A I P
C O M M U N I C AT O R AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS
SPRING
2022
President’s Message:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Intertwining Parliamentary Authorities
President’s Letter
1
Educational Musings – Updates from the Educational Department
3
Notes from the Accrediting Department
3
AIP Officers
5
Calendar of Events
5
Deadline Dates – Communicator
5
Notice of Candidacy
5
AIPSC2 Update
5
2022 West Coast Practicum Recap
6
Congrats to our New Certified Members
7
Save the Date! East Coast Practicum 2022
9
AIP Scholarship Applications Available
9
New Members
10
I know that there are a lot of purists out there from either the Robert’s camp or the AIPSC camp that may disagree with this article. I know this because, I get corrected every time I say, “Stand at Ease” in an AIP meeting, someone either at the meeting or in an email afterward writes to me and says “Stand at Ease is a Robert’s Rules of Order thing.” I generally respectfully agree that it is not found in AIPSC, but then gently postulate that it is an Army thing and since I was in the Army, I am allowed to use it. This begs the question: if an idea or a concept is not found in your parliamentary authority, can you use a concept from another authority? The answer, even if you are a purist for one particular authority, is unequivocally YES! Let’s take the example above! Is there anywhere in AIPSC that says you cannot ask the assembly to take a short break and remain in place? Of course not! Using the words that RONR uses does not make it an error under AIPSC. Can you imagine yourself at a large medical or dental convention saying “Point of Order” and after being recognized
Spring 2022 | AIP Communicator
“Stand at ease is not found in AIPSC!” My response as chair or speaker would be easy. Your point is not well taken because while it is not mentioned, it is also not prohibited. This is a silly example but let’s move on to some of the ones that are recommended all the time. I was at a meeting recently operating under RONR and a motion was made that was “not ready for prime time.” The body made an attempt to repair it by offering a substitute which was equally poor. One sage old member moved to refer the motion to a special committee. When the committee met, they perfected language, incorporating both factions’ concerns, and produced a flawless compromise motion. They then asked me what the procedure was to get their language adopted and I explained that we had a motion and a substitute and they would have to offer their new substitute as a substitute to either the original main motion or the originally proposed substitute and then we would proceed to perfect their new motion and whichever one was being substituted for... and I saw that very glassy eyed look that you often see when you have spoken fluent Parliamentarian to non-believers. I stopped myself and said “Or you could suspend the rules and allow a motion to adopt the committees new motion in lieu of both the original main motion and the substitute amendment and that could be Continued on following page