEETINGS (or Conventions) A. regular meetings–notice/ days/how to change B. annual meeting C. special meetings–notice and who may call (not permitted if not authorized in bylaws) D. quorum VI. EXECUTIVE BOARD (or BOARD of DIRECTORS)

composition, powers, rules, meetings, quorum


A. standing committees – name, composition, selection, duties (if listed in bylaws, no others may be created unless permitted in bylaws) B. special committees C. will the president appoint committees? D. will the president be made “ex officio a member of all committees except the Nominating Committee”?


“The rules contained in the current edition of ________ shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.”


A. who can amend B. notice and vote requirement Some organizations may have cause to include additional bylaw articles, such as the following: Duties of Officers, Executive Committee, Finances, Conflict of Interest, Disciplinary Procedures, Dissolution, Emblem and Seal, Indemnification, Logo, Property, and Publications.

Judith Reynolds, PRP, is a former high-school chemistry teacher, who became a PRP in 2008. She enjoys developing parliamentary study materials and coaching high-school parliamentary teams.


Two Minutes of Procedure

Appealing from the Chair’s Decision


“I appeal from the decision of the chair.”

hen a member disagrees with the decision of the chair, that member can appeal. This is done by saying “I appeal from the decision of the chair.” If the appeal is seconded, the matter in question is taken out of the hands of the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision. In general, an appeal is debatable, and each member may speak only once in debate on the appeal. But the chair may speak twice and does not leave the chair to do so. However, when the appeal relates to indecorum or a transgression of the rules of speaking, when it relates to the priority of business, or when an undebatable motion is immediately pending or involved in the appeal, the appeal is undebatable. The appeal is put to a vote in the following form: “Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly?” A majority in the negative is required to overturn the decision of the chair, and the chair may vote on the appeal when his vote would affect the outcome.


National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

Parliamentary Language

Confusing Terms

The world of parliamentary law has its own precise and unique language. Mastering this language is an important step in gaining a fuller understanding of proper procedure. Let’s take a look at a few pairs of parliamentary terms that are often confused with one another. Plurality vs. Majority Each of the descriptions below describes either a Majority Vote or Plurality Vote. See if you can match each of the following descriptions with the term it describes: a. The basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly b. Only requires a proposal to receive more votes in favor than against c. Never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office, except by virtue of a special rule of order d. Recommended by RONR for an election with many nominees e. To elect officers, it requires authorization in the bylaws f. Unlikely to be in the best interest of the average organization g. Applies only when there are more than two possible choices Vote by Mail vs. Proxy Voting a. Incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly b. Generally reserved for important issues on which a full vote of the membership is desirable c. Allows an absent member to vote by filling out a ballot d. Often used by boards to manipulate absent members into giving the officers greater voting power Preferential Voting vs. Cumulative Voting a. Allows a member to vote for multiple choices to fill a single blank, though only one will ultimately be selected b. Allows a member to cast multiple votes for a single candidate c. Takes into consideration not only a member’s first choice, but second, third, and so on d. Especially useful and fair in an election by mail if it is impractical to take multiple ballots e. Is intended to allow a candidate to be elected when none receives a majority f. Allows a choice to receive more votes than the number of voters g. Applies only when there are more than two possible choices Answers on page 24


Test Yourself

Quick Quiz It’s time for a Quick Quiz, to refresh your knowledge and sharpen your skills. Answers are found in the back of this publication. Be careful; some of these are tricky. 1. Whenever the affirmative vote is large enough, the chair does not need to call for the negative vote. a. True b. False 2. What vote is required to suspend a Standing Rule of a Convention? a. Majority vote b. Two-thirds vote c. Demand of a single member d. A Standing Rule of a Convention cannot be suspended 3. What is the proper language to use to call the meeting to order? a. If there is no objection, the meeting of the ABC Foundation is officially called to order. b. There being a quorum present, I hereby call this meeting to order. c. It is now 4:30 pm, and we will begin the meeting. d. The meeting will come to order. 4. The organization of a convention is brought about by the adoption of reports from which three committees? a. Convention, Standing Rules, and Membership b. Bylaws, Credentials, and Agenda c. Credentials, Standing Rules, and Program d. Program, Resolutions, and Executive

Answers on page 25 18

National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

Test Yourself

Mystery Motion See if you can uncover the identity of the mystery motions below by reviewing the clues. Report to the back of this issue to find out if you nabbed the right suspect. Mystery Motion 61 (easy) I am the highest-ranking privileged

motion. Mystery Motion 62 (easy) Apart from my normal function,

I also have the following three variations: to go into committee of the whole, to go into quasi committee of the whole, and to consider informally. Mystery Motion 63 (easy) I am a subsidiary motion that is

debatable, and I’m in order when a motion to Commit is pending. Mystery Motion 64 (intermediate) I cannot be adopted in the face

of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule in question. Mystery Motion 65 (intermediate) Like a point of order, I’m an

incidental motion that the presiding officer can put to a vote on his own initiative, requiring a two-thirds vote in the negative to prevail. Mystery Motion 66 (intermediate)I’m a subsidiary motion that

is not amendable, but I have a special characteristic that allows different versions of me to be pending at the same time. Mystery Motion 67 (intermediate) I’m of American origin and

allow the correction of hasty, ill-advised, or erroneous action. Mystery Motion 68 (intermediate) I’m the only debatable subsidiary

motion that cannot be amended. Mystery Motion 69 (difficult) I require a two-thirds vote and am used when it is desired to devote an entire meeting to a subject or as much of the meeting as may be necessary Mystery Motion 70 (difficult) I’m a privileged motion and can be reconsidered. Answers on page 25


Test Yourself

Find It! Whether studying for the RP exam, brushing up on your skills, or familiarizing yourself with Robert’s Rules of Order, there’s always something fun and rewarding about locating a random sentence in the pages of RONR. Test your skill at tracking down the following passages. Good luck! 6. “But situations may arise in which immediate establishment of the time for an adjourned meeting is important, yet there is no opportunity to make a main motion.”

Page # ______________

7. “Certain secondary motions also take precedence over others, so that it is possible for more than one secondary motion to be pending at a time (together with the main motion).”

Page # ______________

8. “He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair’s prerogative of doing so.”

Page # ______________

9. “In ordinary societies having bylaws that provide for several regular meetings during the year and having no fixed hour for adjournment, a motion “to adjourn,” when unqualified, is always a privileged motion.”

Page # ______________

10. “In the case of a committee report, on the other hand, the chairman or other reporting member should make any motion(s) necessary to bring the committee’s recommendations before the assembly for consideration.”

Page # ______________

Answers on page 25 20

National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

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 RONR (11th ed.), unless otherwise indicated, and do not take into account such governing authorities as statutes, bylaws, or adopted special rules of order. Questions should be mailed to NP Q&A Editor, 213 South Main Street, Independence, MO 64050, or e-mailed to


QUESTION 24: I made a motion under New Business and was allowed to read the motion, but the chair cut me off and told me that federal law prohibits its being made. Could this be true? A: The purpose of New Business is for members to introduce new business, which is done by the making of motions. As a member, you have a right to make a motion. The chair must then place that motion before the assembly if it receives a second (note that in small boards a second is not required, though your rules may vary on this requirement). However, it is the duty of the chair to rule out of order any motion whose introduction would violate the rules. Whether or not your motion violates the rules of your organization or the procedural rules contained in applicable federal law cannot be determined without a thorough review of the documents that govern your organization. In any event, when the chair rules a motion out of order, he should explain the reasons for his ruling. And whether or not he offers an explanation, any member can appeal from the decision of the chair. An appeal requires a second (except in small boards and committees, where seconds aren’t required; but check your specific rules on the matter). The effect of an appeal is to take the matter from the chair and place it in the hands of the assembly for final decision. A majority is required to overturn the decision of the chair. In this way, the assembly, not the presiding officer, decides whether the motion is out of order. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 255-260.


Test Yourself


Questions Answers continued


QUESTION 25: I ran into a new one last night. A Board member did not receive notification for a special meeting (probably an e-mail issue). The meeting was held, a quorum attended, and some actions were taken. The member now claims that all actions taken are null and void because he was not notified. Is this right?? A: If notice of a special meeting was not properly sent to all members of the board, any business transacted at that meeting is null and void. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 91, lines 28-35. However, keep in mind that notice of a special meeting must be SENT to all members of the body. There is not a requirement that it must be RECEIVED. If reception were a requirement, it would be possible for any member to nullify a special meeting by not checking his mail or by claiming to have not received the notice. The real question is whether the secretary (or the individual responsible for sending the notice) properly SENT the notice. If not, all business transacted at the meeting is null and void. But if notice was properly sent, the special meeting is valid. Any member can make a point of order (in a meeting) that notice was not properly sent, and the chair will make a ruling. The ruling of the chair is subject to appeal at the time it is made.


QUESTION 26: Is the vice-president of an organization permitted to make a motion? I know the president cannot. A: In general, whoever is presiding over the meeting should not make motions while in the chair. If the vice-president is presiding, he should not make motions. If the vice-president is NOT presiding, there is no restriction on his making motions. The same is true of the president.


National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

Test Yourself


Questions Answers continued


QUESTION 27: If a motion is made at a special meeting, and if some members have alternate language that they prefer, can that new language be substituted for the original? A: First, only business specified in the call of the special meeting can be considered at that special meeting. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 93, lines 3-4. RONR (11th ed.), p. 93, lines 18-21, states, “When a main motion related to business specified in the call of a special meeting is pending, it is as fully open to germane amendment as if it had been moved at a regular meeting.” Assuming that the motion relates to business specified in the call of the special meeting, it can be made, and any member has the right to propose an amendment, which requires a second and a majority vote to adopt. A substitute is a specific form of amendment, through which the entire language of a substitute motion can be proposed to replace the entire language of the pending motion. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 153, lines 22-27. A majority vote is required to adopt this substitution. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 133, lines 19-20. However, adoption of the substitute only replaces the pending motion with the new motion, which is then debatable and will require another vote for its adoption. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 155, lines 19-21.

Answers on page 25


Test Yourself

Answer Key Parliamentary Language: Confusing Terms Plurality vs. Majority a. Majority vote – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 4, lines 3-9 b. Majority vote – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 400, lines 5-18; plurality is not used in a “for or against” vote: see RONR (11th ed.), p. 404, line 35-p. 405, line 1 c. Plurality vote – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 405, lines 2-4 d. Majority vote – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 415, lines 24-28, and p. 405, lines 6-14 e. Plurality vote – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 405, lines 4-6 f. Plurality vote – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 6-7 g. Plurality vote –see RONR (11th ed.), p. 404, line 35-p. 405, line 1 Vote by Mail vs. Proxy a. Proxy Voting – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 428, line 34-p. 429, line 2 b. Vote by Mail – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 424, lines 4-9


National Parliamentarian • Second Third Quarter Quarter 2015 2015

c. Vote by Mail – this should not be confused with proxy voting, which is an example of a member authorizing another person to vote in his stead; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 428, lines 28-30 d. Proxy Voting – Often boards solicit proxies from members to be given to officers, making such solicitations in the name of the board Preferential Voting vs. Cumulative Voting a. Preferential Voting – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 426, lines 13-18 b. Cumulative Voting – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, lines 2-7 c. Preferential Voting – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 425, line 33-p. 426, line 2 d. Preferential Voting – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 426, lines 3-7 e. Preferential Voting – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 425, line 33-p. 426, line 2 f. Cumulative Voting – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, lines 2-7 g. Preferential Voting – see RONR (11th ed.), p. 425, line 33-p. 426, line 2

Test Yourself

Quick Quiz 1. b. False. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 45, lines 4-9

Mystery Motion 66 (intermediate) Previous Question; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 200, lines 2-23.

2. a. Majority Vote. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 620, line 32-p. 621, line 14 & footnote

Mystery Motion 67 (intermediate) Reconsider; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 315, lines 16-23.

3. d. “The meeting will come to order.� See RONR (11th ed.), p. 25, lines 9-15

Mystery Motion 68 (intermediate) Postpone Indefinitely; see RONR (11th ed.), tinted p. 4

4. c. Credentials, Standing Rules, and Program. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 609, line 34-p. 610, line 3.

Mystery Motion 69 (difficult) Make an item of business the special order for the meeting; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 371, lines 1-13.

Mystery Motions Mystery Motion 61 (easy) Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn; see RONR (11th ed.), tinted p. 4 Mystery Motion 62 (easy) Commit; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 168, lines 8-18. Mystery Motion 63 (easy) Postpone to a Certain Time; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 180, lines 22-24 & p. 182, lines 12-15.

Mystery Motion 70 (difficult) Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 243, line 36. Find It! 6. 243 7. 61 8. 467 9. 235 10. 356

Mystery Motion 64 (intermediate) Suspend the Rules; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 261, lines 14-17. Mystery Motion 65 (intermediate) Object to the Consideration of a Question; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 268, lines 21-25 & lines 14-15


NAP Connections

Youth Day Left to right: Brandon Walters, RP; Julie Palm, PRP; Austin Stottlemyre; Gloria Cofer, PRP; Jill Coats; Robert Schuck, RP; Ann Guiberson, PRP; Evan Lemoine, PRP

Workshop: Ethical or Unethical Left to right: Jeanette Williams, PRP; Lucy Anderson, PRP; Thomas “Burke” Balch, PRP

Business Meeting Convention Coordinator Craig Henry, PRP (left), and President Ann Guiberson, PRP (right), present Certificates of Appreciation to Workshop Coordinator Colette Trohan, PRP, and Assistant Workshop Coordinator Marie Wilson, PRP


National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

NAP Connections

The Fort Worth Unit and the Texas State Association honor Pauline (Polly) Campbell, PRP-R, the sole remaining Charter Member of the Fort Worth Unit, which was founded in 1967. Left to right: Billie Beth Moore; Betty S. Green, PRP; Polly Campbell, PRP-R; Charlene Berry, RP-R; Libby Willis, PRP; and Judy Strzinek.

O rdering M aterials from NAP


Ways to Order: 1. By Mail: 213 South Main Street Independence, MO 64050-3808 2. By Phone: (888) 627-2929

3. By Fax: (816) 833-3893

4. By E-mail:

5. On the Web:

Categories of Materials Available Include: Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition Materials Other Parliamentary Manuals Electronic Resources Meeting Resources Leadership Spotlights Parliamentary Reference Cards Parliamentary Study Pathways to Proficiency References Parliamentary Supplies Teaching Resources

Resource descriptions and a complete order form are available at the NAP Online Store:


NAP Connections

R emembering

Carl Ann “Jimmy” Stickeler (1930-2015)

Past President Carl Ann Stickeler, better known to NAP members as “Jimmy,” passed away in her sleep on July 21, 2015, at her residence in Mineral Bluff, Georgia, where she lived with her daughter, Casey. Jimmy had a long battle with illness, and a fall resulted in a broken hip, which finally took her life. Jimmy was NAP President from 1989-91. She was born in Plant City, Florida, the day after Christmas in 1930. She married her high-school sweetheart, Nick, in 1949, and they were together 63 years when he passed. Jimmy joined NAP in 1959 in Miami, Florida, to expand her knowledge of parliamentary law and to learn how to implement its principles. She became a registered parliamentarian in 1972 (#855) and a PRP in 1983 when that designation was created. Jimmy was a past president of the Florida State Association of Parliamentarians and served on its board of directors a total of 26 years. She attended every state convention since 1965 until her health would no longer permit it. Jimmy was a member of five NAP units and a past president of three. At the NAP District 3 conference in 1965, Jimmy received the national association’s first “Parliamentor Award.” She went on to serve in nearly every NAP committee chairmanship and office during her 18-year tenure on the NAP Board, culminating in her service as president from 1989-91. Her administration’s theme was “Learning Never Ends.” Jimmy said that her most satisfying parliamentary experiences came while coaching high-school youth-group parliamentary-procedure teams. Her Health Occupation Students of America (HOSA) team was Florida state champion six times, national third place three times, and national champion once. Her work with Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA) brought three state championships and a fourth place at the national level. She also coached Future Homemakers of America (today FCCLA) and Future Farmers of America (FFA) teams. When she moved to Ocala, Florida, in 1988, she organized a parliamentary study club and sponsored the first youth group in Florida at Gainesville High School. 28

National Parliamentarian • Third Quarter 2015

NAP Connections

Jimmy was certified to teach parliamentary law by the Florida Department of Education. She taught graduate-credit courses at Florida International University, continuingeducation-credit courses at various junior colleges, and was an adjunct faculty member with the University of North Florida’s Institute of Governance. As a professional parliamentarian, she served local, state, national, and international organizations and was a certified expert witness with the state of Florida Judicial Department. Jimmy spoke fondly of her years as the parliamentarian for Kiwanis International. In addition, Jimmy was an active member and leader of several other associations, including the Academy of Parliamentary Procedure and Law, Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Beta Sigma Phi International Sorority, where she received the “Woman of Distinction” Award. Past President Leonard Young remembered, “Jimmy knew her parliamentary procedure. When she was president, whenever a point of order was raised, she always referred it to the assembly for a decision because she believed in the wisdom of the convention body. Jimmy was a pro.” Jimmy and Nick raised three boys and two girls, as well as six beloved grandchildren. NAP will miss Jimmy. We mourn together as we remember the excellent, professional contribution she made to our association and to the parliamentary profession.

In Memoriam

NP commemorates the following members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Verdelle B. Bellamy, Georgia Barbara C. Eagan, Illinois Dorothy L. Ingram, Texas Suzanne H. Pederson, Michigan

New Registered Parliamentarians

NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Registered Parliamentarian: David William Bennett, Ontario Michele M. Campbell, Illinois Mary Q. Grant, District of Columbia Ramona Jeffries, Kentucky Cody Dean McCain, Nebraska Mary Alice Oldfield, Kentucky Frank N. K. Pestana, Hawaii Joannah M. Schumacher, Nevada New Professional Registered Parliamentarian

NP congratulates the following individual for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarian: James N. Jones, Illinois





Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 S. Main Street Independence, MO 64050-3808 816.833.3892 • 888.627.2929 •

National Parliamentarian (Vol. 76 No. 3)  

The official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians

National Parliamentarian (Vol. 76 No. 3)  

The official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians