The Rule of Law and the Role of the Member
Explore the intersection of parliamentary procedure and technology
Parliamentary Solutions
2025 NAP Virtual Spring Conference
Saturday, May 31, 2025
Topics include:
• AI’s impact on parliamentary practice
• Zoom basics & beyond
• Electronic meetings & voting
• Leveraging social media
• Convention technology
• Electronic parliamentary research
• And much more!
Watch your inbox for registration details!
2023-2025 NAP
President
Alison Wallis, PRP
Vice-President
Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP
secretary
Deborah A Underwood, PRP
treasurer
Robert Schuck, PRP
Directors-at-Large
Beth Sapp James, PRP
Tamara Harris, PRP
Steven Cook, PRP
District Director
representatives
Lucy H . Anderson, PRP
Lavon Moore, PRP
Parliamentarian
C J Cavin, PRP
executive Director
Cynthia Launchbaugh
Legal Liaison
Daniel Ivey-Soto, PRP
NatioNal ParliameNtariaN
NatioNal ParliameNtariaN®
Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 S Main Street • Independence, MO 64050-3808 816 .833 .3892 • 888 .627 .2929
hq@nap2 .org • www .parliamentarians .org
Editor
Traci Bransford-Marquis, PRP
npeditor@nap2 org
Assistant Editor
Josh Martin, PRP
NP Review Committee
Ann Guiberson, PRP, Chair
Lynna Gene Cook, PRP
Kirk Overbey, PRP
Nancy Sylvester, PRP
Parliamentary Research Committee
Michael Malamut, PRP, Chair
Shannon Sun, PRP
Michael C Taliercio, PRP
Rachel Glanstein, PRP, Committee Advisor C J Cavin, PRP, NAP Parliamentarian/Consultant
Special Consultant
Ronald Dupart, PRP
NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARIAN®
(Registered U S Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592)
Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians®
©2024 All rights to reproduce or reprint any portion of this publication are reserved, except by written permission of the editor. Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those endorsed by NAP.
Subscription and change-of-address requests should be directed to NAP at the above address . annual subscription: $30 • single copy: $8
NP Submission Guidelines
National Parliamentarian generally publishes only original works that have not been published elsewhere . Articles will be edited to conform to The Chicago Manual of Style (18th ed ) and may be edited for content and length Article text should be submitted in Microsoft Word or rich text format and transmitted via e-mail Illustrations, photographic prints and high-resolution photos are welcome . Materials submitted will not be returned unless special arrangements are made in advance with the editor .
Contributors must include a completed “Assignment and Transfer of Copyright” form with their submission, granting NAP the copyright or permission to publish .
Submission Deadlines
Volume 86, No 4 (Summer 2025) May 1, 2025
Volume 87, No . 1 (Fall 2025) .
Volume 87, No . 2 (Winter 2026)
August 1, 2025
November 1, 2025
From the Editor
What is your role in an organization, be it a NAP unit, a political, church, professional, sorority or fraternity organization? Are you actively involved, volunteer, participate, or do you just want the affiliation? Whatever your role, participate.
Barbara Proctor writes, “Why the Motion to Suspend the Rules Is Not a Ranking Motion.” This article is a great review tool for experienced parliamentarians and a useful tool for the newer parliamentarian in discussing how suspending the rules allows the assembly to temporarily bypass certain procedural constraints to achieve a specific objective.
Also, David Mezzara opines in “Artificial Intelligence vs. Genuine Intelligence” on whether the use of artificial intelligence for answering questions about parliamentary procedure is beneficial.
The NP received two letters to the editor. Atul Kapur, PRP, writes a commentary on the article “Obsessive Parliamentary Disorder” (National Parliamentarian, vol. 86, no. 1, Fall 2024). The second one is from Lyle A. Klemen, PRP, who discusses the importance of definitions in “Board, Executive Boards, Executive Committees, and Fiduciary Integrity” (National Parliamentarian, vol. 86, no. 1, Winter Issue).
Lastly, please read the candidate statements for office as the Association prepares for its Biennial Convention, August 20-24, 2025. Please consider attending the convention. Have an opinion. Get involved.
All for now,
Traci Bransford-Marquis, PRP
NAP NP Editor, 2023-2025
npeditor@nap2.org
The Rule of Law and the Role of the Member
“It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the law.”
— Aristotle, Politics
As parliamentarians, we must always seek to nurture democratic principles and honor the rule of law. As parliamentarians, we must believe in adherence to the adopted rules of a society. We teach – and demonstrate – the importance of following the rules. In democratic societies, these rules are not imposed by a remote higher power but are the freely chosen mandates of the members. As parliamentarians, we encourage active and intelligent participation in the creation of the rules that govern us as members.
The National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) is governed by several internal documents, to wit, the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, Standing Rules, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Operational Policies and Procedures (commonly referred to as “NAPOPP”). NAP Standing Rule 15 requires that all but the last of these be included in the published membership manual; the documents may also be viewed online at https://www.parliamentarians.org/about/resources. All these governing documents were adopted by the vote of the members (or their elected representatives in the case of NAPOPP) and all are subject to amendment, following the proper process. Notably, the Articles of Incorporation provides that NAP is a member-governed corporation. It is often said that democracy is about voice and vote. Certainly, a deliberative assembly, such as a convention of a member-governed corporation, allows for full democratic participation by delegates. This year, portions of NAP’s bylaws will be subject to amendment. (The website and issue of the National Parliamentarian before the 2025 biennial convention will contain the full text of all properly noticed amendments).
At the convention this August, NAP members who are delegates will have the opportunity to voice their support or opposition to these proposed amendments to the bylaws and in turn to hear the debate of their peers. At the conclusion of consideration, delegates will vote on the amendments to the bylaws, thus directly participating in their own governance by exercising their voice and vote. Make plans now to participate in your governance. In addition to electing the board of directors, hearing top-notch speakers at educational workshops, and enjoying the fellowship of your parliamentary peers, the convention is the time to consider some of the most important rules that are binding you, the member, as well as the Association. Come to convention; it is where your laws are made. Serve as a delegate: let your voice be heard, reason together with your colleagues, and cast your vote.
Alison Wallis, PRP 2023-2025 NAP President
Artificial Intelligence vs . Genuine Intelligence
I recently overheard a parliamentarian “bragging” that they had written a script for a client using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform to compose the script. This got me to thinking how far AI has come that it could possibly take the place of having a hard copy of RONR in hand when presiding or consulting. Could an AI generator even take the place of an in-person parliamentarian? These musings led me to do some research about AI generators and their capabilities within the context of parliamentary procedure.
I discovered that there are literally dozens of such generators available free to the general public. A few of them (listed in no particular order and not recommending any of them) are: Gemini (Google), ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot® and Copy.AI. I set about to try each of these with sample parliamentary questions and challenges.
What I discovered is that each request gave an instant response with a text to answer my question or set up my requested situation. My questions to the AI generators included such requests as: What do the letters RONR and AIPSC stand for? How does a chair take a voice vote? What is a
David Mezzera, PRP
tertiary amendment according to parliamentary procedure? What is the purpose of Laying a matter on the Table? How do you take a division of the assembly? I also asked three different AI generators to write a rhyming poem about parliamentary procedure.
Working backwards, I was amazed at the creativity of all three poems that were created and printed in an amazing time of ten seconds each. The only problem was that one of the sources started with these two lines:
In Parliament’s halls, where order reigns,
The rules are strict, and logic gains
A motion made must first be seconded,
Then debate begins, where points are defended .
And another penned:
The chair will call for votes to stand,
With “aye” and “nay” by every hand
In order, all things must proceed, For fair debate and just decree
The first AI poet clearly translated my generic question into a particular verse about the UK Parliament rather than about parliamentary procedure in general and another seemed to confuse standing, roll call and raised hand votes. For the question about a Division of the Assembly, one generator gave the following process:
The chair states: “A division has been called for . Those in favor of the motion will rise .” The chair counts (or appoints tellers to count) those standing .
Asking about Laying a matter on the Table was even more problematic. One source indicated five purposes for Laying on the Table. Four were excellent (according to RONR), but one of them indicated that one of purposes of the motion was:
to end Debate on the Current topic: If the assembly wants to move on from the current topic quickly without resolving it, laying it on the table achieves that .
And another generator indicted that:
to table a Motion generally means to postpone or suspend consideration of the motion, either temporarily or indefinitely
At about that point, I realized that some of the answers that were being created might have been taken from a conglomerate of sources – melding
together different parliamentary and political authorities to come up with a single response.
For fun, I asked about tertiary amendments to see if a generator would glean a correct answer from RONR. Here’s what I was provided with:
tertiary amendment: This is an amendment to the secondary amendment, representing the third level in the hierarchy of proposed changes . It’s important to note that most parliamentary systems or rules (such as Robert’s Rules of Order) generally prioritize dealing with the most immediate, primary amendment first, and proceed to secondary and tertiary amendments only when necessary
Oops! But asking for a script on how a chair takes a voice vote was much more promising. All generators I asked provided excellent simple scripts for this process, such as:
The chair first asks for members in favor of the motion to respond audibly with “aye ” Then, the chair asks for those opposed to respond with “no ”
Example:
Chair: “All those in favor, say ‘aye . ’”
Members: “Aye ”
Chair: “All those opposed, say ‘no . ’”
Members: “No . ”
But one script had the following addendum which had me scratching my head:
The chair should remain impartial while conducting the vote and only vote to break a tie .
Back to the question I started with about RONR and AIPSC, the former was generally spot-on in the responses, such as:
RONR stands for Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised .
But the other caused some grief for the generator. Here is one other response:
AIPSC stands for the American International Private Schools Conference .
So I changed the prompt to ask: What is the AIPSC Standard Code? And here are two responses that I received:
The AIPSC Standard Code refers to the AIPSC (All India Pre-School Council) Standard
Code, which is a set of guidelines or standards related to the operation and management of pre-school institutions in India .
In Robert’s Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (often abbreviated as The Standard Code), there are 13 main types of motions . These are categorized based on their purpose and function in a meeting
I kid you not on any of the above examples. Have you caught all the mistakes generated by the AI sources? One of the sources had this caveat noted on its site: AI-generated content may be incorrect to which I responded, “No kidding!” Overall, I found that about 95% of what was written by AI was accurate. It was the other 5% that worried me. The purpose of this article has been to alert you parliamentarians to be sure you use Genuine Intelligence (GI) in your parliamentary dealings and be very careful of relying on Artificial Intelligence (AI) without cautiously editing the results you might receive. Please rely on your GI above AI. NP
David Mezzera, PrP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians and a past District 8 Director
Why the Motion to Suspend the Rules Is Not a Ranking Motion
By Barbara Proctor, PRP
to offer flexibility during a meeting. Unlike ranking motions, which determine the order and priority of business, a motion to suspend the rules allows an assembly to temporarily bypass certain procedural constraints to achieve a specific objective.
For example, this motion enables the consideration of an item out of its usual sequence or speeds up the handling of a pressing issue. It essentially grants a temporary waiver from the established rules to better address the immediate needs of the assembly.
Ranking motions, including main motions, subsidiary motions, and privileged motions affect the sequence and substance of the meeting’s agenda. In contrast, the motion to suspend the rules operates differently. It does not alter the meeting’s content or order, but rather modifies the procedural rules that govern it.
In RONR, motions are classified by their function and precedence. Ranking motions influence the flow of business, while the motion to suspend the rules, classified as an incidental motion, focuses on procedural flexibility rather than priority or substance.
of order, but only a majority vote to suspend a standing rule?
Rules of order are fundamental to ensure that a meeting is conducted in a fair and orderly manner. Temporarily suspending these rules can affect how business is conducted, so a higher threshold, a two-thirds vote, is required to ensure that such a suspension has broad support among the members. This helps protect the rights of the minority who might be disadvantaged by the temporary suspension.
Standing rules are adopted by the assembly to provide operational guidelines for its own convenience and efficiency. Because they are less integral to the core framework of parliamentary procedure, a standing rule can be suspended by a majority vote, allowing for easier adjustments when needed.
Understanding these two distinctions concerning the role and implications of the motion to suspend the rules is essential for parliamentarians to assist assemblies navigate procedural flexibility while maintaining orderly, fair and efficient meetings. NP
Barbara Proctor, PrP, after joining NAP in 1978 and becoming a RP in 1980, has served international, national, state, and local organizations as a convention parliamentarian, bylaw consultant, and trainer . She is a charter member of the Plantation Unit of Parliamentarians, n/k/a the Broward-Palm Beach Parliamentarians, founded in 1985
And the Winners Are…
By David Mezzera, PRP
Do you remember the challenge that was posed in the Fall 2024 issue of the National Parliamentarian? If a group of owls is called a “Parliament of Owls,” what creative name could we come up with to identify a group of parliamentarians? The suggestions that were sent in were passed along to a panel of credentialed parliamentarians to judge the most creative; and the winner is . . .
Actually, it’s the winners are! Just as a group of geese can be referred to by multiple designations, as either a “gaggle” (when together on the ground) or as a “skein” (when flying in formation) – or turkeys can be a “run” (if in the wild) or a “rafter” (if domesticated) – so too the judges came up with multiple innovative names, all three tied from among the many submissions to refer to a gathering of us parliamentarians.
It has been decided by the panel that if an assembly of parliamentarians is together at a conference or large business meeting (like the upcoming 2025 NAP biennial convention), they could collectively be referred to as a “Consensus of Parliamentarians.” And if they were gathered together in a study group in an educational workshop session (like 2026’s NAP Training Conference), they could collectively be referred to as a “Persuasion of Parliamentarians.” But if they were gathered on screen at a Zoom meeting, they could collectively be referred to as an “Advocacy of Parliamentarians.” All good choices, eh? Congratulations to Yvette Gray, RP, Seven Fajardo and Linda Harvey, RP, the NAP members who submitted these winning suggestions. They each have received the award of an original copy of an 1893 3rd Edition of Robert’s Rules of Order to put in their collection of historic volumes of Robert’s Rules.
There were some other great submissions that were finalists and are listed here as runners-up in the contest: an Order of Parliamentarians, a Charter of Parliamentarians, a Gavel of Parliamentarians, a Resolution of Parliamentarians (one of my own favorites), a Parlay of Parliamentarians and a Mind of Parliamentarians. Thanks to those members who offered these possibilities: Beverly Price, Lorenzo Cuesta, PRP, Flint Lewis, RP, and Rose Gilardi.
We look forward to seeing that “Consensus of Parliamentarians” next August at the biennial convention in Phoenix! Will you be there? NP
David Mezzera, PrP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians and a past District 8 Director
Letter to the eDI t O r
Traci Bransford-Marquis, PRP Editor, National Parliamentarian
By email
To the Editor:
I have concerns that some of the information provided in the article “Obsessive Parliamentary Disorder” (National Parliamentarian, vol . 86, no . 1, Fall 2024) may confuse or mislead readers Since the article states that “it is the complex parts [of any RONR section] that are necessary and sufficient to be correct,” I trust that these clarifications will be seen as useful
3 Is the subsidiary motion to call the Previous Question amendable?
Answer: No . It is not amendable . WRONG
The author states that the motion to call the Previous Question can be modified While I agree that RONR (12th ed ) 16:5(6) says that the motion “has a special characteristic that permits an effect similar to amendment,” the article conflates this special characteristic with an amendment Specifically, the author uses the example of three subsidiary motions and states that,
“…one person could call the immediately pending question, but a second person would modify the motion and call the last two questions, and a third person could modify the motion and call all three questions ”
However, this does not make clear a significant difference between an actual amendment and the special characteristic . The use of the word “modify” suggests that there would only be one vote in this example, on the latest modified version of the motion Previous Question . This is similar to how a vote is taken on a motion in its final form, after all amendments have been decided . In reality, in this example there are actually three versions of the Previous Question motion pending . If the first one that covers the most motions is defeated, then the next one (which would only apply to two motions) would need to be voted on, and if that is defeated, then the third version
(which would only apply to the one immediately pending motion) would have to be voted on .
10 . the president is an ex officio member of the Bylaws Committee. Is he counted as part of the quorum? May he vote?
Answer: Ex officio members are not counted in the quorum and may not vote WRONG
The detailed response appears to mix up two concepts: the rights and obligations of ex officio members who are not under the authority of the society and those of the president as an ex officio member of a committee . It appears that this has led to overgeneralized statements that in some cases directly contradict statements in RONR .
The article states that “the ex officio member is not counted as part of the quorum” and that an ex officio member of a committee “has all the privileges and none of the obligations of membership ” However, there are only two situations where these statements are true; those occur when the ex officio member:
• is not under the authority of the society;1 or
• is the president and the bylaws provide that the president shall be ex officio a member of all committees (or all but ones that are specifically excluded) . 2
If, instead of making the president an ex officio member of all committees, the bylaws specifically name the president as an ex officio member of one, or some, particular committees, then the president has the same rights and obligations as any other member of the committee and is counted for the purposes of quorum This also applies to any individual who is under the authority of the society and is an ex officio member of a committee . 1
In the question posed in the article, it is not clear whether the president in the example is an ex officio member of all committees or is specifically an ex officio member of the Bylaws Committee, so it is unclear whether they are counted for the purposes of quorum (they have the right to vote in either situation)
Atul Kapur, MD, PRP
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
1 RONR (12th ed .) 49:8 as cited by 50:16
2 Ibid, 50:16 and 56:47
Letter to the eDI t O r
To The Editor,
The previous issue of the NP, Volume 86, No 2, had a good article on fiduciary responsibility, of which I am far from an expert; but the article raises two procedural concerns for me:
My first concern – p 10, under “The Role of Boards, Executive Boards, and Committees” (I note that RONR (12th ed .) 49:3, suggests that “board,” “executive board,” “board of directors,” “board of managers,” or “board of trustees” refer to the same body within an organization . (Please note “boards” and “executive boards” seem redundant)
The article notes “Executive Boards or Executive Committees …” and contention about both is correct, when it comes to fiduciary responsibility . However, the juxtaposition suggests “executive board” and “executive committee” are two names for the same subset within an organization and that is not true . I wish the article would have separated “executive board” from “executive committee” since they are indeed separate entities within a society .
My concern for more delineation between an executive board and an executive committee arises because in many societies which I’ve served as parliamentarian, and in several groups of which I am or have been a member, there often has been and still is confusion between an executive board and an executive committee .
• RONR (12th ed .) 49:13, is a paragraph about the executive committee of an executive board, suggesting the executive board and executive committee should not be conflated . In fact that is under the heading ”Bodies Subordinate to a Board . ”
• RONR (12th ed .) 56:39-41, differentiates between an executive board and an executive committee, noting that neither one can alter a decision of the assembly nor can an executive committee of a board alter a decision of the board
• RONR (12th ed .) 56:40-41, notes how the bylaws of a society may establish an executive board and how an executive board may establish an executive committee
• RONR (12th ed ) 49, “Boards,” discusses executive boards generally, and notes in 49:13 the authority of the executive board to establish an executive committee .
• In RONR (12th ed ) 50, “Committees,” there is no specific mention of an executive committee, though 50:4 notes, “Some standing committees, however … function virtually in the manner of boards, although not designated as such . ”
The distinction does not detract from the fiduciary duties for a board or executive committee, but the positioning of “executive board” and “executive committee” in the article could cause some confusion within organizations or their boards
My second concern – recusal and abstaining from voting
• P. 11 of the article, under “Duty of Loyalty,” states that a person with a conflict of interest “must disclose this conflict and recuse themselves from related discussions and vote ”
• P 12 of the article, under “Duty of Loyalty,” states “… she discloses this conflict and abstains from the vote, ensuring that the decision is made impartially . ”
From a procedural viewpoint, a conflict of interest does not necessitate a recusal from debate or abstention from voting . RONR (12th ed .) 45:4 says, “No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization .” Yet, 45:4 concludes, “However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances ” RONR (12th ed ), 45:4, p 386
Unless there are specific rules regarding fiduciaries – such as a generallyaccepted code of conduct or code of ethics, which the article does not cite –or specific provisions in state laws, state-issued charters, bylaws or special rules of order for a society, a member may vote even when the member has a conflict of interest
I understand the thrust of the article is fiduciary responsibility; however, I wish the article might have acknowledged these two potentially confusing procedural issues
Lyle A Kleman, PRP-R Cedar Rapids IA
Gala Dinner
6:30 p.m. • august 22, 2025
sheraton Grand at Wild Horse Pass resort & spa
Phoenix, aZ
Join the NAP Educational Foundation’s gala dinner at the NAP Convention and enjoy a delicious dinner, open bar, entertainment, and an evening of fellowship . Tickets are $135/person .
Join your fellow attendees to celebrate and reflect on all that you learned and discovered in Phoenix .
Purchase your tickets while registering for the convention.
NAP 45th BieNNiA CoNveNtioN
August 20-24, 2025 Phoenix, Arizon
Join the National Association of Parliamentarians for their 45th Biennial Convention in Phoenix, Arizona and let Us Reason together.
Convention will take place August 20-24 at the picturesque Sheraton Grand at Wild Horse Pass just south of Phoenix It is an unparalleled opportunity to learn, network, and experience parliamentary procedure firsthand through daily business meetings and exceptional educational workshops .
During the convention, members will elect a new Board of Directors, vote on proposed bylaw amendments, and celebrate NAP’s past, present, and future Attendees will also deepen their understanding of parliamentary procedure and build life-long connections with fellow parliamentarians .
In other words, this is an event – an experience –you won’t want to miss.
August 20-24, 2025 Phoenix, Arizon
yourself
Sheraton Grand at Wild Horse Pass, Arizona
experience the Area
The resort offers a wide range of activities from horseback riding and river boat adventures to the Aji Spa and several premium dining options from the upscale Kai restaurant, the only AAA Five Diamond and Forbes Five Star restaurant in Arizona to the relaxed atmosphere of Ko’Sin, the Native American “kitchen” located in the main resort building .
You’ll also find a wide range of dining options nearby at the Gila River Casino and Phoenix Premium Outlets – both accessible by free resort shuttle .
Nearby, you’ll find Papago Park –home of the Phoenix Zoo and Desert Botanical Garden, South Mountain Park –where you can find petroglyphs left behind by ancient native civilizations, and various museums, shopping districts, and restaurants
unable to attend in person? Choose the recording access option and receive educationexpert-led at convenience!your
Experience Native American culture at the renowned Heard Museum which offers an expansive perspective of native culture, the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, or by taking a short daytrip to Montezuma’s Castle, an ancient limestone dwelling carved into the cliffs north of Phoenix . If you have a little more time, make the trip to Grand Canyon National Park, less than four hours from the resort
Heard Museum Cultural Fair
Desert Botanical Garden
Wild Horse Pass Horse Canyon
NAP 45th BieNNiAl CoNveNtioN
August 20-24, 2025 Phoenix, Arizon A
sCH e D u L e at a G L a NC e This schedule is subject to change.
2025 Pre-C ONV e N t ION eV e N ts
Monday, august 18, 2025
8:30 a .m .-5:00 p .m . – PRP Credentialing Exam
tuesday, august 19, 2025
8:30 a .m .-5:00 p .m . – PRP Credentialing Exam
2025 C ONV e N t ION sCH e D u L e
tuesday, august 19, 2025
1:30 p .m .-3:30 p .m . – Board of Directors Meeting
3:00 p .m .-6:00 p .m . – Registration & Credentialing Open
Wednesday, august 20, 2025
9:00 a .m .-5:00 p .m . – Registration & Credentialing Open
9:00 a .m .-10:15 a .m . – First Timers Orientation
9:00 a .m .-1:15 p .m . – Bookstore Open
10:30 a .m .-12:00 p .m . – Bylaws Forum & Delegate Orientation
1:30 p .m .-4:30 p .m . – Opening Ceremony & Business Meeting
5:00 p m -6:30 p m – Welcome Reception & Meet the Candidates
thursday, august 21, 2025
7:00 a .m .-8:30 a .m . – Breakfast
7:30 a m -4:00 p m – Registration & Credentialing Open
8:30 a m -11:45 a m – Business Meeting
11:45 a m -1:15 p m – Past President’s Luncheon
12:00 p .m .-3:15 p .m . – Bookstore Open
1:30 p .m .-2:45 p .m . – Plenary Session
3:00 p .m .-5:45 p .m . – Business Meeting
6:00 p .m .-7:00 p .m . – NAPEF Annual Meeting
Friday, august 22, 2025
7:00 a .m .-8:30 a .m . – Breakfast
7:30 a m -4:00 p m – Registration & Credentialing Open
8:30 a m -11:45 a m – Business Meeting
11:45 a .m .-1:15 p .m . – Awards Luncheon
12:00 p .m .-3:15 p .m . – Bookstore Open
1:30 p m -2:45 p m – Plenary Session
3:00 p m -5:30 p m – Business Meeting
6:30 p .m .-9:00 p .m . – NAPEF Gala Dinner
saturday, august 23, 2025
7:30 a m -8:30 a m – Breakfast
7:30 a .m .-4:00 p .m . – Registration Open
8:30 a .m .-4:00 p .m . – Bookstore Open
8:30 a m -10:00 a m – District Meetings
10:15 a m -11:30 a m – Workshops
11:45 a .m .-1:15 p .m . – Networking Lunch
1:30 p .m .-2:45 p .m . – Workshops
3:15 p .m .-4:30 p .m . – Workshops
6:30 p m -9:30 p m – Closing Banquet & Installation of Officers
sunday, august 24, 2025
9:00 a .m .-12:00 p .m . – 2025-2027
Board of Directors
Meeting & Orientation
August 20-24, 2025
the Gila River Indian Reservation, the resort offers exquisite dining, relaxation, and unique cultural experiences .
Learn more at www.parliamentarians.org/ convention-2025-hotel.
Room Rate: $149 plus tax, resort fee ($10/night plus tax), and a $15 one-time porterage & room attendant fee
Resort fee includes access to outdoor pools, tennis courts and equipment rental, Aji Spa fitness center, free shuttle service to Phoenix Premium Outlets, where you’ll find shopping and restaurants, Whirlwind Golf Club, Wild Horse Pass Hotel & Casino, and seasonal cultural activities .
Book your stay at https://book.passkey.com event/ 50876113/owner/24587/home or call (602) 225-0100 before July 25 to receive the reduced rate The Convention rate is available on stays August 16-26, 2025 . Be sure to reserve your room early!
Whirlwind Golf Club
Aji Spa
how to Get there
The Sheraton Grand is about 15 miles south of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport . The best way to get to the hotel from the airport is by taxi, Uber, or Lyft . Driving to Phoenix? The resort offers free self-parking . sheraton Grand at Wild Horse Pass 5594 W . Wild Horse Pass Blvd . Phoenix, AZ 85226
how to Register
register before June 1 to take advantage of special early bird savings! Choose from these convenient and secure options .
• register online at www.parliamentarians.org/ convention-2025.
• register by mail using the accompanying registration form .
• register by calling NAP HQ at 816 833 3892
KAI Restaurant
Registration & Activity Fees
Full In-Person Convention registration fees include admission to all business meetings and educational sessions, as well as the Welcome Reception on Wednesday, breakfast buffet and lunch on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and the Closing Banquet on Saturday Additionally, registrants will have online access to supporting materials for educational sessions and free access to recorded sessions for up to 90 days after posting .
Post-Convention Workshop recording registration gives access to the recorded workshop sessions for up to 90 days after posting . (This option does not include live access to workshops )
I N -Pers ON
Bird (through June 1)
(June 2-August 12)
Site (after August 12)
P O st-C ONV e N t ION
CANCELLATION POLICY
Registration refund requests must be received in writing by NAP Headquarters no later than July 24, 2025 . A $75 cancellation fee will apply . No refunds will be issued for no-shows or cancellations received after July 24, 2025 A $30 handling fee will be assessed for all returned checks .
Meet the Candidates 2025-2027
BOarD OF DIreCtOrs
Candidate statements are submitted for your information, as written. Primarily, they have not been edited, unless due to space restrictions.
Pres ID e N t
Mona Calhoun, PrP
Mona Calhoun has been a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) for over 19 years and was credentialed as a PRP in 2010. She is the Vice President of the NAP Board of Directors and Chair of the Pricing and Policy Committees. She has held additional leadership roles in NAP, including the Secretary for the NAP Board, Chair of the Professional Development Committee, Chair of the Credentials Committee, and Chair of the Budget/Finance for the 2013 and 2015 NAP Biennial Conventions. She has served as First Vice-President for the Sartwell-Tunstall Unit; Treasurer and Delegate for the Registered Parliamentarians Unit; and the Historian, Chair of Parliamentary Law Day, and Treasurer for the District of Columbia Association of Parliamentarians. External to NAP, she has held several leadership roles, including serving as the 2024 National President of the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA), providing services to over 60,000 members and credential holders.
Her success as a leader is attributed to empowering people. Her distinct experiences allow her to relate to and empathize with to the concerns of our members. As your next president, she will work with the board, the associations, and the units to achieve the goals identified in our strategic plan of increasing membership, member retention, accessible and impactful educational offerings, and non-member revenue. Additionally, she aspires to position the Association as relevant, appealing, and valuable resource for younger parliamentarians.
A board has three key responsibilities in governing an organization: establishing policies, making significant and strategic decisions, and overseeing the organization’s activities. These responsibilities are carried out by critically analyzing information, monitoring trends in the parliamentary industry, and keeping members informed and engaged. As your next president, she will make decisions by assessing the benefits and risks to the members and the Association. Mona will work collaboratively with the board to make the right decisions, not just the popular ones.
Mona Calhoun will be an impactful, fiscally responsible, responsive servant leader who delivers so that the organization excels. She humbly requests your support as the next National Association of Parliamentarian’s President.
Meet the Candidates
V IC e-Pres ID e N t
robert G. schuck, PrP
With over two decades of dedicated service to the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) Robert G. Schuck, PRP, is seeking the office of NAP Vice-President.
Robert is currently serving as NAP Treasurer. He is the chair for two NAP standing committees: Budget and Finance, and Membership Extension and Retention. He serves as a member of the Pricing Committee. He served two terms as NAP District Four Director. He is an experienced parliamentarian with a proven record of leadership, dedication, and a deep understanding of organizational management.
As your Vice-President, he plans to:
• Champion the growth and development of NAP: Actively support initiatives to expand membership and enhance member engagement.
• Advocate for effective governance: Work collaboratively with the President and the Board of Directors to ensure sound decision-making and efficient operations.
• Promote parliamentary education: Support efforts to increase access to quality parliamentary education for both members and the public.
His commitment to excellence, coupled with his expertise in parliamentary procedure and organizational leadership, makes him the ideal candidate for this vital role. He is eager to contribute his skills and experience to further strengthen NAP’s mission and ensure its continued success.
Robert Schuck requests your support.
s e C retar Y
Donna Mitchell, PrP
An action oriented leader with extensive experience as a secretary, Donna Mitchell is asking for your support in electing her as the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) secretary. Donna is a dedicated public servant and U.S. Navy Veteran, who believes in listening to the needs of members, maintaining transparency, and executing tasks with proficiency and knowledge.
a Proven Leader in Parliamentary Leadership
Donna earned her PRP credential in 2016 and since then has held several leadership positions to include but not limited to:
• President and Secretary of the Texas State Association of Parliamentarians (TSAP)
• President and Secretary of the Flonnie Mae Larimer Parliamentary Unit (FMLPU)
• Parliamentarian on local, state and national levels within NAP and/or other accredited organizations
• Secretary of outside organizations ranging in size from 10 to 2000
• Chair of various TSAP and NAP committees
Donna has a comprehensive understanding of the duties required of a secretary, including writing accurate minutes, distributing them, and maintaining archives. She currently serves as a District Six Team Member and as the NAP Youth Chair. Additionally, Donna has presented at the NAP Spring Conference, TSAP Convention, and local units and associations across the United States. She has moderated the Commission on Credentialing panel discussion and has consistently served as a parliamentary youth judge.
Donna holds a Computer Science degree leveraging over 30 years of experience as an Information Technology professional. She is known for her attention to detail, strong communication skills, and passion for helping people. Donna believes in the power of collaboration and is committed to fostering an environment where all voices are heard.
Donna Mitchell asks for your support.
Meet the Candidates
s e C retar Y
Deborah underwood, PrP
Deborah Underwood, PRP, has been a dedicated member of the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) since July 2005. She earned her PRP credential in 2020. Deborah was serving her second term as District Representative on the Board of Directors when she was nominated and elected to complete the term of the secretary for the biennium. From 2012 to 2017, Deborah served as president of the Illinois State Association of Parliamentarians (ISAP). During her tenure as ISAP President, she also served as District Secretary for two District IV Directors and held the position of secretary in two other organizations.
Additionally, Deborah served as coordinator for the Leadership Conferences in 2012-2013 and 2020-2021, with the highest number of registered participants in all four of the Leadership Conferences. She was Vice Chair of the 2017 Biennial Convention in Illinois, and editor for NAP News Flash, the Leadership Connection, and the District IV Newsletters. Deborah is well versed in technology and understands the critical importance of accuracy in meeting minutes and timely distribution. She is seeking your support to be re-elected as your NAP Secretary for the 2025-2027 biennium. Your vote will help ensure effective leadership and communication within our organization. Thank you for your consideration.
Deborah Underwood asks for your support.
t reasurer
C.J. Cavin
C.J. Cavin is excited to announce his candidacy for Treasurer of the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) at the upcoming 2025 biennial convention.
As a licensed attorney in Oklahoma and a skilled parliamentarian, C.J. brings a wealth of experience to the role. He currently serves as the Chief Parliamentarian and Deputy General Counsel for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, where he supports 101 Representatives and their staff in navigating the legislative process.
C.J. holds notable credentials as a Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher with the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP) and as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian with the NAP. His commitment to NAP is evident in his current position as Parliamentarian and his previous leadership as Chair of the NAP Commission on Credentialing, in addition to three terms as Treasurer for AIP and two terms as Treasurer for the American College of Parliamentary Lawyers (ACPL). Currently, he is in his second term as ACPL President and contributed to the authorship of the American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code, Second Edition.
C.J.’s dedication to NAP and the broader parliamentary community is extensive. He has held key roles, such as Chair of the NAP Communications Committee, NAP webmaster, project leader for NAP University, and contributor to the NAP portal committee. He has also led numerous workshops and presentations tailored for all levels within the NAP, along with fulfilling various leadership roles at both unit and association levels.
To learn more about C.J. and his vision for NAP, please visit cjcavin.com/NAP.
C.J. Cavin asks for your support.
Meet the Candidates
D I re C t O r- a t-Lar G e
steven Cook, PrP
Steven Cook seeks re-election as the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) Directorat-Large. He has served as Director-at-Large over the past two years and continues advancing the shared mission of parliamentary excellence. His time as Director-at-Large has been fulfilling and productive as evidenced by the following accomplishments:
• Established three new NAP units in North Carolina, expanding the region’s access to parliamentary education and mentorship;
• Presented to units and associations nationwide, sharing knowledge and promoting member collaboration; and
• Taught individuals preparing for NAP membership, equipping them with the tools to become confident and competent parliamentarians.
Looking forward, he is focusing on the following goals:
• Expanding Outreach: Create opportunities for engagement and outreach and bring parliamentary education to a broader audience;
• Promoting Professional Development: Strengthen mentorship initiatives and provide more resources for members to deepen their expertise; and
• Fostering Collaboration: Enhancing connections between units, associations, and individual members as a dynamic and supportive community.
Through these efforts, Cook envisions an NAP where every member feels empowered to contribute, as every voice is valued, and every idea has the potential to make a difference.
Steven Cook thanks you for entrusting him with this responsibility over the past two years. He humbly requests your continued support and vote.
D I re C t O r- a t-Lar G e
tamara D. Harris, PrP
Tamara D. Harris seeks your support for re-election as NAP Director-atLarge. Currently, she serves as District Two Director, Howard County Unit (HCU) Treasurer and HCU Technology Chair, as well as one of three NAP Directors-at-Large. Over the years, she has had the honor of serving as Secretary for the Maryland Association of Parliamentarians (MAP), and both President and Secretary for HCU. Additionally, she served on the 2023 and 2024 MAP Budget Committee and am the immediate past chair of the NAP Webinar and Meeting Support Committee.
Her current roles include serving on the NAP Policy, Membership Extension and Retention, and Pricing Committees. She also had the privilege of chairing the 2023 NAP Leadership Conference and co-chairing in 2022. At the unit level, she served as the Chair for the HCU Parliamentary Law Day Committee in 2023, 2024, and now for 2025.
If re-elected, Tamara will remain focused on serving all NAP members and advancing initiatives that reflect the best interests of the organization. She states that it has been a true honor to contribute to NAP’s growth and progress, and she would be grateful for your vote to continue as Director-at-Large.
Tamara is committed to upholding professionalism, dedication, and progress on behalf of all members. As a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians, she values the opportunity to bring her expertise and commitment to every role she undertakes.
Tamara Harris asks for your continued support.
Meet the Candidates
D I re C t O r- a t-Lar G e
Lavon Moore, PrP
Having proudly served as District Three Director for two terms, District Representative and board member since November 2024, Lavon Moore requests the opportunity to continue her service to NAP as Director-at-Large.
Lavon has contributed to NAP in numerous ways, including serving on the Membership Extension and Retention Committee (MERC), International Services Committee, MERC Awards Subcommittee, and as assistant convention coordinator for the NAP 44th Biennial Convention.
She understands the importance of building our organization from the ground up. She is deeply connected with our members at every level, listening to their concerns and collaborating with them to find solutions.
Significant milestones were achieved during his tenure:
• Six new units
• The revival of a state association
• Overall district growth in both regular membership and credentialed membership
• Enhanced communication
• Creation of well-attended, and highly acclaimed educational opportunities for parliamentarians through the “Never Have I Ever series.”
Lavon’s extensive parliamentary service includes serving five years as president, fours years as vice-president, and three years as secretary of the South Carolina Association of Parliamentarians.
As director-at-large, her focus will be on three key areas:
• Increasing overall membership of NAP.
• Expanding educational offerings to all members.
• Enhancing member satisfaction.
Lavon Moore asks for your support.
C OMMI ss ION ON Cre D e N t I a
Darlene t. allen, PrP,
Darlene T. Allen, PRP, is seeking your support for her re-election to the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) Commission on Credentialing. She has served in key leadership positions at all levels of the NAP, including the last two years as the Commission Chairman.
The Commission is responsible for administering the credentialing exams for Registered Parliamentarians and Professional Registered Parliamentarians, as well as overseeing the Continuing Education and renewal of credentials. New procedures have been introduced. As the chairman, it has been essential that she maintain ongoing and timely communication with members through NAP channels, such as monthly communication eblasts and reports for board meetings. She also took part in plenary sessions at national events and responded to invitations from district, state, and unit events by sharing current information and answering questions.
The Commission has been engaged in a continuous improvement process to review and address changes to the content of the certification exams and policies regarding the accumulation of continuing education units. As of the end of January 2025, credentialed members have earned 18,739.50 CEUs. There is still work to be done. She requests your support for her re-election to the Commission on Credentialing.
Darlene Allen asks for your continued support.
WHAT ’S WRONG?
By Josh Martin, PRP
Can you spot the parliamentary blunders in the following stories?
BLuNDER #1
In the February meeting, the chair allowed discussion on a motion entirely unrelated to the next item on the adopted agenda. A member called for the orders of the day to return to the adopted agenda. The chair responded, “We’re making good progress on this new issue, so let’s just continue,” and ignored the request for orders of the day. Debate continued on the unrelated motion, and the assembly ultimately voted on it. Where was the blunder?
BLuNDER #2
At the April meeting, the finance committee presented its report, which contained several routine updates and a specific recommendation to raise membership dues by 10%. The committee chair moved to accept the report, and the motion was seconded. The assembly voted on accepting the report in its entirety, approving it. Where was the blunder?
BLuNDER #3
At the July board meeting, the board was running behind schedule and still had several agenda items to cover. A member moved to recess for ten minutes so that everyone could take a brief break and then return to finish the agenda. The chair announced that no vote was needed because recess was “a routine matter,” and unilaterally declared a ten-minute recess. Where was the blunder?
Answers are on page 38.
Josh Martin, PrP, is currently NP Assistant Editor . He joined NAP in 2009 and received the RP and PRP credentials in 2010 and 2011, respectively Josh is also the current Treasurer and a past President and Vice President of the Minnesota State Association of Parliamentarians He is a former member of the NAP Bylaws Committee and served as Technical Editor for the third and fourth editions of Robert’s Rules of Order for Dummies by Alan Jennings, PRP
&Questions Answers
The intent of this column is to provide general answers or advice (not formal, official opinions) about the questions asked. The answers are based on the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, unless otherwise indicated, and do not take into account such governing authorities as statutes, bylaws, adopted special rules of order, other parliamentary authorities, or earlier editions, except as specifically mentioned.
The abbreviations used in these questions and answers are explained in National Parliamentarian, Vol. 85, No. 1, Fall 2023, p. 30.
Questions should be e-mailed to npquestions@nap2.org.
When is custom followed? When is rule followed?
QQuESTION:
I chair a board of nine members. We have always required seconds for motions at our meetings, including on nominations of members for office. After the last meeting, one of our members pointed out that Robert’s Rules has some relaxed rules for small boards, and that we shouldn’t be requiring seconds on any motions. However, we like to have seconds on our motions so that we don’t waste time considering motions that only one person wants to discuss. What can we do?
ANSWER:
The member is correct that Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.) 49:21 provides for less formal rules for small boards (with not more than about a dozen members present), because “some of the formality that is necessary in a large assembly would hinder business.” One of these less formal rules is that motions need not be seconded. RONR (12th ed.) 49:21 (2).
Your board appears to have a custom of requiring seconds on motions, and RONR (12th ed.) 2:25 indicates that an established custom may be adhered to unless a member raises a point of order that there is a contrary provision in a rule (of the organization or in the adopted parliamentary authority). Once the conflict is raised, the rule is followed instead of the custom. The group may then honor their custom at that time by incorporating it into their written rules.
&Questions Answers
continued
Your board could adopt a special rule of order to require seconds on motions. Special rules of order may modify and supersede rules in Robert’s, and may be adopted by either a notice and a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. RONR (12th ed.) 2:16–22.
Note that RONR (12th ed.) 46:6 states that nominations do not require seconds (regardless if the assembly is a small board or a standard assembly). If your board wants to require seconds for nominations in addition to other motions, that should be specified in the special rule as well.
Do we have to hold a special meeting when the meeting is called by fewer than the number required in the bylaws?
QQuESTION:
Our organization’s bylaws provide for special meetings to be called by ten percent of the membership of the organization. We are organized as a corporation in a state that has a provision in its nonprofit corporation law on special meetings. Our organization has 1,000 members, so 100 members can call a special meeting under the bylaws. The bylaws also indicate that ten percent of the members constitute a quorum (also 100), in light of the fact that our organization is mostly social and only a limited number of members can be expected at business meetings. A small, unrepresentative group of 10 members has issued a call for a special meeting to reduce the dues by 50%, which the organization cannot afford. The Board says we should ignore them. The petitioners say state law in our state of incorporation allows 10% of a quorum to call a special meeting, so we need to call the meeting. Who is right? RONR (12th ed.) is our parliamentary authority.
ANSWER:
Ordinarily, under RONR (12th ed.) special meetings are not permitted unless explicitly authorized in the bylaws, and then only in the manner expressly provided in the bylaws (or when authorized by the assembly itself, which is inapplicable in this case). RONR (12th ed.) 9:14, 56:36. The bylaws only allow a special meeting to be called by member petition if ten percent of the members (100 in this case) sign on to the petition. This situation in this inquiry is, however, covered by a different rule:
&Questions Answers
procedural statutes supersede all parliamentary rules, including the bylaws, unless the applicable statute specifically states that it is a default rule that can be varied by an express corporate charter or bylaw provision. “Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of an assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law and would be null and void if in violation of such law.” RONR (12th ed.)
1:5. Applicable “statutes (those that do not authorize bylaws to take precedence) supersede all rules of the organization which conflict with them, even if no mention is made of it in the bylaws.” RONR (12th ed.) 56:49 n. 1.
Most corporation statutes do require a special meeting to be called by a certain minimum number of members. The American Bar Association, Model Nonprofit Corporate Act (4th ed. 2020) 7.02 (a) (2) has a default provision similar to the provision in your bylaws. The procedural law applicable to a membership corporation, however, is the law of the jurisdiction of incorporation. In your case, the applicable nonprofit law sets the number who can call a special meeting at 10% of a quorum. Mass. Gen. L. c. 180, § 6A. Since your quorum is 100, the number of members who can call a special meeting is 10. The members are correct. Although parliamentarians cannot be expected to interpret the law, they should be aware that special meetings for corporations are often governed by statute. They should alert the groups that they are working with to review the applicable statutory provisions of the jurisdiction of incorporation regarding the minimum number required to call special meetings when drafting bylaws.
In this case, the leadership should not be too concerned about an unrepresentative outcome because the special meeting will still require a quorum to do business. If the petitioners are not able to garner significant member support, their goal might fail for lack of a quorum at the special meeting.
How do we process revisions to a committee recommendation agreed to by leadership?
QQuESTION:
Our organization has numerous substantive special and standing committees, but we do not have any resolutions committees in our
&Questions Answers
continued
structure. RONR (12th ed.) 59:67–83. The standing Building Committee (which consists of both delegates and ordinary members) has submitted a recommendation for approval at the convention. After reviewing the recommendation at the beginning of the convention, the organization’s leadership has a number of revisions they would like incorporated into the proposal. They have discussed these revisions with the Committee Chair and he suggested further modifications and compromises, which the leadership agreed to. The committee cannot meet on short notice to approve the “final” version because all the members are scattered around the country, as they are not all delegates. The Committee Chair circulated the proposed “revised” recommendation to the committee by email and gave members 2 days to respond with comments. He did not call for a virtual committee meeting because there was insufficient time. The response was mixed, but a slim majority of those who responded said that the “revised” version was all right. That is insufficient to present the revised version as the Committee’s recommendation. The Building Committee Chair wants to move the revised recommendation as the committee’s recommendation on the floor.
A member of the committee who is opposed to some of the revisions is opposed. RONR (12th ed.) is our parliamentary authority.
ANSWER:
As your organization’s parliamentary authority is RONR (12th ed.), the “revised” motion cannot be moved by the Committee Chair as the Committee’s recommended resolution. “Except as noted in this paragraph, a report of a board or committee can contain only what has been agreed to by a majority vote at a regular or properly called meeting of which every member has been notified… – where a quorum of the board or committee was present.” RONR (12th ed.) 51:2. The Committee did not, and could not, have a meeting on such short notice, to approve the revised recommendation. The “revised” recommendation was not the recommendation of the Committee and it cannot be presented as such.
The standard procedure in such cases is that the Committee Chair, as the reporting member of the Committee (RONR (12th ed.) 51:8), moves the adoption of the original Committee recommendation.
&Questions Answers
continued
RONR (12th ed.) 51:11. He or she typically then would be recognized as the first to speak to the motion. RONR (12th ed.) 42:9 (1) (a). The Committee Chair cannot then propose an amendment that may be adverse to the original recommendation as part of his speech in favor of the recommendation. RONR (12th ed.) 43:25. He or she can, however, advise the Assembly (either in his or her speech as reporting member, or when recognized to speak first in debate) that, as a result of meetings at the convention, a revised proposal has been agreed to by a number of the leadership of the organization, and that the changes are acceptable to the Committee Chair and a majority of the Committee members who responded on short notice to a poll. He should also make it clear that the Committee was not able to meet to change its recommendation, and that some members of the Committee were not willing to accept all the proposed revisions.
By prearrangement, a member of the leadership team who is in favor of the proposed revisions can be recognized as the first “con” speaker. RONR (12th ed.) 42:9 (3). That individual then makes the motion to amend the recommendation as agreed to, usually by substitution if there are a number of revisions. The proposed amendment in that circumstance is often able to be adopted by general consent, RONR (12th ed.), and then debate would commence on the adoption of the revised proposal. If general consent for the amendment is not obtained, then the revisions would have to be debated and voted on as for any proposed amendment to the committee’s original recommendation.
Questions & answers research team
Michael C . Taliercio, PRP
Shannon Sun, PRP
Michael Malamut, PRP, Chair
Rachel Glanstein, PRP, Committee Advisor
C .J . Cavin, PRP, NAP Parliamentarian, Consultant
ANSWER #1
Answer Key
What’s Wrong? from page 32
The chair lacks the authority to unilaterally set aside the orders of the day. The chair could have put the question to the assembly, and a 2/3 vote in the negative would be required to set aside the orders of the day. See RONR (12th ed.) 18:8.
ANSWER #2
A motion to “accept” an entire report should be avoided unless it is the assembly’s intent to adopt every word of the report as the position of the assembly, and even then, the word “adopt” is preferred for the sake of clarity. Rather, the proper course of action is to make a motion to implement the recommendations in the report – in this case, to increase the dues by 10%. Further, the organization should review its rules to ensure that any requirements for changing the dues are complied with. See RONR (12th ed.) 51:13-16.
ANSWER #3
The chair lacks the authority to unilaterally declare a recess (unless the recess is provided for in the agenda). The chair should have requested unanimous consent or, in the alternative, taken a vote on the motion. See RONR (12th ed.) 20:5, 4:58.
Follow Us On
https://twitter com/ napparlypro
https://fb .com/ parliamentarians/
Parliamentary Law Month Proclamation April 2025
Whereas, in this the birth month of Thomas Jefferson, author of the first American manual of parliamentary procedure in 1801, it is fitting that we honor him and reflect upon the importance of parliamentary procedure in democratic organizations; Whereas, on this the eve of the birth month of Henry Martyn Robert, author of Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies, also known as Robert’s Rules of Order, first published in 1876, it is a worthwhile time to honor him and to celebrate his contributions to the field of parliamentary procedure ;
Whereas, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely recognized and used parliamentary authority in public and private organizations throughout the world;
Whereas, it is timely to reflect on the importance of parliamentary procedure in meetings in providing for civil discourse, protecting individual rights, ensuring fairness, and maintaining order;
Whereas, the National Association of Parliamentarians has, by adoption of a standing rule, designated the month of April as Parliamentary Law Month; Whereas, the National Association of Parliamentarians is committed to educating leaders throughout the world in effective and fair meeting management through the use of parliamentary procedure; and
Whereas, the National Association of Parliamentarians is globally recognized as the premier provider of parliamentary leadership whose mission it is to provide education and resources to enable efficient and democratic decision making through the effective use of parliamentary procedure; now therefore be it
Resolved, that I, Alison Wallis, PRP, President of the National Association of Parliamentarians, do hereby declare April 2025 as Parliamentary Law Month and call upon the districts, associations, units, and all members to observe the month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities as a way to honor our rich legacy and bring our mission and vision into reality for current and future generations .
Alison Wallis, PRP 2023-2025 NAP President
N e W re GI stere D P ar LI a M e N tar I a N s *
NAP congratulates the following individuals on becoming Registered Parliamentarians:
Andrew Branch Sr . (NY)
Paul Green (FL)
sIL e N t GaV e L s*
Sharon January (GA)
Brian Oliver (IA)
Brooke Peterson (IL)
NAP commemorates members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace:
Cynthia Bell (MS)
Glenda Blakemore (IL)
Virginia Clasen (WI)
Sherri Coulibaly (MI)
Ne W Me MB ers*
Marie Frasca (AZ)
Daisy Harmon-Allen (IL)
Othur Meadors, II (FL)
Moselean Parker (IL)
Stephen Small (KY)
Tracy Tolbert (MI)
NAP welcomes the following individuals as new members:
John Adams (OH)
Karen Baldock (ON)
Alfredo Barcenas (CA)
Eileen Boeing (VA)
Michael Boykin (NC)
David Brink (MT)
Tene’ ya Buchanan (MO)
James Caldwell (ON)
Matteo Cereola (NY)
Amanda Chen (NJ)
Kelly Churney (FL)
Glenise Cloudy (MO)
Christopher Corbett (IL)
Craig Cyr (Maryland)
Rebecca DeBruler (KY)
Sylvie Di Saverio (NY)
Kenneth Ferguson (TX)
Jennifer Finch (MO)
Frances Frost (MD)
Shane Gross (SD)
Brian Hagal (NJ)
Benita Hammond (SC)
Julian Christopher Lee Harris (SC)
Ellen R . Heatley (SC)
Jonathan Hitesman (CA)
Adele Hopkins (TX)
Corenthia Hurley (MD)
Tochi Iroku-Malize (NY)
Charzetta James (EL)
LaTanya Jones (DC)
Ann Kasel (MN)
Gwendolyn Keitt (MS)
Ashu Kukreja (TX)
George Lattas (IL)
Topher Logan (NEAP)
Tommie McCune (VA)
Latonya McDuffie (SC)
Emanuel McGirt (NC)
Charlene Moore-Peterson (SC)
Travis Morris (VA)
Melissa Muller (FL)
Kathy Panek (MN)
Cheryl Perez (CA)
Evelyn Peters (TX)
Emma Peterson (SD)
Christal Phillips (MI)
Eli Ramer (CA)
Morgan Ray (MT)
Lori Rose (VA)
Katherine Sargent (VA)
Julie Scharm (WI)
Emma Schopler (CA)
Moishe Shayland-Williams (NJ)
Parampreet Singh (LA)
Brandi Singleton (NC)
Kerri-Ann Smith (NY)
Kimberly Spivey (IL)
Danielle Stokes (NY)
Trevonne Thompson (IL)
Thomas Vaughn (MN)
Vernell Watson (SC)
James Wilcher (MO)
Yolanda Winston (TX)
Jonathan Wisner (CA)
Anthony Wright (AL)
thank you instructors!
A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members:
Kay Crews
Carolyn Gibson
Tamara D . Harris
Denise Irminger
Cynthia Mayo
Denise Mitchell
Rosalie Stroman
Beverly S . Tatham
Marsha Thornton
Dan Tonak
Marsha Turner
Deborah Underwood
* For the period November 19, 2024 through March 5, 2025
NAP Annual Leadership Conference
A Virtual Event • August 1-2, 2025
Together 2.0
“A must for all current and future association and unit leaders!”
2025 NAP Virtual Leadership Conference August 1-2, 2025
Learn soft skills for leaders. topics include:
• Working With Introverts
• Navigating the NAP Website
• strategies for Converting Provisional Members
• the Art of gathering
• You’ve got this –
Presented by NAP President Alison Wallis, PRP
• Fiduciary Responsibility
• And more to be announced!
Watch your inbox for registration details!