National Parliamentarian (Vol. 77, No. 1)

NP

National Parliamentarian Volume 77, No. 1 | Fall 2015

Raising NAP to

New Heights

Save the date for the

2016 NAP Training Conference

August 26-28, 2016 Omni Interlocken Resort Broomfield, CO Located in the ideal vacationland – Colorado Look for details and registration information on the NAP website.

www.parliamentarians.org

NP

National Parliamentarian Volume 77, No. 1 | Fall 2015

Contents 2015-2017 NAP Officers President Mary L. Randolph, PRP Vice-President James N. Jones, PRP Secretary Teresa Stone, PRP Treasurer Wanda James, PRP Directors-at-Large Darlene Allen, PRP Ann Rempel, PRP Alison Wallis, PRP District Director Representatives Kevin Connelly, PRP Joyce Brown-Watkins, PRP Parliamentarian Roger Hanshaw, PRP Executive Director Cynthia Launchbaugh

From the Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 President’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FEATURES What Is a Cluster Coordinator? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 My First Mock Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Parliamentarians and the Unauthorized Practice of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Is It in the Book? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 International Services Special Committee Welcomes Members from Afar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Why Volunteers Should Know About Parliamentary Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Parliamentary Procedure 101 • Managing Debate . . . . . . 22 Retaining Your Credential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 DEPARTMENTS Test Yourself Quick Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Mystery Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Find It! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A Blast from the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Questions & Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Answer Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

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

NAP Connections Meet Our New 2015-2017 Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 In Memoriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 New Professional Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . 36 New Registered Parliamentarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Ordering Materials from NAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 www.parliamentarians.org

1

National Parliamentarian

®

Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 S. Main Street • Independence, MO 54050-3808 816.833.3892 • 888.627.2929 hq@nap2.org • www.parliamentarians.org

Editor

Martha Womack Haun, PhD, PRP mhaun@uh.edu

Assistant Editor Dana Dickson, RP

Parliamentary Research Committee Jonathan Jacobs, PRP Steve Britton, PRP Sharon Reed, PRP Roger Hanshaw, PRP

Parliamentary Review Committee Betty Tunstall, PRP Dennis Clark, PRP Beverly Przybyliski, PRP John Berg, PRP

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN®

(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

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 Volume 77, No. 2 (Winter 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . December 1, 2015 Volume 77, No. 3 (Spring 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 1, 2016 Volume 77, No. 4 (Summer 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 1, 2016 2

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

From the Editors

From the Co-Editor Tim Wynn, PRP In an effort to make the transition as smooth as possible, this issue was edited jointly by the outgoing editor (me) and the incoming editor (Martha Haun, Ph.D., PRP). In parting, I would like to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as editor, and it has been a joy creating the new features (Mystery Motion, Quick Quiz, Two Minutes of Procedure, What’s Wrong, Motion Spotlight, Parliamentary Language, Words From the Pros, and Parliamentary Myths). I’d like to thank Ann Guiberson for giving me this wonderful opportunity. I’d also like to thank Assistant Editor Carol Henselder and the Parliamentary Review Committee, along with everyone at NAP Headquarters and all the contributing authors. I’m sure the NP will be in good hands with your new editor, Martha Haun, PhD, PRP.

Tim Wynn, PRP, Co-Editor

From the New Editor Martha Womack Haun, PhD, PRP I am delighted and honored to be your new NP editor! I have a long history of writing and editing including more than 25 parliamentary articles. For 17 years, I edited the Texas Speech Communication Journal (1987-2003) and for seven year’s the AIP’s Parliamentary Journal (1994-2001). My BA and MA are from University of Texas, Austin; Ph.D. from University of Illinois, Urbana. I coached debate teams at Stetson University, DeLand, FL, before joining the faculty at U of Houston 45 years ago where I have coached debate and taught communication theory and effective meeting management/ parliamentary procedure.

On behalf of all of us, I want to thank Tim Wynn, PRP, and Carol Henselder, PRP for the excellent job done these past two years! With Cyndy Launchbaugh and Rosemary Holderby, they have brought the NP to a new level of excellence in both content and graphic design.

Very special heart-felt thanks go to Dan Seabold, PRP, Dana Dickson, RP, John Berg, PRP, Carrie Dickson, PRP, Jonathan Jacobs, PRP, and Dennis Clark, RP, as they supported me with my first issue.

We are committed to sustaining excellence as we increase the many publics we serve. Send us your articles, your reports of impressive parliamentary activities, and, of course, your parliamentary questions!

Martha Womack Haun, PhD, PRP, Co-Editor www.parliamentarians.org

3

President’s Message

Yes, this is really the first edition of the National Parliamentarian for this term; you did not miss an edition.

The NP now functions on a term calendar.

Previously the NP’s functioned on a calendar year which meant that the editions did not truly reflect the current activities of the organization. Starting with this edition, the NP will correspond with the elections and activities of NAP. First of all, I want to thank the many members from around the world that attended our 40th Biennial Convention. It is truly an honor to serve as your president for the 2015-2017 term. I believe in NAP and its potential and will strive to fulfill your faith in my leadership. You, the members, have also given me an outstanding board to work with: James N. Jones, PRP, Vice President; Teresa Stone, PRP, Secretary; Wanda James, PRP, Treasurer; Darlene Allen, PRP, Director-at-Large; Ann Rempel, PRP, Director-at-Large; Alison Wallis, PRP, Director-at-Large; Kevin Connelly, PRP, District Director; and Joyce Brown-Watkins, PRP, District Director.

As I start this new term I am keenly aware of the immense responsibility and trust you have placed in me and I make this commitment to you.

The theme for this year is NAP Rises and I pledge to raise NAP to new heights by: • Respecting our legacy by building on our existing foundation • Maintaining Integrity of leadership through accountability to members at all levels • Providing Services through training programs and member support • Providing Excellence in education by maintaining professional standards • Providing Stewardship of NAP Finances.

4

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

The past administration challenged us to create the future. This term we challenge you to step out into that future and raise the NAP to new heights. We will reach out both nationally and internationally to raise NAP to be recognized as the premier training source for democratic meetings around the world. We are desperately needed by thousands of organizations here and abroad each year; but before we can reach them, they have to know that we exist and what we can offer.

There is a new leadership structure in NAP. The standing committees will remain but, to increase the communication between committees, each group (cluster) of committees will have a coordinator (see page 6).

For instance, the education cluster includes the Educational Resources Committee, the Membership and Registration Committee, the Professional Development Committee, and the Wisconsin Individual Study Committee. The chair of this cluster will be Dan Seabold, PRP. The other clusters are Communications coordinated by Julie Pioch, PRP, Members coordinated by Jim Jones, PRP, and Technology coordinated

by Greg Goodwiller, PRP. The NAP 40th Biennial Convention amended the bylaws to create a Commission on Credentialing. The members of the Commission were elected by the Board of Directors as required by the bylaw amendment.

The members elected to the commission are: Thomas (Burke) Balch, PRP, and Eugene (Gene) Bierbaum, PRP, to three-year terms, Gail Knapp, PRP, and Rosalie Stroman, PRP, to two-year terms, and Maurice Henderson, PRP, and Joy Myers, PRP, to one-year terms. They have met and are already busy setting up the foundation for this new entity.

You will be hearing more from them on their plans and timeline as it is developed. In the meantime, members will continue to be credentialed and renewed under the process that is currently in effect.

You are the key to raising NAP to new heights. The potential is unlimited. Where do we start? With you! From the grassroots provisional member to the professional member, you all play a role in building NAP into all we know it can be. Where do you start? Ask yourself who you interact with in your daily life that could gain from knowing about parliamentary procedure or meeting management? Have you given them the information to find out about NAP?

Mary Randolph, PRP NAP President

www.parliamentarians.org

5

What Is a Cluster Coordinator?

The concept of the cluster coordinator structure was created out of a brainstorming session on improving committee communication and how to get committees together to share expertise and strengths with other committees. This concept will accomplish the following: 1. To restructure the leadership to develop better communication between committees.

2. To develop “teams” that will work together and feel free to share information and concerns.

3. To create a structure that will provide better communication between all levels of NAP and the leadership.

4. To develop resources so that each leader has support and resources that can make their individual committees stronger.

The expectations of each cluster coordinator will be: 1. Develop a “team” of leadership that can provide the best services available to the membership.

2. Provide efficient and clear communication between the leadership throughout the organization.

3. Have all committees freely sharing information and ideas between each other on a regular basis.

4. Allow the board to focus on policies rather than committees.

6

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

New Cluster Committee Structure Chair of Education Cluster Dan Seabold, PRP Educational resources, Member and Registration Committee, Professional Development Committee and Wisconsin Individual Study Course Communications Cluster Chair Julie Pioch, PRP Partnerships, Public Relations/Marketing, Publications, Edit Committee Technology Cluster Greg Goodwiller, PRP Technical support, Website Membership Chair Jim Jones, PRP District Directors, International, Youth

My

first

Mock

convention

Paul D. McDonald

Earlier this year, Dr. Leonard Young, PRP, put out a call to local members of NAP to help President Ann Guiberson with a mock convention— essentially a dress rehearsal of the upcoming biennial convention.

I was fortunate enough to take part in this exercise.

T

he plan was to practice going

through the order of business and to get a feel for how the consideration of the bylaw amendments might go— what motions would come up, how to handle them, and how to dispense with business quickly and efficiently.

Our instructions were simple: let President Guiberson warm up with the first few amendments and then start throwing pitches in the dirt.

I knew I could do that!

Some of these “wild pitches” were as follows: 1. Amend by striking out “two” and inserting “three”; 2. Amend by striking out “five” and inserting a blank; 3. Object to the Consideration of a Question; 4. Postpone Indefinitely; 5. Amend by adding; 6. Lay on the Table, as well as Take from the Table; 7. Refer to a Committee of the Whole; 8. Appeal from the decision of the chair; 9. Multiple motions that violated the bylaws; and 10. Multiple motions to amend the bylaws beyond the scope of notice. www.parliamentarians.org

7

I’ve read every section of RONR on these motions. I have an understanding of them, and I’m sure most every reader of this article does, too.

But there is a difference between understanding and handling on the fly.

In his book Paid to Think, business author and consultant David Goldsmith writes, “Often times we think we know something when in fact we are only aware of it.”

I learned that many of us in this mock convention were aware of the tips and tricks in RONR, but we did not actually know them.

The motions to amend are quite simple on paper and in theory.

But in practice they can become clumsy and cumbersome. Our first amendments were relatively simple, but they became more complex as we made secondary amendments and even one third-degree amendment (which President Guiberson caught right away and prevented us from

doing—good job!). Some

amendments were beyond

the scope of the notice,

which is something that

8

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

any presiding officer must be ready to catch.

An Objection to Consideration of a Question was ruled out of order because it was intended to apply to an amendment to the bylaws. Object to the Consideration of a Question can only be applied to an original main motion, not an incidental main motion, such as a bylaw amendment.

We considered a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, and one amendment was even considered in Committee of the Whole.

Miraculously, at one point, President Abraham Lincoln showed up. We immediately used the motion to Lay on the Table and heard a short speech from Honest Abe. We then adopted a motion to Take from the Table.

Twice we practiced appealing from the decision of the chair, one where the chair’s decision was sustained and one where it was not. We also had a good number of Requests for Information and an occasional Point of Order. For one motion, we Extended the Limits of Debate and ran through a robust discussion.

We even tried to consider a motion

without it’s having received a second. And one time we had a second second!

At lunchtime we had a brief discussion about whether we should Recess for lunch or Adjourn for lunch.

Participating in a mock

convention was a lot of fun!

In a very short period of time, we witnessed and participated in a large number of motions and procedures.

We helped locate obstacles in the script and prepare for questions from the floor. And we got to flex our parliamentary muscles!

A few months later I was blessed to participate in the real thing, the 2015 Biennial Convention of the National Association of Parliamentarians. A few things came up that we hadn’t predicted, but my favorite was the Motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 332-335. You can bet we will practice that next time!

The mock convention gave President Guiberson and Dr. Young a great chance to practice working together to ensure that the convention ran smoothly. The mock meetings included the following benefits to the chair and parliamentarian: 1. Refresh their memories of obscure motions; 2. Practice together and learn each other’s signals and cues; 3. Practice using the meeting technology in a rapid-fire situation;

4. Recognize specific holes in the script that may need to be addressed; 5. Hear possible debate on proposed bylaw amendments; 6. Train others on the process of holding a meeting (we ALL learned a lot!); and 7. Develop confidence working together to achieve a great meeting.

Personally, I believe #7 is the most important of all—that the chair and parliamentarian had an opportunity to strengthen their working relationship.

Paul D. McDonald is a member of the Jacomo and Santa Fe Units in Independence, MO. He is working toward his RP and PRP designations. You can learn more about Paul at http://www.speakerpaul.com.

www.parliamentarians.org

9

Travis N. Barrick, JD, MPA, PRP

Good News/Bad News.

The good news is that there are no known cases in the country where a parliamentarian has been prosecuted for the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). The bad news is that there are forces at work that could change that.

Who Cares?

The state supreme courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the practice of law within their boundaries, including the definition of UPL. In most states, the attorney general would be the government agent to prosecute someone for UPL. In a few states, the state bar has a committee on UPL and would bring any legal action to enforce the rules against any UPL. The bottom line is that unless someone complains, there isn’t likely to be any enforcement action, whether or not it would be right to do so.

One reason the issue isn’t likely to come up is that most lawyers have zero knowledge of parliamentary procedure, and it would be embarrassing to prosecute a non-lawyer 10

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

for doing something lawyers don’t know how to do. As of my most recent search, not one single law school teaches any courses in parliamentary procedure. Yet, most people expect lawyers to know it.

The American College of Parliamentary Lawyers (ACPL) is on the forefront of providing continuing legal education courses and credit for basic training in parliamentary procedure as it relates to nonprofits, homeowners, common-interest communities, unions, political parties, and more.

What Are the Rules?

In general, the practice of law involves the following: 1. Appearing in court; 2. Signing court pleadings; 3. Advising clients about their legal rights and responsibilities.

After those three items, the state definitions become quite vague. As long as a parliamentarian stays out of 1 through 3, there really isn’t a problem. (See Good News above)

The important distinction between attorneys and parliamentarians is that attorneys are trained in the LAW and parliamentarians are trained in procedure. (See article by James Slaughter) Another important distinction between attorneys and parliamentarians is that an attorney represents an organization with respect to its relationship with the outside world, while parliamentarians are concerned with its internal structure and procedures. (See article by Travis Barrick) How to Protect Yourself.

Be sure to inform your client, in writing, that you are not providing LEGAL advice, and in some

circumstances, that they should seek the advice of a lawyer.

You have a right to provide parliamentary advice and services, including the preparation of bylaws, but do not assist in the filing of those records with the secretary of state.

If you are ever challenged regarding your parliamentary services, contact the American College of Parliamentary Lawyers (www.parliamentarylawyers.com). We are a national nonprofit organization of lawyers who are also registered and/ or certified by NAP and the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP).

We may be able to provide a written opinion on your behalf.

Resources • James Slaughter, “Parliamentarians: Avoiding the Practice of Law,” National Parliamentarian, 56, 1st Quarter (1995): 34-35.

• Travis N. Barrick, “A Tale of Two Duties,” Nevada Lawyer (May 2008). (Discusses the differences in the roles played by a parliamentarian and an attorney for organizations. The situation regarding insurance changed after publication.)

• State Bar of Georgia – UPL Advisory Opinion No. 2005-1 – http://www.gabar.org/ barrules/handbookdetail.cfm?what=rule&id=539. (Does a non-lawyer engage in the unlicensed practice of law when he prepares, for another and for remuneration, articles of incorporation, bylaws, or other documents relating to the establishment of a corporation? Yes.) • State of Washington – Rule 24 – Definition of the Practice of Law (2001) – http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set= gr&ruleid=gagr24. (General Information: Nothing in this rule shall affect the ability of a person or entity to provide information of a general nature about the law and legal procedures to members of the public.)

• Derek A Denckla, “Non-lawyers and the Unauthorized Practice of Law: An Overview of the Legal and Ethical Parameters,” Fordham Law Review 67, Fordham Law Review 2581 (1991). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=3572&context=flr (Contains no reference to parliamentary law or bylaws.)

Travis N. Barrick, Esq., is a charter member of ACPL and currently serving his second term as its Vice President.

www.parliamentarians.org

11

Is It in the Book?

David Mezzera, PRP

Are you as intrigued as I am to run across a term penned by General Henry Martyn Robert from his military days (e.g., Stand at Ease or Orders of the Day) or from his love of Latin (e.g., seriatim or quorum)?

A term occasionally pops up on the pages of RONR that surprises me, and I wonder what it’s doing there.

Did General Robert himself coin such a term? Is it indeed a parliamentary term or is it a social media idiom or a political expression (e.g., simultaneous aural communication or charges and specifications)? I find it interesting that the authorship team has done its part to keep up with the times by adding phrases that are consistent with lingo of the twenty-first century (e.g., software or electronic meetings).

But how might General Robert feel about some of the modern descriptors of our day? How would he feel if they had shown up in his pocket manual?

Just how well do you know your parliamentary terminology? Test yourself. See if you can identify which of the following words or phrases actually appear on pp. 1-669 of RONR (11th ed.).

12

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

A. “I so move.”

B. “The chair will entertain a motion to…”

C. “Question!”

D. Consensus E. Chairwoman F. Gentlewoman G. Breakout group H. Open forum I. Three-fourths vote J. A vote of one-fifth of the members present K. Sunshine laws L. Warden M. Warrant officer N. “Dark horse” O. Curator P. Restoratory motions (as a class) Q. Gordian Knot R. Chairman pro tem S. In gross T. Internet U. Videoconferencing V. Chat room W. Freedom of speech X. Recording device Y. Hearsay evidence Z. Veto power

Outside the Book Some might have caught you off guard, thinking that they would never show up in RONR, but they really do. Others really aren’t in the pages of RONR. In some cases, however, those terms do appear in other parliamentary authorities. So here are the non-RONR terms with their explanations: D. Consensus. This term does not appear in pp. 1-669 of RONR (11th ed). Interestingly, though, the term does appear in the introduction to the book, on p. l (that’s the Roman numeral for fifty), referring to some background history that led up to the use of majority-based decision making. In parliamentary terminology, consensus refers to a system whereby decisions are made only through agreement by every member of a group, instead of by majority vote.

E. Chairwoman. This term does not appear in RONR (11th ed.).

The closest RONR comes to using this term is p. 23, where chairperson and chair are noted as more recent, acceptable variations of chairman, which has a long-established usage, but chairwoman is not listed.

P. Restoratory Motions (as a class). This term does not appear in RONR (11th ed.). Found in Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, it’s what RONR would call Motions That Bring a Question Again Before the Assembly. A similar term, Restorative Motions, may be found in the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure.

Q. Gordian Knot. This term does not appear in RONR (11th ed.).

This is a concept found in the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. It refers to an assembly’s reaching a parliamentary situation that is too complicated for the assembly to understand.

W. Freedom of Speech. This term does not appear in RONR (11th ed.).

This term, however, does appear in Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, which is used in numerous legislative bodies.

But now, here are the terms that truly are in RONR (11th ed.): A. “I so move.” Found on p. 104, ll. 19-23: “A member…should avoid statements such as ‘I so move,’ and should himself recite the complete motion that he offers.”

B. “The chair will entertain a motion to…” Found on p. 364, ll. 8-10: “He can say, for example, ‘The chair will entertain a motion to suspend the rules and take up…’ ”; Also see p. 54, ll. 33-34: “Or— if no motion has been made, the chair must first ask, ‘Is there a motion to…” www.parliamentarians.org

13

C. “Question.” Found on p. 385, ll. 12-14: “. . . if calls of ‘Question!’ are

made, it is the duty of the chair to obtain order and protect the rights of the member who is entitled to the floor.”

F. Gentlewoman. Found on p. 377, ll. 19-26: Whenever a member rises

and addresses the chair at a time when the floor can be granted only for limited purposes…the chair, before recognizing the member, should ask, “For what purpose does the member [or “the gentleman,” or “the lady,” or, as in Congress, “the gentlewoman”] rise?”

G. Breakout group. Found on p. 541, ll. 25-28: “In more recent years,

a practice has developed of establishing breakout groups with every member in attendance being urged to participate in a group.”

H. Open forum. Found on p. 362, ll. 4-7: “Good of the Order, General

Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. This heading, included by some types of societies in their order of business, refers to the general welfare of the organization, and may vary in character.”

I. Three-fourths vote. Found on p. 635, l. 31-p. 636, l. 1: “If the

committee is given the power ‘not to report’ a resolution— thus withholding it from consideration by the convention— a requirement of an unusually high vote within the committee (such as a three-fourths vote…) should always be imposed;” J. A vote of one-fifth of the members present. Found on p. 45,

ll. 9-13: “A further exception arises when the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant, as, for example, when ‘a vote of one fifth of the members present’ is required and the number who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than one fifth of those present.”

K. Sunshine laws. Found on p. 96, ll. 24-26: “Many public and

semipublic bodies, however, are governed by sunshine laws—that is, their meetings must be open to the public.”

L. Warden. Found on p. 462, ll. 21-22: “A sergeant-at-arms (or warden,

or warrant officer, as sometimes called)” M. Warrant officer. Found on p. 462, ll. 21-22: “A sergeant-at-arms

(or warden, or warrant officer, as sometimes called)” N. “Dark horse.” Found on p. 441, ll. 8-10: “The candidate in the lowest

place may turn out to be a ‘dark horse’ on whom all factions may prefer to agree.”

O. Curator. Found on p. 462, ll. 13-15: “A curator, who serves as

custodian of any objects of value that may belong to the society (other than library holdings).”

14

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

R. Chairman pro tem. Found on p. 452, ll. 25-30: “…appoint a

temporary chairman who is called the chairman pro tempore or chairman pro tem.”

S. In gross. Found on p. 523, ll. 3-10: “Alternatively, the chair puts a

single question on all of the committee’s amendments together,…

This is called putting the question on the amendments in gross.”

T. Internet. Found on p. 97, ll. 15-22: “Among some organizations,

there is an increasing preference…to transact business at electronic meetings—that is, at meetings at which, rather than all participating members being physically present…some or all of them communicate with the others through electronic means such as the Internet or by telephone.”

U. Videoconferencing. Found on p. 98, ll. 4-10: “Thus, if the bylaws

provide for meeting by videoconference (but not merely by “teleconference” or “audio conference”), the meeting must be conducted by a technology that allows all participating members to see each other, as well as to hear each other, at the same time.”

V. Chat room. Found on p. 98, ll. 14-17: “Therefore, a group that

attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing (such as by postal mail, e-mail, “chat rooms,” or fax)—which is not recommended—does not constitute a deliberative assembly.

X. Recording device. Found on p. 471, ll. 26-28: “The use by the

secretary of a recording device can be of great benefit in preparing the minutes, but a transcription from it should never be used as the minutes themselves.”

Y. Hearsay evidence. Found on p. 655, ll. 25-28: “To get at the truth

under the conditions of such a trial, hearsay evidence has to be admissible, and judgment as to the best interests of the society may have to be based on it.”

Z. Veto power. Found on p. 494, ll. 24-27: “Nominations by the chair

(with confirmation by voice vote). This method is used when the assembly wishes to take advantage of the chair’s knowledge and judgment as to suitable appointees, yet wishes to have veto power.”

David Mezzera, PRP, is a past CSAP President, past District VIII Director and currently chairs NAP’s Educational Resources Committee.

www.parliamentarians.org

15

International Services Special Committee Welcomes Members from Afar

By Carol A. Henselder, PRP

One of the goals of the 2013-2015 International Services Special Committee (ISS) was to welcome international members in attendance at the 2015 NAP Biennial Convention in Arlington, VA. Karen Watson, Chair of the ISSC, had the privilege of introducing members Roc Yuan and Dan Zhu (from China) and Taeko Yokaichiya (from Japan) at the first meeting. This article shares views and reactions of Mr. Zhu and Ms. Yokaichiya as interviewed by Ms. Watson.

NAP member Dan Zhu is Vice-President of the newly chartered China Association of Parliamentarians. Dan lives in southern China in the province of Guangxi. From the time he left his home in China, it took 30 hours to arrive in D.C. Dan heard about NAP through the website and other NAP members. Dan says parliamentary procedure is currently used by companies in China to reach a decision in its management and also by communities to solve disputes.

KW: Dan, is parliamentary procedure accepted in your country?

Yes. In China, parliamentary procedure is accepted as a tool in debate or solving problems. For example, only one question is allowed to be discussed. Debate must be confined to the merits of the pending question. I hope parliamentary procedure will be used for rational thinking and dispute resolution even more in the future.

KW: Dan, you speak and write Chinese. What has been your experience studying Robert’s in a foreign language?

As a learner, I am most fascinated with how the specific terms in English translate into the Chinese counterparts. To study, it is very helpful to understand the usage of the terms.

16

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

KW: Dan, what did you like best about the whole convention?

For me, the best part of the whole convention was the debate and adoption of bylaw amendment #15—to have the International Services Special Committee become a Standing Committee! To debate on Amendment #15 was one of the purposes for my attendance.

KW: Dan, were you nervous when you stood at the microphone to debate on amendment #15?

Yes. I was a little bit nervous. I had to calm myself down with peace and solemnity during the debate because this was my first debate as a delegate for CAP! KW: Dan, what was your least interesting part of the convention business meetings?

The least interesting part of the convention business meeting was the election for president. There is no excitement when there is only one candidate, because there is no doubt who will be elected.

KW: Dan, what was your best experience with the workshops?

Due to the language barrier, the workshops where very challenging for me. I did not receive much information from the workshops.

KW: Dan, how can NAP improve the convention so it is more interesting for international members?

Two suggestions. 1) Provide explanation to understand about the convention program and workshop choices. This was difficult for me.

As both a first time attendee and an international member, this was very detailed and complex to understand. Write workshop reviews to have specific explanations. 2) I knew the convention is in English.

Language support (interpreters) would be a tremendous help for international members.

KW: Dan, what did you think about the meals/banquets?

It was my first time to experience activities and testimonies in western styles. It was a great experience!

KW: Dan, what can NAP do to be more accommodating international members?

I hope NAP is more open and inclusive. It is better for the assistance for international members to be standardized. Provide more assistance for international members, especially for potential applicants. Communicate regularly with international members.

www.parliamentarians.org

17

KW: Dan, how can NAP help you in your personal goals learning parliamentary procedure?

I hope to establish a one-to-one mentorship. For example, PRP members mentor one or several members until they pass RP or the PRP exam.

KW: Dan, last but not least, did you get to do any sightseeing around D.C.?

Yes. After meeting, I saw several spots in Washington, DC. For example, Capitol Hill, National Museum of American History, National Air and Space Museum. All of them are very interesting!

NAP member Taeko Yokaichiya lives in Kobe, Japan, which is 400 kilometers west of Tokyo; ~ 3 hours by bullet train. Taeko departed her home arriving 28 hours later in DC.

18

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

KW: Taeko describe your experience at the 2015 NAP convention.

This was my first convention (in the Unites States). I was not sure what would happen. It was very interesting; more exciting than I expected.

There were so many subsidiary motions. My favorite part of the convention business meeting was the counting of the votes.

KW: Taeko, for most NAP members, to study Robert’s is a challenge even in English. Tell us about your experience studying Robert’s in a language other than your native Japanese?

It is better to have a group of people to study together. I am a member of the International Training in Communication (ITC) organization.

About 10 years ago, I and 7 other ITC members had the opportunity to study together translating the examination questions. Since we were able to discuss, I did not think the study was difficult. I passed the test.

Currently, I do not have a group meeting; it is very difficult. Perhaps I will ask for help and some questions to my new friends whom I met at the Convention!

KW: Taeko, how do you use your parliamentary knowledge in Japan?

I intend to spread parliamentary procedure in Japan by telling more ITC members. In October, we will have a Council meeting. At that time, I will give are report about NAP! In business meetings of ITC, we need this knowledge of parliamentary procedure. I am now president of Kobe Club of ITC. We are an English Club. We need this knowledge (of parliamentary procedure)!

KW: Taeko, is parliamentary procedure accepted in your country?

I am not sure how parliamentary procedure is accepted in the whole country of Japan. I believe it is good knowledge to carry out meetings.

I have taught at Kobe Women’s University. When I preside a department meeting, I follow Robert’s Rules of Order as good as I can.

KW: Taeko, the convention program had lots of meals and banquets.

Did you enjoy them?

I bought no tickets beforehand. I asked a person in charge of meals whether I could buy the Installation banquet in the morning of the day, it was sold out already. I was disappointed about that.

KW: Taeko, last but not least, did you get to do any sightseeing around DC? No. The only sightseeing of DC. for me was when I joined the Partnership Day Trip on the 3rd of September.

Editor’s Note: At the 2015 NAP Convention, a bylaw amendment was adopted making the International Services Special Committee a STANDING committee. We applaud the outstanding work and accomplishments of the NAP 2013-2015 International Service Special Committee during the past biennium! www.parliamentarians.org

19

Why Volunteers Should Know About Parliamentary Procedure *

By Carrie Dickson, PRP

Employed as a legal assistant for 27 years, I provided assistance to attorneys in virtually every field of law over that period of time. About half-way into those 27 years, I started to become knowledgeable in the area of parliamentary procedure, which was driven by my participation in political organizations and in leadership positions I held in community councils and other volunteer organizations.

One of my bosses at work made frequent light of my involvement in parliamentary procedure until the day his client was faced with a hostile annual meeting situation. In a rural county of Utah, they were worried about tempers, misstatements and the possibility of violence or, at the least, an “angry crowd” mentality.

My boss called me in to discuss recommendations for the client’s annual meeting.

I held a meeting with three of our top parliamentarians in the state, the client, those involved in preparing for the annual meeting, and my boss.

We discussed the client’s concerns, the building layout, the nature of the assembly, the setup, possibly having “friendlies” ready to speak and respond from the audience, and the advance notice that would be sent to members.

A parliamentarian was assigned to attend and assist the President who would preside at their annual meeting.

20

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

I wrote the script and we did a couple of dry-runs.

The meeting went without a hitch. The client accomplished all the goals of the annual meeting and the members remarked on how well the President ran the meeting.

The main troublemaker never knew what hit him. He had never heard of parliamentary procedure.

He expected the free-for-all format that had been followed in the past.

Everything was different in this meeting; the room set up, the agenda, the confidence of the President while presiding, a parliamentarian. At an extreme disadvantage because he did not understand parliamentary procedure, he had lost confidence in his ability to take control of and disrupt the meeting.

*

Parliamentary procedure adds fairness, consistency, structure and discipline to all meetings, whether you are meeting with a client or internally

with staff or attorneys. An agenda, plan or goal, and consistent language aids in focusing your attention on the issue at hand. It eliminates emotion and knee-jerk reaction. It provides confidence and efficiency and makes the user look polished and professional if done correctly.

Learn parliamentary procedure and become involved in volunteer organizations! Doing this enhances your ability to participate in leadership positions, public organizations, employment positions, political campaigns, and generally provides a unique skill set to add to your resume.

procedure provides tools to make your * Parliamentary meetings successful. Some of the more useful ones are: • Consistent language – keeps the focus on the issue and helps the members identify the process and steps to be followed.

• Utilizing seconds – timely seconds on motions keeps the meeting moving and flowing; be sure members know that by seconding a motion, it is not necessarily an indication of agreement.

• Keeping records – good minutes help with the historical accounting of what has been done and why, saving time on meeting recaps.

• Creation and execution of Resolutions – Resolutions can be a wonderful thing. All of the motion debate is set forth in the “Whereas” clauses, presenting your motion in a logical and well thought-out format.

This is especially effective if you have time restrictions on debate.

• Quarterly meetings – Know what can and cannot be carried over if your meetings are at longer time intervals than quarterly. The RONR (11th ed.) limitation on carrying over business refers to more than a quarterly time interval, thus quarterly meetings would not be subject to the restriction but meetings every four months would (pp. 89-90).

• Shareholder Meetings – These can be tricky since they are usually held once a year and the shareholders have an investment of some kind in the organization. Preparation and advanced planning are critical.

Carrie Dickson, PRP, is NAP’s District 8 Director.

www.parliamentarians.org

21

Parliamentary Procedure

1O1 Managing Debate

To be used as a quick reference for yourself, your friends, and your opponents.

> Member is recognized by the chair obtains the floor > Motion is made and seconded > No second if motion is made by a committee of more than one > Chair states motion and asks if there is any debate, or if assembly is ready for the question. > Maker of motion has option to speak first—in favor of the motion. > Other members alternate speaking “For” and “Against.” > Time allowed for speaking is 10 minutes each, per RONR (11th ed).

• Can be modified—Change adopted in Agenda or Convention Rules.

• Can be limited or extended with a subsidiary motion.

• If another member has a question, the time is taken out of current speaker’s time; therefore, the member who has the floor need not yield his time and the question can be raised after the current speaker has finished debate.

22

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

> Time allowed for Debate can be set with agenda, Convention Rules, or Special Rules. > Amendment to main motion—Made and seconded.

• Debate on Amendment • Vote on Amendment • If not adopted, return to debate on Main Motion • If adopted, go back to main motion with amendment > Continue debate on Main Motion until debate is exhausted • Generally, cannot cut off debate • Requires 2/3 vote if member calls for Previous Question > Chair states motion as it will be voted on, which may be different from original stated motion > Time control—Use a timekeeper > Chair does not participate in debate—Remains impartial • Exception—Vacates chair until motion is handled, which is not advisable • Sits down during debate • Can participate and vote if in a committee • May clarify facts if misinformation is given to members during debate > Participant protocol • Wait to be recognized • Address the Chair, not the assembly • Be courteous • Do not use member’s names > Presiding officer asks—Ready for the Question • Cannot cut off debate if a member rises to debate • Unless the action is dilatory > Rights of debate cannot be transferred > Member can speak no more than twice on same motion on same day • Cannot speak a 2nd time until all have had an opportunity to speak once www.parliamentarians.org

23

Retaining Your Credential Every Registered Parliamentarian and Professional Registered Parliamentarian has six years in which to complete certain requirements needed to retain his or her credential.

RP’s must complete twenty hours of continuing education by attending (or teaching) workshops offered by the NAP at the national, district, association, or unit level, or by the AIP or other organizations.

PRPs must complete the professional renewal course (PRC—either in-person or online—and earn one-hundred-fifty points in activities such as serving as a parliamentarian, teaching, and working with youth groups. Full instructions for renewing your credential can be found on the NAP’s website at http://www.parliamentarians.org/ documents/#MemberResources.

Too many parliamentarians wait until the final year of their six-year period to begin taking classes and reporting their parliamentary activities, and too many end up losing their credentials. Please don’t let this happen to you.

Through our very hard-working Professional Development Committee, the NAP has been offering PRC modules online, so you no longer have to attend your PRC in person if you prefer not to. As Educational Coordinator this biennium, I will work with the educational committees and NAP headquarters to schedule webinars and modules further in advance and to market them more effectively so that they get the enrollment they need. Please help us plan by registering as early as you can.

You don’t want to lose your credential. Start early; plan ahead, and please let me know how I can help you.

Daniel Seabold, PRP Education Cluster Coordinator 24

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

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. What happens when an appeal is made and seconded? a. The ruling of the chair is reversed. b. The chair must reconsider his decision after allowing debate on the matter. c. The question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision. d. A committee is formed to decide the matter.

2. If the presiding officer wants to speak in debate on an appeal, must he leave the chair to do so? a. Yes. b. No. 3. What are the minimum essential officers for the conduct of business in a deliberative assembly? a. President and vice-president. b. President, secretary, and treasurer. c. Presiding officer and secretary. d. President, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer.

4. What happens if the elected officers are absent at a meeting? a. No official business can be transacted, except in an emergency b. The meeting must be rescheduled to a time when the officers will be present c. The meeting cannot be called to order and therefore will not exist d. New “minimum essential officers� are elected for that one session Answers on page 32 www.parliamentarians.org

25

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 71 (easy) In ordinary meetings, it is undesirable to use me on minor irregularities of a purely technical character, if it is clear that on one’s rights are being infringed upon and no real harm is being done to the proper transaction of business.

Mystery Motion 72 (easy) When I am demanded, the chair immediately asks certain members to stand, and after having them take their seats, has other members stand.

Mystery Motion 73 (easy) Though some might find it rude, a member can speak in debate and then end by moving me.

Mystery Motion 74 (intermediate) I can be applied only to votes that finally dispose of main motions.

Mystery Motion 75 (intermediate) I cannot be reconsidered, because if I am adopted, the pending question can be laid on the table whenever it would be in order to do so, and if I’m voted down, I can be renewed each time any business has been transacted.

Mystery Motion 76 (intermediate) Instead of carrying out my demand, the chair can put to a vote the question of doing what it is that I call for.

Mystery Motion 77 (intermediate) When made by a member in good standing with his dues paid, I should be accepted immediately, and if I’m not, the member incurs no obligation after I am made.

Mystery Motion 78 (intermediate) I can be used to put something off, but when referring to me, the expression “to defer” should be avoided, since it is often subject to vague usage.

Mystery Motion 79 (difficult) I’m not a motion to adjourn or to recess, and I’m not a special order, but a special order for a particular hour does not interrupt me if I’m pending when that hour arrives.

Mystery Motion 80 (difficult) I am the last motion adopted by a special committee.

Answers on page 32 26

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

Test Yourself

Find It! Whether studying for the RP exam, brushing up on your skills, or familiarizing yourself with Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 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!

11. “When a paragraph is to be inserted or added, any necessary perfecting should first be done by secondary amendments.”

Page # ______________

12. “Unlike a special meeting, an adjourned meeting does not require notice, although it is desirable to give such notice if feasible.”

Page # ______________

13. “Unless the organization has a special rule on the subject, a member cannot yield any unexpired portion of his time to another member, or reserve any portion of his time for a later time—that is, if a member yields the floor before speaking his full ten minutes, he is presumed to have waived his right to the remaining time.”

Page # ______________

14. “The report should always be formally presented at a regular meeting, even if the names of the committee’s nominees have been transmitted to the members of the society beforehand.”

Page # ______________

15. “The declaration made by the chair in naming a member is addressed to the offender by name and in the second person, and is entered in the minutes.”

Page # ______________

Many thanks to Judith Reynolds, PRP, for suggesting this feature and assisting in its creation.

Answers on page 32 www.parliamentarians.org

27

Test Yourself

A Blast from the PAST Just for Fun—A Parliamentary Quiz Based on Quips and Proverbs.

This quiz was created by Mrs. Arthur D. James and published in The National Parliamentarian in February 1957 (Vol. 18, No. 1).

Can you locate the exact citation?

1. Tomorrow never comes.

16. Me, too.

2. Stop! Then proceed with caution.

17. On again, off again.

3. Ladybug, ladybug, fly away home.

18. Rules of the road.

4. Wise men change their minds.

19. If at first you don’t succeed.

5. Start the ball rolling.

20. The high and mighty.

6. Don’t do today what you can do tomorrow.

21. A dead duck.

7. Shh! Don’t mention it.

8. A house divided.

9. Two heads are better than one.

22. Swapping horses in mid-stream.

23. Excess baggage.

24. You asked for it.

10. Seventh inning stretch.

25. A new look.

11. New feathers for the old goose.

26. Music goes round and round.

12. Nuff said.

27. Speak for yourself, John.

13. Wipe the slate clean.

28. Variety is the spice of life.

14. All of one mind.

29. No holds barred.

15. Let’s wash it out of our hair.

30. It could happen to you.

Answers on page 33 28

National Parliamentarian • Fall 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 npeditor@nap2.org.

Q

Question 28: A member properly sought the floor, was recognized, and began speaking. While this member’s remarks were otherwise in order, and while he did not address any member, he turned and faced the membership (he was sitting at the front of the room). This prompted a Point of Order from another member, that the first member was not addressing the chair. The chair ruled the point not well taken as he was verbally addressing his remarks to the chair. Was the chair correct?

Answer: RONR (11th ed.), p. 22, ll. 14-18. During meetings, whoever is presiding is said to be “in the chair” (whether standing or seated at the time), and is also referred to as “the chair.” The phrase “the chair” thus applies both to the person presiding and to his station in the hall from which he presides. RONR (11th ed.), p. 43, l. 16, also states: Speakers must address their remarks to the chair….” RONR (11th ed.), p 392, ll. 26-28 further specifies, “Members of an assembly cannot address one another directly, but must address all remarks through the chair.” (emphasis added)

Again, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief RONRIB (2nd ed.), p. 31, in part, states: “To decrease the danger that debate will become personal, the rules of debate call for certain formalities of speech that may seem unusual to many people today.

The most important of these is that in debate you speak as though you are talking to the chair, not directly to other members.

Hence, the term, the chair, has a dual meaning, and is describing both the person and a particular place in meeting hall. In this instance, the presider’s ruling is incorrect. He permitted a member to continue debating while facing away from the presider’s official station in the meeting room.

Although the speaker’s remarks did address the person in the chair, in this instance, the chair should have ruled the Point of Order well-taken. www.parliamentarians.org

29

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

Q

Question 29: The bylaws of an organization which only has a Board read: “Except as expressly provided herein, resolutions of the Board of Directors shall be adopted, and any action of the Board of Directors upon any matter shall be valid and effective, with the affirmative vote of a majority of the Directors present at a meeting duly convened and at which a quorum is present.”

Further on, the bylaws read: “Unless otherwise modified in these Bylaws, the conduct of business in meetings of the Board of Directors and any committees thereof shall be in accordance with the parliamentary procedures prescribed in Robert’s ‘Rules of Order’. [sic]” Does this clause in the bylaws override the requirements in RONR for a two-thirds vote for such motions as the Previous Question or Extend the Limits of Debate?

Answer: The Bylaws establish RONR (11th ed.) as the parliamentary authority of this organization (p. xii). In doing so, it has adopted a number of rules included in RONR. Some of those rules, such as the rules for adopting the Previous Question and Extend the Limits of Debate, require a two-thirds vote to adopt these motions (p. T-45).

RONR (11th ed.) also provides that some sets of rules may supersede the rules in that parliamentary authority. One such set of rules are bylaws, which RONR (11th ed.) notes, “…supersedes all other rules of the society, except the corporate charter, if there is one” p. 14, ll. 21-22.

The Bylaws note that “…and any action of the Board of Directors upon any matter shall be valid and effective, with the affirmative vote of a majority of the Directors present at a meeting duly convened and at which a quorum is present.” Secondary motions, such as the Previous Question and Limits of Debate are actions of the Board, though their effect will expire when the questions to which they apply are disposed of by the assembly. They are not “expressly” exempted from by the Bylaws. Being an “action of the Board,” they would require “the affirmative vote of a majority of the Directors present,” and a quorum being present at a properly called meeting.

This type of variation from the rules relating to what constitutes the vote necessary to adopt motions, which may be undesirable, is fairly common in various types of societies.

30

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

Test Yourself

&

Questions Answers continued

Q

Question 30: A thirty-member board of a university postponed a pending motion to its next meeting, which was within the quarterly time interval. Special meetings are permitted to be called by seven members, and seven members, who wanted the motion adopted immediately, called a special meeting set for several weeks before the next regular meeting, for the sole purpose of adopting the motion.

Was it in order to consider this motion at a special meeting?

Answer: The special meeting was properly called and notice was given properly that the motion would be considered, so in that respect the special meeting could consider the motion. However, that is not the problem.

The motion is one still within “the control of the assembly,� as it was postponed to, or otherwise set as a general or order for, the next session RONR (11th ed.), p. 186, ll. 1-5, 12-13. It cannot be renewed under the regular rules. As such, while the meeting has been properly called, the chair should rule the motion out of order, at the special meeting. He may not do so prior to that.

In general, a postponed motion can be reached ahead of the time it is scheduled to be taken up, by a motion to Reconsider or by a motion to Suspend the Rules RONR (11th ed.), p. 186, ll. 3-7. A motion to Reconsider must be made during the same session that the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time is made RONR (11th ed.), p. 316, ll. 22-26. The special meeting is a different session RONR, (11th ed.), p. 92, ll. 4-8. fn. The motion to Postpone could not be Reconsidered at the special meeting.

The members at the special meeting may, however, move to Suspend the Rules to take up the motion at the special meeting RONR (11th ed.), p. 365, ll. 9-14. However, this would be an undebatable incidental motion and would be handled quickly. Unless the sentiments of the assembly have changed dramatically, it is very likely that the motion to Suspend the Rules will be defeated, and that the question would not be considered at what would be a very short special meeting.

Questions & Answers Research Team

Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP

Steve Britton, PRP

Roger Hanshaw, PRP www.parliamentarians.org

31

Test Yourself

Answer Key Quick Quiz 1. c. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 255, l. 29-p. 256, l. 3.

2. b. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 257, l. 36-p. 258, l. 3.

3. c. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 22, ll. 1-5.

4. d. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 453, ll. 3-7 and p. 459, ll. 33-34.

Mystery Motions Mystery Motion 71 (easy) Point of Order; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 250, ll. 11-15.

Mystery Motion 72 (easy) Division of the Assembly; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 281, ll. 25-28.

Mystery Motion 73 (easy) Previous Question; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 378, ll. 1-6.

Mystery Motion 74 (intermediate) Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 333, ll. 30-31.

Mystery Motion 75 (intermediate) Take from the Table; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 301, ll. 26-30.

32

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

Mystery Motion 76 (intermediate) Call for the Orders of the Day; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 7-10.

Mystery Motion 77 (intermediate) A motion to resign from membership; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 291, l. 27p. 292, l. 1.

Mystery Motion 78 (intermediate) Postpone to a Certain Time; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 179, l. 31-p. 180, l. 1.

Mystery Motion 79 (difficult) A Question of Privilege; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 369, ll. 11-19.

Mystery Motion 80 (difficult) Rise or Rise and Report; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 238, ll. 9-12.

Find It! 11. 141 12. 244 13. 388 14. 434 15. 646-47

Test Yourself

Blast from the Past

16. Second the Motion

1. Postpone Indefinitely

17. Take From the Table

2. Previous Question

18. Constitution, Bylaws, Special Rules, Standing Rules

3. Adjourn 4. Reconsider 5. Call to Order 6. Postpone To A Certain Time

19. Renewal of motion 20. Fix Time and to Which to Adjourn 21. A lost motion

7. Objection to Consideration of Question

22. Substitute motion

8. Division of Assembly

23. Second nomination or close nominations

9. To Commit or Refer

24. Point of Order

10. Recess

25. Revision of Bylaws

11. To Amend

26. Committee of the Whole

12. Limit Debate

27. The ballot or to vote

13. Rescind, Repeal or Annul

28. Debate

14. General Consent

29. Informal discussion

15. Expunge

30. Incidental motion

www.parliamentarians.org

33

NAP Connections

Meet our NEW 2015-2017 B oard

Back Row: Darlene Allen, Director-at-large; Joyce Brown Watkins, District Director Representative; Kevin Connelly, District Director Representative; Ann Rempel, Director-at-large; Alison Wallis, Director-at-large; Cyndy Launchbaugh, Executive Director Front Row: Wanda Sims, Treasurer; Jim Jones, Vice President; Mary Randolph, President; Teresa Stone, Secretary Missing: Roger Hanshaw, Parliamentarian

Past Presidents Rollie Cox, Leonard Young, Jeanette Williams, Connie Deford, Ron Stinson, Maurice S. Henderson

Patricia Lewis, Michael Wagner-Diggs, and Gladys Reid 34

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

Julius Wade, Robert Schuck at Youth Day Workshop

NAP Connections

District Directors

Incoming President Mary Randolph presents a plaque to outgoing President Ann Guiberson.

NAP is divided into eight regional districts, each represented on the NAP Board of Directors by an elected district director. The district directors represent their constituent state and provincial associations, units, and members at large; serve on the NAP Membership Extension and Retention Committee; and coordinate educational activities on a regional basis.

District Director 1

Rosemary Seghatoleslami District Director 2

Roger Hanshaw District Director 3

Gregory A. Goodwiller Henry M. Robert, III, with his “golden gavel.�

District Director 4

Joyce A. Brown-Watkins District Director 5

Denise Irminger District Director 6

Daniel Ivey-Soto District Director 7

Kevin Connelly District Director 8 Ferial Bishop (center) is the 2015 PEER Award Recipient, standing with Sandy Olsen (left) and Denise Irminger (right).

Carrie Dickson www.parliamentarians.org

35

NAP Connections

Mike Peck and attendees of “The Professional Presiding Officer”

In Memoriam

NP commemorates the following members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace: Ruth C. Amend, Texas Delores P. Myles, Oklahoma Louis James Fasulo, Colorado Marjorie Picot, Florida John H. Hohlbauch, Utah Barbara Smith, Illinois Linda Meadors, Michigan Courtney E. Smith, Florida New Professional Registered Parliamentarian

New Registered Parliamentarians

NP congratulates the following individual for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarian: Valoree Althoff, New Mexico David Bennett, Ontario, Canada Peggy O’Brien Brown, California Lori S. Bucholz, Nebraska Loreathea C. Fields, Maryland Ramona Jeffries, Kentucky Jewel Johnson Jones, Michigan Dr. Leah Raye Mabry, Texas Bonnie W. Murdah, Pennsylvania Mary Alice Oldfield, Kentucky Rosemary Seghatoleslami, New Jersey Elizabeth B. Willis, Texas Susan M. Youngers Draftz, Kansas

NP congratulates the following individuals for attaining the status of Registered Parliamentarian:

36

National Parliamentarian • Fall 2015

Lisa Grant DeGraffenreidt, New York Johnny B. Friday, Texas Renell Tameka Grant, New York Valarie A. Jones, Virginia Marian Johnathan Martin, Virginia Nilda E. Rivera, New York Cora S. Salzberg, Virginia Gary Storm, Missouri Lee Woodward, Texas

NAP Connections

O rdering M aterials from NAP

5

Categories of Materials Available Include:

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

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition Materials Other Parliamentary Manuals Electronic Resources Meeting Resources Leadership Spotlights

3. By Fax: (816) 833-3893

4. By E-mail: HQ@nap2.org

5. On the Web: http://parliamentarians.org

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: http://parliamentarians.org/store/newstore.php

Join the conversation!

Find us on facebook. www.facebook.com/parliamentarians

www.parliamentarians.org

37

Leadership Conference Attendees – Virginia Berberick, Jeffrey Streutker, Clara Earl, Debra McCallister, Dan Ross, Don Freese, who, who, who.

RONR Authorship Team – Daniel Seabold, Schmuel Gerber, Thomas “Burke” Balch, Henry M. Robert III.

Outgoing NAP President Ann Guiberson looks at NAP President Mary Randolph and Henry M. Robert III.

Youth – Julius Wade, Raniel Mendoza, Julie Palm (Youth Committee Member), Vanessa Ting, Karthik Krishnan, Ann Guiberson (NAP President), Elizabeth Alverez, Edgardo Correa, Eugene Otero, Robert Schuck (Youth Committee Member), and Gloria Cofer (Youth Committee Member).

New District Directors, standing: Carrie Dickson, Kevin Connelly, Denise Irminger, Joyce Brown-Watkins, Greg Goodwiller, Roger Hanshaw, Rosemary Seghatoleslami. Gene Bierbaum is Installation Officer.

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