National Parliamentarian (Vol. 75 No. 3)

National Parliamentarian Volume 75, No. 3 | Third Quarter 2014

FEATURES

NAP President Ann Guiberson, PRP

The Chair and the Frame — p. 7 Practice Charts of Parliamentary Basics — p. 9

Dan Seabold, Joan Corbisiero, Mark Schilansky, Carol Schilansky, Carol Henselder, and Lori Finck from the New York State Association of Parliamentarians; Alison Wallis (far right); and Emma Faulk (on podium)

Ann Guiberson, Marcella Morrison, Weldon Merritt, Vera Chernecki, George Mervosh, Alison Wallis, Maurice S. Henderson (far right), and Emma Faulk (on podium)

Paula Petruso, Connie Skidmore, Dollie McPartlin, Gail Knapp, and Ralph McMullen from the Nevada Association of Parliamentarians

National Parliamentarian Volume 75, No. 3 | Third Quarter 2014

Contents 3 President’s Message 5 From the Editor

News and Information from NAP 6 Parliamentary Language 12 Motion Spotlight 20 Two Minutes of Procedure 21 Mystery Motion 23 What’s Wrong?

24 Ordering Materials From NAP 25 Quick Quiz 26 Parliamentary Myths 30 Answer Key

Articles and Features 7 The Chair and the Frame Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP 9 Practice Charts of Parliamentary Basics Judith Reynolds, PRP 13 Coaching Parliamentary Teams

Shane D. Dunbar, MED, PRP 17 Association Spotlight Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians 31 Questions and Answers (10–13)

National Parliamentarian®

Official publication of the National Association of Parliamentarians® 213 South Main Street • Independence, MO 64050-3808 Phone 816.833.3892 (Toll-free 888.627.2929) • Fax 816.833.3893 E-mail: hq@nap2.org • Web: http://parliamentarians.org

2011–2013 National Officers President Vice-President Secretary Treasurer Directors-at-Large

Ann Guiberson, PRP Mary L. Randolph, PRP Ann L. Rempel, PRP Evan A. Lemoine, PRP Steve Glanstein, PRP James N. Jones, PRP Jim Stewart, PRP

Editor

Tim Wynn, PRP P.O. Box 54 Lake Helen, FL 32744 NPeditor@PerfectRules.com

Assistant Editor

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

Parliamentarian Leonard M. Young, PRP Executive Director Mike Chamberlain, CAE

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 on CD or via e-mail attachment in Microsoft Word or RTF format. Illustrations, photographic prints and high quality digital photos are welcome. Materials submitted cannot be returned unless special arrangements are made in advance with the editor.

Contributors must submit an “assignment and transfer of copyright” form granting to NAP copyright in the work or the right to publish it.

Submission Deadlines Fourth Quarter 2014 First Quarter 2015 Second Quarter 2015 Third Quarter 2015

September December March June

1, 1, 1, 1,

2014 2014 2015 2015

Carol A. Henselder, RP

Parliamentary Review Committee

John Rempel, PRP, Chairman Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP Sharon Reed, PRP

National Parliamentarian

Registered U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ISSN 8755-7592. Published quarterly by the National Association of Parliamentarians. ©2014. 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 endorsed by NAP. First publication, January 1938.

Subscription and change-of-address requests should be directed to NAP headquarters at the address above.

Subscription rates: $30/year or single copy $8.

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

President’s Message Discussing the Future Ann Guiberson, PRP

the other areas. I thought I should remind you because there are two things we all need to do in preparation for this report and its recommendations.

Ann Guiberson, PRP First, before NAP President we tackle making recommendations and offering bylaw amendments, we must be sure we are correctly identifying the problems. The association landscape has changed, and like nearly all associa-

Many of you may be able to recall easily the energetic, engaged group of members who avidly debated how the professional recertification course should be structured at the 2013 convention. Passion for the topic was high and the atmosphere was charged with strong feelings. It was clear that something had to be done.

The decision of the assembly was to create a special committee and task it with submitting a comprehensive report on three major NAP processes with NAP simply cannot bury its head in recommendations for the sand and keep doing the same old bylaw amendments

by February 2015. I’m things in the same old way. sure those who were there remember that debate clearly, tions, NAP has been affected. We’ve but I also think it is just possible that experienced loss of members, declinyou cannot remember so readily the ing participation in programs and three major areas the committee has services, declining participation from volunteer workers, and decrease in to address. They include: revenues—both dues and non-dues.

1. Qualifying for and retaining NAP simply cannot bury its head in membership the sand and keep doing the same old things in the same old way. What 2. Qualifying for and retaining worked in the ‘50s and ‘60s just isn’t registered membership working well now.

3. Qualifying for and retaining Here’s what I think the problems professional registered are: membership.

I’ll bet you remembered about 1. Barriers to membership. The adult population of potential retaining professional registered members by and large simply membership, but not so much about Third Quarter 2014

3

President’s Message (continued from previous page)

does not like to take tests. If our vision is to provide parliamentary leadership to the world, why oh why do our prospective members have to have a significant amount of parliamentary knowledge before they can join? It seems to me that gaining this knowledge is their reason to join. NAP should be seen to be an open, welcoming, engaging, dynamic, and even fun organization that helps people in their desire to learn the rules and apply them to their meetings.

2. Registered parliamentarian relevancy. There’s no question that it is quite an achievement to pass the RP exam. And no wonder.

The study material consists of random questions that jump all over RONR. Yes, I know, they are placed in general subject areas, but just think how massive the “motions” subject area is. How is this a good learning experience?

What is the goal of a program that tests randomness rather than concepts, principles, and applications?

3. Advanced education. When the Professional Qualifying Course (PQC) and Professional Recertification Course (PRC) were introduced over a decade ago, the emphasis was on education and sharing knowledge. In our recent history, full emphasis was placed on testing with little to no 4

feedback provided to the participants. At the time of the convention, the PRC had become the biggest point of pain for NAP. In 2009 there were nearly 600 professional registered parliamentarians. Today there are around 250. Even accounting for retirement, this is a significant loss. It negatively impacts nearly every aspect of NAP—from governance to revenue—and it negatively impacts the public when NAP credentialed members are not available to teach, provide advice, or serve meetings.

Now that I’ve highlighted the problem areas as identified by the 2013 convention, let’s move to my second point, which is exploring solutions.

Our traditional model and accepted practice have been made obsolete by changing economic and technological realities. Change happened, and we cannot continue to rely on the same attitudes and procedures that came into being in the ’50s and ’60s. Our pattern for dealing with serious problems has always been to propose bylaw amendments when we really need to have a lot of conversations with each other about what’s wrong and what should be done. If the thoughts and recommendations for bylaw amendments come forward without these conversations, their chances of success are not great.

National Parliamentarian

Together we can come up with the solutions for the problems we face. Already the professional development committee addressed the unhappiness with the PRC and is getting good feedback from the members who experienced the online and classroom module format. In the next six months NAP members will have the opportunity to participate in finding and developing solutions in several ways: 1. At the NTC, coming up as I write, members will be asked in the mega-session and in other opportunities to share ideas.

2. There will be another series of web meetings for members to participate and have their ideas heard.

3. In the first and second quarter issues of the NP this year, I’ve asked you to send me your thoughts. Once again, I urge you to do that. Write, call, e-mail, drop by—whatever works for you. But don’t be silent. Be heard. Be a part of finding the answers we all like.

Be a part of creating the future.

From the Editor In this issue, veteran author on parliamentary procedure Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, explores the presiding officer’s role in the process of making motions. Judith Reynolds, PRP, provides practice charts for parliamentary basics. Parliamentary competition expert Shane Dunbar, PRP, highlights opportunities to Tim Wynn, PRP take part in coaching parliamentary teams. And in the Association Spotlight feature, we take a closer look at the Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians.

As always, members are encouraged to submit articles and photos that may be of interest to the NP readership.

Third Quarter 2014

5

Parliamentary Language The world of parliamentary law has its own precise and unique language. Mastering this language is an important step in gaining a fuller understanding of proper procedure.

Unfinished Business The terms “unfinished business” and “old business” are frequently misused to describe matters that have been addressed at some point in the past. The term “old business” should be avoided altogether, and the term “unfinished business” should only be used as described below.

Unfinished business is a very specific category in parliamentary procedure. It is part of the heading Unfinished Business and General Orders. This heading is taken up immediately before New Business.

So, what qualifies a particular motion to be unfinished business?

It must have come over from the previous session in one of three ways*. Let’s look at the three ways a question becomes unfinished business: 1) If a question—other than a special order—was pending when the session adjourned,

that question becomes unfinished business at the next session.

2) If a question was set as a general order for a session and the session adjourned before the question was reached, that question becomes unfinished business at the next session.

3) If a question becomes unfinished business through either of the two processes just described and it is not taken up before adjournment of that following session, it remains unfinished business for the next session.

The chair should not ask if there is any unfinished business, but should state the question on the first item of business to come up under Unfinished Business and General Orders.

*In any event, when more than a quarterly time interval will elapse before the next business session, business does carry over as unfinished business.

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 358-360, for more information on Unfinished Business.

6

National Parliamentarian

The Chair and the Frame Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP The words “chair” and “frame” might sound like a conversation more suited for a furniture store, or perhaps death row in a state prison. The terms are used in parliamentary procedure, but they seldom seem to be related. The member that makes a motion may be said to “frame” a motion. The presiding officer is the Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP “chair.” Normally, the presiding officer, at least in large assemblies, does not make motions. So, if the chair cannot make a motion, it would seem likely that he would have no role in framing a motion.

The presiding officer does have 39-40 states, “If a motion is offered a role in framing a motion in Rob- in a wording that is not clear or that ert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, requires smoothing before it can be 11th edition. In fact, it is more than recorded in the minutes, it is the duty a role. In some cases, it is a duty. of the chair to see that the motion is That might surprise some people as this … It is the duty of the chair to see that is not listed as a duty of the presiding ofthe motion is put into suitable form … ficer under the secbefore the question is stated. tion titled “Duties of the Presiding Officer of the Assembly.” See RONR (11th put into suitable form—preserving ed.), pp. 449-50. There, RONR lists the content to the satisfaction of his duties as being “To state and to the mover—before the question put to vote all questions that legiti- is stated.” There is a specified duty mately come before the assembly as of the presiding officer in regard to motions …” See RONR (11th ed.), p. framing a motion.

There is also a discretionary 449, ll. 33-34. That refers to a point power that the chair may have where the motion has already been regarding the framing of a motion. made, not how it is framed.

The chair has a specific “duty” in The chair may, as opposed to merely regard to framing the motion, even ruling a motion out of order, suggest though this duty is not listed under a motion that would be in order. This “Duties of the Presiding Officer of alternate motion “would carry out an Assembly.” RONR (11th ed.) pp. the desired intent to the satisfaction Third Quarter 2014

7

The Chair and the Frame (continued from previous page)

of the maker.” See RONR (11th ed.), p. 39, ll. 16-21. So, how would this work in a meeting?

Assume that a member, after being properly recognized, says, “I move that because of the excess debt, we disagree with the proposed bond issue for the school district.”

Now, what does this motion mean?

Is it a resolution to oppose the bond issue? Here, the chair can “smooth” the wording and put it, with the maker’s permission, like this: “Whereas, the school district has excessive debt; esolved, that the Society oppose R the proposed bond issue.”

purpose of killing the main motion; the motion is quickly seconded.

The chair, of course, should rule it out of order. The chair, however, would have the option of saying to the member, “The motion to lay the question on the table is out of order, but the member may move that the question be postponed indefinitely.”

The presiding officer may do this, but he may just rule the motion Lay on the Table out of order.

This last process is a relatively rare example of the chair having discretion while presiding. If the chair is opposed to the motion to hold a picnic, he may explain how to defeat the motion. If, however, he favors holding a picnic, he may correctly rule Lay on the Table out of order and say nothing else.

This resolution is concise, clear, and in the proper form. Assuming that the member making the motion wants to oppose the bond issue, it would There is a level of impartiality meet with his wishes and conform to the that chair must exercise, especially rules. It can be more in large assemblies. smoothly entered into the minutes.

There is a level of impartiality Now, what about those cases that chair must exercise, especially where the motion is out of order? in large assemblies. The presiding For example, assume that only a officer cannot generally enter into main motion, “That we hold a picnic debate while presiding. See RONR on the first weekend in June,” is (11th ed.), pp. 394-95. The presiding pending. A member wishes to defeat officer may only vote when his vote the main motion, without directly would affect the outcome, except voting against it. In debate, she when the vote is by ballot—where says so and then makes the motion (continued on page 22) to Lay on the Table, clearly for the 8

National Parliamentarian

Practice Charts of Parliamentary Basics Judith Reynolds, PRP The charts on page 11 were initially compiled for provisional members studying for the NAP Membership Exam. I have since learned they also help NAP members prepare for the NAP Exam for Registration and high school students on their written exams.

Chart 1: Rules of the Assembly.

List in hierarchical order the five rules which govern deliberative assemblies: Corporate Charter, Constitution/Bylaws, Rules of Order, Standing Rules, and Custom.

Chart 2: Order of Business.

In the second column, print a mnemonic for the Standard Order of Business such as MRS. SUN – Minutes; Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees; Special Committee Reports; Special Orders; Unfinished Business and General Orders; and New Business.

Chart 3: Bylaws Articles.

In the second column, print the nine letters, NOMOMECPA (“No Mommy, see Pa!”), and then complete the nine articles: Name, Object, Members, Officers, Meetings, Executive Board, Committees, Parliamentary AuFor a thority, and Amendment.

Judith Reynolds, PRP

Chart 4: Handling A Motion.

In the first six cells, write these six verbs: Move, Second, State, Debate, Put (to a vote), and Announce.

These action words represent the six basic steps in handling a motion: (1) member moves or makes a motion; (2) another member seconds the motion; (3) the chair states the motion; (4) the members debate the motion; (5) the chair puts the question to a vote; (6) the chair announces the results of the vote and any action to be taken.

Chart 5: Ranking Motions.

As you fill in this chart taken from the NAP Basic Parliamentary Information Leaflet, logical patterns emerge.

Main Motion. At the bottom, write Main Motion to the right of #1.

written parliamentary test, it is helpful to create Chart #5 from memory.

Third Quarter 2014

9

Practice Charts of Parliamentary Basics (continued from previous page)

Secondary Motions. Fill in the seven subsidiary motions in rows #2-8, and the five privileged motions in rows #9-13. The article Abbate’s Basic Exam Cram (NP 2009 1st Q), which can be requested from NAP, offers these mnemonics: “Pearls Are Classy, Pretty Lady Pretty Lady” and “Can Quentin Really Afford a Ferrari?”

Interrupt and Second. Concurrently fill in the two columns headed “I” (may interrupt a speaker) and “S” (requires a second). Print “I” in the “I” column for #9 Call for Orders of the Day and #10 Raise a Question of Privilege. For the other eleven, print “S” in the “S” column. (Note that each motion receives either one or the other.)

Debatability. Motions #1-5 are debatable while motions #6-13 are undebatable. In the column headed “D”, write “D” for the five debatable motions (#1-5) and leave the top eight blank. Learn the reason for each designation.

Amendability. In the column headed “A” , print “A” for amendable (variable) motions #1, #3-6, #11, and #13. Leave the unamendable (unvariable) motions (#2, #7-10 and #12) blank. Learn the rationale for each.

Vote to Adopt. In the column headed “V” (vote required) print “C” for motions #9 and #10 because they are normally handled by the chair. Next, write “2/3” for #6 Limit 10

or Extend Limits of Debate and #7 Previous Question,. Finally, in the remaining nine cells (#1-5, #8, and #11-13) print “M” for majority vote.

Learn why each vote is required.

Reconsider. The last column represents the more advanced motion to Reconsider, listed in the NAP leaflet but not addressed here.

Make From Scratch. For a written parliamentary test, it is helpful to create Chart #5 from memory. Begin with a standard lined sheet of paper.

To the left of the vertical line write numbers 1 through 13 inverted, so 13 is at the top and 1 is at the bottom.

To delineate the main motion, the seven subsidiary motions, and the five privileged motions, darken the horizontal lines between lines #1 and #2, #8 and #9, and over line #13. To the right of the line, leave a couple of inches to write the names of the motions, draw vertical lines to make five thin columns (or six if you include the motion to Reconsider) with headings I, S, D, A, V (and R).

Then fill in the chart as described above.  Judith Reynolds, PRP is a former high school chemistry teacher who became a PRP in 2008. She enjoys developing parliamentary study materials and coaching high school parliamentary students.

National Parliamentarian

Practice Charts of Parliamentary Basics & Beyond

Compiled by Judith Reynolds, PRP, using RONR-11, the NAP Membership Exam and the NAP Basic Parliamentary Information Leaflet

Chart 1: Rules of the Assembly RONR p. 10-19; Exam #41-45

#

Chart 4: Handling a Motion RONR 32 and 42; Exam #97-102

STEP

RULES

Chart 2: Order of Business

Chart 5: Ranking Motions

RONR p. 353; Exam #67-72

#

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1 2 3 4 5 6

MOTION I S DAV R Privileged Motions 12 11 10

RONR p. 570-582

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

RONR tinted p. 4; Exam #153-177

13

Chart 3: Bylaws Articles #

ACTIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5

ARTICLES

9

Subsidiary Motions 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Main Motion 1 Third Quarter 2014

11

Motion Spotlight

Raise a Question of Privilege What is the purpose of Raise a Question of Privilege?

Its purpose is to allow an impor- rights and privileges of the assembly tant matter to be considered when it or any of its members, the motion would otherwise be out of order. For Raise a Question of Privilege can be example, remember that a main mo- used to interrupt Motion A to allow tion cannot be made while another for the immediate consideration of motion is pending. So, if Motion A Main Motion B. is pending, Main Motion B is out of order. But what if … It is the duty of the chair to Main Motion B is so importranslate their intentions into the tant that it must be considered immediately? If Main proper parliamentary language.

Motion B relates to the

How does a member make the motion Raise a Question of Privilege?

A member, without waiting for recognition, rises and says, “I rise to a question of privilege affecting the assembly.” The chair then directs the member to state the question of privilege. If the question receives a second, and if the chair rules that the question is related to the rights and privileges of the assembly or of an individual member and that it is urgent enough to justify the interrupting of the current parliamentary situation, the chair allows the question to be introduced.

In the real world, members wanting to exercise their right to raise a question of privilege may not know the proper procedure. In these times, it is the duty of the chair to translate their intentions into the proper parliamentary language.

So, when a member jumps up and says, “I think we should stop the live public broadcast during the debate on this motion,” the chair should NOT rule that the member must wait to be recognized, nor that the motion is out of order since another motion is pending, nor should the chair advise the member that the pending motion could be laid on the table to take up the urgent matter of deciding the question on stopping the live public broadcast.

Instead, the chair should identify the member’s intention to raise a question of privilege affecting the assembly, and if there is a second, the chair should allow the introduction of the motion, since any delay in doing so would defeat the purpose of the motion. (continued on page 24)

12

National Parliamentarian

Coaching Parliamentary Teams Shane D. Dunbar, MED, PRP Are you comfortable working with secondary school students? Do you want a sense of satisfaction when completing a job? If the answer is “yes” to both of these questions, you may be ready to help train and coach a parliamentary procedure team.

Shane D. Dunbar,

Many secondary school Career school pracMED, PRP and Technical Student Organizations tices are the (CTSOs) participate in preliminary most common, and if the team is and state parliamentary procedure preparing for the state or national contests (“competitive events”), contest, weekend meetings may be and state winners may then compete at the Preparation for the contest is a national level. long-range project and requires that Preparation for the contest is a long-range students spend a great amount of project and requires time studying and practicing … that students spend a great amount of time studying and practicing during non- needed. The information below will school hours, since most of the team serve as a guide to help you decide if members will not be in the same you would like to play a role in trainclass period to practice the dem- ing and coaching a parliamentaryonstration phase. Before and after procedure team.

STEP 1: Contact the School

Contact a local secondary school to determine if they sponsor any CTSO listed in the table on the next page.

STEP 2: Contact the CTSO Teacher-Advisor

Talk with the teacher-advisor of the CTSO to determine if you may assist in training and coaching a team. Don’t be surprised if you are asked to take complete charge! If your service is needed, obtain an up-to-date copy of the format, rules, and procedures for the contest. Contact the national headquarters of the CTSO listed in the table, if the teacher-advisor does not have these materials.

Third Quarter 2014

13

Coaching Parliamentary Teams (continued from previous page)

STEP 3: Obtain Contest Dates, Times, and Locations

Obtain the contest dates, times, and locations to ensure that your team will be ready in time to compete.

STEP 4: Recruit and Review

Schedule a meeting to recruit team members and to review the contest format.

STEP 5: Practice, Practice, Practice

Schedule practice meetings (1-2 per week) three months before the first contest. You want your team members to be comfortable with the their roles in the meeting before they step into competition.

STEP 6: Train and Coach

Check the following table to determine which contest phases are required for each CTSO.

Preparing for the written test:

Begin by testing over specific topics or motions.

• Obtain current copies of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised for team members. All of the CTSOs use it as their parliamentary authority.

• Track and post each team member’s test scores.

• Spend a minimum of half an hour during each practice session to review parts of RONR.

• Administer state contest tests from previous years to the team.

• Obtain parliamentary procedure multiple-choice question manuals for the team to study. The National Association of Parliamentarians (www.parliamentarians. org) and Parliamentary Procedure Instructional Materials Center (www.northwest.net/parli-pro) both sell manuals that contain multiple-choice questions.

• Administer a 25-question multiple-choice test at every practice.

14

• Compare team scores with previous years.

Preparing for the team demonstration: • Review the score sheet and criteria on which they will be judged with the team.

• Start a bank of topics (the FFA uses original main motions) to use when discussing New Business.

• An entire agenda is demonstrated for most of the teams. The FFA demonstrates New Business only.

National Parliamentarian

• Make sure every member makes motions and debates during the demonstration.

• Use a stopwatch when practicing because the team will lose points if they go over the time limit.

• Invite a team from another school to conduct a demonstration and judge your team’s demonstration.

Preparing for the oral questions: • Ask oral questions at the end of the demonstration phase each time there is a practice.

• Stress that learning the oral questions will help prepare team members for the written test.

Preparing for writing minutes of the • Make demonstrations to groups demonstration: such as your school board, faculty, city council, student council, and the PTA.

• Video-tape demonstrations and have the entire team judge them using the official score sheet.

• Conduct a critique after each practice demonstration using the official score sheet.

• Invite another professional parliamentarian to observe and evaluate the demonstration.

• Review with the secretary the score sheet and criteria that will be used to evaluate the minutes.

• The secretary should take minutes each time there is a practice.

• The advisor and/or English Teacher should review the minutes for spelling and grammar.

• Evaluate the minutes with the secretary after each practice using the official score sheet.

(Please see the CTSO information sheet on page 16) ....................................................

You may now be ready to take the first step to help train and coach a parliamentary procedure team by contacting your local secondary school. I have trained teams at both the state and national levels and am

always amazed at the knowledge, interest, and energy that is exhibited by students. It will be a satisfying experience that you and the students will never forget. Good luck!

Shane D. Dunbar, MED, PRP, is a “retired” high school FFA Advisor and assistant principal who has conducted over 540 parliamentary procedure workshops nationwide.

He also served as Treasurer for the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians.

He has over 15 copyrights dealing with instructional materials that can be reviewed on www.northwest.net/parli-pro.

Third Quarter 2014

15

Some Secondary School Career and Technical Student Organizations That Sponsor Parliamentary Procedure Contests (Contact the national organization for current copies of the rules and procedures) CTSO NAME *Business Professionals of America **The National FFA Organization

(Agricultural Science Education)

INITIALS

WEB SITE

PHONE

CONTEST PAGES

BPA

www.bpa.org

(800)334-2007

Written test, Team demonstration, Oral test, Minutes

(888)332-2668

Written test, Team demonstration, Oral test, Minutes, Problem-Solving Activity

FFA

www.ffa.org

Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America

FCCLA www.fcclainc.org (800)234-4425

Team demonstration, Oral test, Minutes

*Health Occupations Student Association

HOSA

www.hosa.org

(800)321-4672

Written test, Team demonstration, Minutes

*SkillsUSA

SkillsUSA

www.skillsusa. org

(800)321-8422

Written test, Team demonstration, Minutes

Technology Student Association

TSA

www.tsaweb.org (888)860-9010

Written test, Team demonstration, Minutes

*Future Business Leaders of America

FBLAPBL

www.fblapbl.org

(800)325-2946

*Post-secondary (collegiate) contests are also held. **Rules for the state FFA contest may be different than national FFA rules.

16

National Parliamentarian

Written test, Team demonstration

Association Spotlight

Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians The Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians was founded in 1953, by Dr. R. J. Parker, when Hawaii was known as the Territory of Hawaii. Hawaii became a state in 1959. And the association has been affiliated with NAP since 1964.

Governor of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie celebrates Parliamentary Law Month with the Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians.

With the following interview, NP takes a closer look at the Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians:

What do you do to attract new members?

How do you assist members in becoming registered?

One effort—through the initiative of Steve Glanstein, PRP—targeted condo management organizations, resulted in the quadrupling of membership.

We established a monthly research exercise which we named “Turner Classics,” after the late Jim Turner who started the practice, in which two research questions

Third Quarter 2014

17

Association Spotlight (continued from previous page)

quoted from the current RONR are presented at the end of each monthly Aloha ‘Ohana Unit meeting, to

provide practice in researching the current RONR, helpful for the RP exam.

HSAP President Dr. William Puette, PRP and Governor of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie

Names of HSAP past state presidents adorn wooden gavel pounder, which is passed to each new president

How do you encourage RPs to become PRPs? We made a concerted effort to increase the number of PRPs in our state and developed an evolving course of study over about five months to help RPs gain the meeting skills and knowledge necessary to successfully complete the PQC 18

course. Subsequently six RPs successfully completed the PQC course and were certified as PRPs—Rachel Glanstein, Susan Govier, Jerry Govier, Sean Lucas, Janet Wilks, and Jim Turner.

National Parliamentarian

How do you engage the public and local organizations?

We have partnered with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other organizations and individuals to publish the Na Lula Halawai: A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian, in 2014, authored by William J. Puette, PRP and Richard Keaoopuaokalani NeSmith, which will enable organizations to conduct meetings in Hawaiian, which, along with

English, is one of the two official languages of Hawaii.

We have reached out to the leadership of the Hawaii State Department of Education (DOE), one of the largest school systems in the US, with a statewide system to provide parliamentary procedure workshops to student leaders and to assist with mock student legislative sessions.

How do you spread the word about the benefits of parliamentary procedure and NAP? We have gotten the state governors, legislators, and the Mayor of Honolulu to sign proclamations in

observation of the annual Parliamentary Law Month.

What steps have you taken to increase the impact of parliamentary procedure in your communities?

We have lobbied in the state legislature on parliamentary issues, in keeping with the parliamentary

principles and practices contained in RONR.

What educational programs do you offer?

In partnership with the University units (CEUs) for those completing the of Hawai‘i – West O‘ahu, we sponsor 20-hour program, which focuses on an annual online class in Parliamen- the NAP membership exam.  tary Procedure, taught by Dr. We made a concerted effort to increase Puette, PRP. The University now the number of PRPs in our state … awards continuing education

Third Quarter 2014

19

Two Minutes of Procedure Majority Vote, Two-Thirds Vote The voting requirement is one of the most commonly misunderstood and misstated details of parliamentary procedure. As parliamentarians, we must be sure to teach clear fundamentals to assist organizations in those crucial situations where every vote counts.

Majority = more than half Majority vote = more than half of the votes cast Two-thirds vote = two thirds of the votes cast

Majority vs. 51%

A majority is often incorrectly referred to as 51%. These two terms are not the same. For example, when there are 1,000 votes, 51% would be 510. A majority would be anything over 500. So while 505 votes in the affirmative would satisfy a majority vote, it would fall short of the erroneous interpretation of 51%.

Majority vs. Half Plus One

Another common misrepresentation of majority is “half plus one.” This is not the same as a majority. For example, with 17 votes, “half plus one” would be 9.5 (8.5 + 1). A majority would be anything over 8.5. So while 9 votes in the affirmative would satisfy a majority vote, it would fall short of the erroneous half-plus-one equation.

Two-thirds Vote

A two-thirds vote means that two thirds of the votes cast are in the affirmative. This means the affirmative vote is at least twice the negative vote. If you keep this in mind, it is easy to determine the result. For example, a vote of 9-4 would satisfy a two-thirds vote, because doubling 4 would give you 8, and 9 is more than 8.

Question 1. Would a vote of 611-310 satisfy a two-thirds vote?

Question 2. Would a vote of 18-9 satisfy a two-thirds vote?

Answers can be found near the back of this issue.

20

National Parliamentarian

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 21 (easy) I require a majority vote and can be used to split one question into multiple questions.

Mystery Motion 22 (easy) I can be used to introduce a main motion while business is pending, if the main motion relates to the rights and privileges of the assembly or any of its members.

Mystery Motion 23 (easy) I can be used to send a pending question to a group of selected individuals to be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider.

Mystery Motion 24 (intermediate) If adopted, I effectively undo the vote on one or more motions and place them again before the assembly just as they were right before the original vote.

Mystery Motion 25 (intermediate) I am not a motion to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, but if I am adopted, I remove the limits on the number of speeches.





Mystery Motion 26 (intermediate) I am not a motion to Amend; I’m actually an incidental motion, but I allow the assembly to choose between multiple alternatives in the wording of a motion.

Mystery Motion 27 (intermediate) I’m an incidental motion that is sometimes referred to as a resignation.

Mystery Motion 28 (intermediate) I require a majority vote to adopt, and I add clarity to an inconclusive rising vote.

Mystery Motion 29 (difficult) I apply only to ballot votes, and I require a two-thirds vote for adoption, but it is usually better to leave it to the chair to do my job.

Mystery Motion 30 (difficult) I am a question that brings business again before the assembly, but it is always my being stated by the chair that brings business before the assembly, not my being adopted.

Third Quarter 2014

21

The Chair and the Frame (continued from page 8)

his preference cannot be known.

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 405. ll. 1926. In the case of framing a motion, the chair may have a more direct, but often unseen, role in affecting business that comes before the as-

sembly, without violating his impartiality. In other words, the chair, using the frame, potentially can influence the content of motions originating from the floor. ď‚Ť

Work Cited

Robert, Henry M., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition. Eds. Sarah Corbin Robert, et al., Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2011 Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP, of Philadelphia, PA is the former president of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians, Inc., and the secretary of the Delaware Valley Unit.

In Memoriam NP commemorates the following members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace:

Patricia May Lawson White, Indiana Peggy K. Lindsey, Arizona Ethel Wolfe Born, Virginia Lilian McBeth, Michigan Georgia W. Kimball, Texas Margaret Graves, Pennsylvania

22

National Parliamentarian

What’s wrong

Can you spot the parliamentary blunders in the following stories?

Answers are located at the back of this issue.

Blunder #4.





The chair took the vote on a motion and declared, “The ayes have it. The motion is adopted.”

A member immediately rose and called out, “Point of order!”

“The member will state the point,” the chair said.

“There were more responses in the negative than in the affirmative, so the motion is lost,” the member replied.

“The point is not well taken,” said the chair, “There were more votes in the affirmative, and the motion is adopted.”

The member then appealed from the decision of the chair, which was seconded, and the chair put the question on the appeal to a vote. Determining that there were 6 votes to sustain the decision of the chair and 7 votes to overturn the decision of the chair, the chair voted to sustain his own decision, and declared that the 7 to 7 result sustains the decision of the chair.

Where was the blunder?

Blunder #5.

With a main motion and an amendment to the main motion pending, a member obtained the floor and said, “I move the previous question.” Several members second-



ed this motion.

“The previous question is moved and seconded,” the chair announced, “Those in favor of ordering the previous question, rise … Be seated.

Those opposed, rise … Be seated.

There are two thirds in the affirmative and the previous question is ordered.” The chair then put the main motion to a vote without any further debate or amendment. Where was the blunder?

Blunder #6.

The Swiss Watch Collectors’ Club has a standing rule that states “For a watch to be worn in a meeting, it must be ‘Swiss Made.’” During a meeting, when no business was pending, a member moved to suspend this rule for the duration of the session, so that he could wear his British watch. The motion was seconded, stated by the chair, and then debated by several members. When the initial vote count tallied up to 21-10, the chair exercised his right to vote and voted in the negative, making the count 21-11.

“There are less than two thirds in the affirmative,” the chair declared, “and the motion to suspend the rules is lost.” Where was the blunder?

Third Quarter 2014

23

Motion Spotlight (continued from page 12)

What happens to the motion that was interrupted?

When the question of privilege has been disposed of, business is

resumed at exactly the point at which it was interrupted.

See RONR (11th ed.), section 19, for more information on this fascinating motion.

Ordering Materials from NAP Five ways to order: 1) By Mail: 213 South Main Street Independence, MO 64050-3808 2) By Phone: (888) 627-2929 3) By Fax: (816) 833-3893 4) By E-mail: HQ@nap2.org 5) On the Web: http://parliamentarians.org

Categories of Materials Available Include: Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition Materials

Parliamentary Reference Cards

Other Parliamentary Manuals

Pathways to Proficiency

Eletronic Resources

References

Meeting Resources

Parliamentary Supplies

Leadership Spotlights

Teaching Resources

Parliamentary Study

Resource descriptions and a complete order form are available at the NAP Online Store: http://bit.ly/nap-online-store.

24

National Parliamentarian

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. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, how is an Order of Business established in an organization with regular monthly meetings? a. T he Order of Business must be established in the bylaws b. A meeting has no Order of Business until adopted at the start of each meeting c. Adopting RONR automatically gives an organization an Order of Business d. The chair sets the Order of Business 2. After any opening ceremonies, what is the first item of business in the Standard Order of Business? a. President’s Report

b. Membership Committee Report

c. B ylaw Amendments d. Reading and Approval of the Minutes

3. What is the difference between Standing Committees and Special Committees? a. Special Committees handle more complex matters b. Standing Committees are composed of the officers c. Special Committees go out of existence at the conclusion of their assigned task d. Standing Committees report only to the board 4. If a motion had been postponed from the previous session, without any additional stipulations, where would it come up in the Order of Business? a. b. c. d.

Old Business Special Orders Unfinished Business and General Orders New Business

Third Quarter 2014

25

Parliamentary Myths

You Can’t Have a Meeting Without a Quorum The idea that a meeting cannot be held without a quorum is a popular myth, and it is inaccurate. If a regular or special meeting falls short of a quorum, the meeting should still be called to order, and minutes should be kept. The minutes are likely to be quite brief, since no business can be transacted.

But the prohibition against transacting business at an inquorate meeting does not mean that motions cannot be made and adopted. The motions Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, Adjourn, and Recess are in order, and the assembly may take measures to obtain a quorum. Motions that relate to these motions or to the conduct of the meeting while it remains without a quorum are also in order. See RONR (11th ed.), p.347, l. 21-348, l. 30.

With the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, the assembly can schedule an adjourned meeting for a different time and even a different location. This may make it more feasible for a quorum to attend. For example, if bad weather has prevented members from attending the monthly meeting, the assembly at the inquorate meeting might schedule an adjourned meeting for the next day or sometime next week. If members were absent from the meeting because a great number of them were traveling to a convention, the assembly at the inquorate meeting might schedule an adjourned meeting for later in the week, to be held near the convention, thereby allowing the members an opportunity to attend.

When the bylaws require that a meeting be held, the holding of an inquorate meeting satisfies that requirement.

26

National Parliamentarian

Baton Rouge Unit of Parliamentarians (BRUP), Louisiana Association of Parliamentarians (LAP).

Proclamation Presentations (left to right): Baker City Councilwoman Joyce Burges; BRUP member Dawn Collins; BRUP President Sarah Holliday-James; and Brian McNabb, District Director for Congressman Bill Cassidy

Third Quarter 2014

27

Educational Foundation: Nancy Sylvester, Abigail Hood, Trevor Sorensen

Communications Committee Don Freese–Parliamentarians are a Genuine Asset to an Organization: Just What is a Parliamentarian or NAP?

28

Lori Finck from the New York State Association of Parliamentarians receives “Greatest Member Growth” (greatest percentage) award from President Ann Guiberson

National Parliamentarian

Sandy Olson introduces Craig Henry, auctioneer for the Educational Foundation live auction

Margaret Perkins, from the DC Association of Parliamentarians receives award for “New Registered Parliamentarians” (greatest percentage)

Valoree Althoff from the New Mexico State Association of Parliamentarians receives awards for “New Professional Registered Parliamentarians” (greatest number and greatest percentage)

Third Quarter 2014

29

Answer Key Quick Quiz Answer 1

Answer 3

c. Adopting RONR automatically gives an organization an Order of Business; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 353, ll. 17-22.

c. Special Committees go out of existence at the conclusion of their assigned task; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 492, ll. 3-6.

Answer 2

Answer 4

d. Reading and Approval of the Minutes; see RONR (11th ed.), p.

353, l. 10.

c. Unfinished Business and General Orders; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 359, ll. 1-3, and remember that the term “Old Business” should be avoided.

Mystery Motion

Mystery Motion 21: Division of

Mystery Motion 26: Create a

Mystery Motion 22: Raise a

Mystery Motion 27: Request

Mystery Motion 23: Commit or

Mystery Motion 28: Counted

Mystery Motion 24: Reconsid-

Mystery Motion 29: Close the

Mystery Motion 25: Consider

Mystery Motion 30: Rescind/

a Question; see RONR (11th ed.), Section 27.

Question of Privilege; see RONR (11th ed.), Section 19.

Refer; see RONR (11th ed.), Section 13.

er; see RONR (11th ed.), Section 37.

Informally; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 540, ll. 17-22.

Blank; see RONR (11th ed.), p.

163, ll. 14-24.

to be Excused from a Duty; see RONR (11th ed.), Section 32.

Standing Vote; see RONR (11th ed.), p. 71, ll. 18-21 & Section 30.

Polls; see RONR (11th ed.), p.

286, ll. 15-29.

Amend Something Previously Adopted; see RONR (11th ed.), p.

77, ll. 15-33. (continued on page 36)

30

National Parliamentarian

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 Josh Martin, PRP, 10508 Quebec Ave, N., Brooklyn Park, MN 55445, or e-mailed to jcmartin7872@gmail.com.

Q&A 10 No Vote Taken

Q

An organization held its annual meeting with approximately 20 proposed bylaw amendments. Proper notice of the meeting was given, and the proposed amendments were provided to the members. When the time arrived to deal with the amendments, all the

amendments were brought up for consideration and adoption by one motion. The chair then stated that it was moved and seconded that the proposed amendments be adopted, but no vote was taken, and the chair moved on to the next item of business. This fact was just recently brought to the board’s attention by the office manager, who was the minute taker at the meeting. A point of order was not raised at the time.

Was the motion adopted?

Parliamentary Research Team

Josh Martin, PRP Parliamentary Research Editor

Ann Homer, PRP Assistant Research Editor

Ronald Stinson, PRP NAP Past President Consultant

Third Quarter 2014

Leonard Young, PRP NAP Parliamentarian

31

Questions and Answers (continued from previous page)

We have been advised that, although a breach occurred during the processing of the motion, since no point of order was raised in a timely manner, the silence of the members equates to unanimous consent? Is this correct?

A

In your question, it is stated that “The chair then stated that it was moved and seconded that the proposed amendments be adopted, but no vote was taken, and the chair moved on to the next item of business.” If this is an accurate and complete statement of what happened at the meeting, then no, it is not correct that the motion was adopted. Had the chair proceeded to announce that the motion is adopted, then the motion would be adopted if there was no prompt Point of Order. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 250, ll. 18-19.

It should be noted, however, that even this procedure is a bit too abbreviated to suggest that “the silence of the members equated to unanimous consent,” as in such a case the chair must generally indicate that members have the opportunity to object. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, ll. 23-29.

While the text does note that the chair may sometimes “assume” unanimous consent, the example given is for extending the time of a member speaking in debate, so it is 32

a bit of a stretch to apply this principle to adopting amendments to the bylaws. See RONR (11th ed.), p.

56, ll. 6-10.

While the effect may be the same, it is important not to equate the procedure of unanimous consent with the concept of the timeliness requirement for a Point of Order.

Members may fail to raise a Point of Order because they are unfamiliar with parliamentary principles, not because they consent to what happened.

In this case, however, it appears that the motion was not adopted, not even improperly. The chair got as far as stating the question on the motion before moving on.

Stating the question merely places the question before the assembly— it does not adopt the motion. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 37, ll. 20-26.

While members certainly should have raised a Point of Order (as it was improper for the chair to move on while a motion was pending), their failure to do so in this instance does not cause the motion to be adopted.

Q&A 11

Suspend the Rules vs.

Improper Motions

Q

I am a bit confused by, RONR (11th ed.), section 39:

National Parliamentarian

Dilatory and Improper Motions.

I’m reading that motions that conflict with the constitution or bylaws of an organization or statute are automatically out of order and if adopted are null and void. A friend reading the same section says that a motion to suspend the rules in the bylaws is acceptable, as otherwise the body could put rules in the bylaws to make sure members couldn’t get around them. Can rules in the bylaws be suspended?

A

Some rules in the bylaws may be suspended, but most cannot be. “Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22-25. A rule in the bylaws requiring that a vote—such as, for example, on the election of officers—be taken by (secret) ballot cannot be suspended, however, unless the bylaws so provide (see also Voting by Ballot, pp. 412-13).” See RONR (11th ed.), p.

263, ll. 1-11.

Generally speaking, most rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended.

A rule in the bylaws may, of course, be suspended if the bylaws say that it can be suspended. If a society places a rule of order in its bylaws,

such a rule may also be suspended.

For example, if a society put in its bylaws that each member may only speak for five minutes each time in debate (instead of the usual ten), such a rule could be suspended by a two-thirds vote, even though it is in the bylaws, as it is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. An exception is provided for a rule prescribing a ballot vote. Such a rule cannot be suspended unless the bylaws specifically permit its suspension, even although such a rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

When a main motion is adopted that conflicts with a rule in the bylaws, the motion is null and void, unless the conflict is with a rule that may be suspended. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 251, ll. 3-7, 9-10, 25-26, footnote.

It is entirely correct that this means “the body could put rules in the bylaws to make sure members couldn’t get around them.” This is intentional. Among other things, the bylaws should contain “all rules that the society considers so important that they (a) cannot be changed without previous notice to the members and the vote of a specified large majority (such as a two-thirds vote), and (b) cannot be suspended (with the exception of clauses that provide for their own suspension under specified conditions, or clauses in the nature of rules of order … ” See RONR (11th

Third Quarter 2014

33

Questions and Answers (continued from previous page)

ciety, except the corporate charter, if there is one.” See RONR (11th ed.), p.

14, ll. 17-22.

ed), p. 13, ll. 2-8.

Q&A 12 Drawing Straws

Q

Is a board of directors of a membership permitted to adopt a board-level rule permitting drawing straws to resolve ties in elections? The bylaws provide that the general management of the organization’s affairs are left to its board of directors.

The bylaws also prescribe a mailed ballot election and prohibit the making of further nominations at the annual meeting or in any other method not specified in the bylaws.

Alternatively, could the board of directors recommend to the membership the adoption of a special rule of order permitting the drawing of straws? Or would the rule need to be in the bylaws?

A

Since the bylaws prescribe a mail-in ballot election, the rule in question can only be adopted by amending the bylaws. No other rule may conflict with the rule in the bylaws. “Except for the corporate charter in an incorporated society, the bylaws (as the single, combination-type instrument is called in this book) comprise the highest body of rules in societies as normally established today. Such an instrument supersedes all other rules of the so34

Q&A 13

Removal of a Disruptive Member

Q

What rules cover the removal of a disruptive member from a committee meeting, and perhaps from the committee entirely?

A

This topic has been developed more fully in the 11th edition of RONR. It is still the case that only the person or assembly that elects or appoints the committee’s members may remove a member from the committee entirely. If the president appoints the members, he may remove them. If an assembly elects (or confirms) the members, the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is used to remove the committee’s members.

If the bylaws prescribe a fixed term for the committee’s members or that they shall serve “ … and until their successors are chosen,” then the committee’s members can only be removed through formal disciplinary procedures. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 497, ll. 1-13.

Generally speaking, when a committee is faced with a disruptive member, the proper course of action

National Parliamentarian

is to report this behavior to the parent assembly. If it is impossible for the committee to wait for the parent assembly and still complete its assigned task, however, the committee may follow the disciplinary procedures outlined in pages 64549 of RONR to remove the member from the room for the duration of the meeting, if necessary. See RONR

(11th ed), p. 501, ll. 14-26.

Such a situation may arise, for instance, if the committee has been ordered to make a recommendation on a motion at the parent assembly’s next meeting, and a member is repeatedly disruptive when the committee attempts to determine its recommendation. 

New Registered Parliamentarians!

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

Patrick Giam, Texas Deanna Renee Andrews, Georgia Kathleen M. Montejo, Maine Theodora K. Hulse, Florida Susan R. Griffin, Wisconsin Louis R. Davis, Texas Sheryl Rippke, Iowa Robert Flanagan Moore, Nebraska Jeffrey Streutker, Ontario, CANADA Shauna Mayo, Virginia Hollie Dahm Stivers, Oregon Susan Draftz, Kansas Holly E. Van Horsten, Florida Shannon Sun, New Jersey

Third Quarter 2014

35

Answer Key (continued from page 30)

What’s Wrong?

Blunder 4 The chair’s judgement as to which side prevails in a vote is not subject to a point of order or appeal. It is not subject to a point of order, because it does not represent a violation of the rules; it is not subject to an appeal, because it is not a ruling. A member who doubts the outcome of the vote should call for a Division or move that the vote be counted. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 259, ll. 10-15.

Blunder 5 In this case, Previous Question would apply to the amendment, since it was the immediately pending motion. After taking the vote that ordered the previous question, the chair should have put to a vote the question on the amendment. After the amendment was decided, the main motion would be open for debate, since previous question only applies to the immediately pending question, unless otherwise specified. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 199, ll. 7-25.

Blunder 6 A standing rule can be suspended for the duration of the current session by a majority vote. As a consequence, the chair should have declared the motion adopted, and there would have been no opportunity for him to exercise his right to vote. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 266, ll. 2-4. Also, since this is an incidental main motion, it is debatable. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 74, ll. 18-23.

two minutes of procedure question 1 No, double 310 is 620, which is more than 611.

question 2 Yes, 8-4 satisfies a two-thirds vote; remember the affirmative doesn’t have to be more than double the negative, it just has to be at least double the negative.

36

National Parliamentarian

Ralph McMullen presents his credit card to Stefanie Luttrell

Mary Houston at the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians Convention

NAP Vice-President Mary Randolph with Bill Randolph