PARLIAMENTARY JOURNAL VOLUME LXVI, NO. 2 AUGUST 2025
LIBBY WILLIS, PRP, EDITOR A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F PA R L I A M E N TA R I A N S 1 2 1 S TAT E S T R E E T A L B A N Y, N E W Y O R K 1 2 2 0 7 888.664.0428 A I P @ A I P PA R L . O R G W W W. A I P PA R L . O R G
CONTENTS AIP Officers and Department Chairs
3
Notes from the Editor Libby Willis, PRP
4
AIP President’s Writing Award
5
Origins of Parliamentary Terms Dominic Holzhaus, CP, RP
6
AIPSC2 in Motion! A Comparative Analysis of Motions from the Original AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure to the Second Edition (Part 1) 11 Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP
2
Opinion 2025-690: Voting by Ballot on Filling a Blank
15
Opinion 2025-691: Taking an Item From a Committee that was Not Originally Referred
17
Information for Authors
19
Copyright Information
20
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRS President Robert M. Peskin, DDS, CP-T President@aipparl.org
Communications Director Brandon Walters, CP-T, PRP Communications@aipparl.org
Vice President Atul Kapur, MD, MSc., CPP-T, PRP VP@aipparl.org
Parliamentarian Lucy Anderson, CPP-T, PRP
Secretary Laura Meade, CPP, PRP Secretary@aipparl.org
OTHER OFFICIALS Parliamentary Journal Editor Libby Willis, PRP PJ@aipparl.org
Treasurer Daniel Ivey-Soto, CP-T, PRP Treasurer@aipparl.org Accrediting Director Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP Accrediting@aipparl.org Education Director W. Craig Henry, CPP-T, PRP Education@aipparl.org
Chairman, Opinions Committee Atul Kapur, MD, CPP-T, PRP Opinions@aipparl.org The Communicator Editor David Jackson, DHSc, PA-C, CP-T, PRP Communicator@aipparl.org
The American Institute of Parliamentarians is a nonprofit organization founded for the general purpose of improving parliamentary procedures. Regular Member First Two Years $55 After Two Years $70 Full-time Student $20 Certified Parliamentarian $105 Certified Professional Parliamentarian $130 Annual membership dues include subscription to the Parliamentary Journal.
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
3
NOTES FROM THE EDITOR This issue of the Parliamentary Journal is a compendium of the best of the past and a continuing analysis of the new. These articles highlight a truism of the parliamentarian’s profession: parliamentarians must have an understanding of the historical roots of parliamentary procedure while at the same time being knowledgeable about the very latest in parliamentary procedure authorities and practice. Sometimes it is worthwhile to have another look at the very best of the past. Such is the case with the review of the origins of parliamentary terms by Dominic Holzhaus, CP, RP for the October 2012 Parliamentary Journal (Volume LIII, No. 4) reprinted here. Holzhaus’ article is one of those you will want to keep always at hand. The piece is fascinating and provides many “Ah, Ha!” moments. In her continuing series on AIPSC2, Kay Crews, CPP-T, PRP provides an exceedingly helpful comparative analysis of motions in the orginal AIP Standard Code with the second edition. This is Part 1 so you may look forward to the next part coming soon! As always, we are grateful for the Opinions provided by the AIP Opinions Committee chaired by Atul Kapur, MD, MSc., CPP-T, PRP. “Voting by Ballot on Filling a Blank” and “Taking an Item From a Committee that was not Originally Referred” provide practical advice for the times a parliamentarian encounters these issues. We continue to seek your articles on parliamentary procedure, parliamentary law, and parliamentary education. The deadline for receipt of submissions for the December 2025 issue is Monday, November 3 at 5 p.m. Please write about what you have observed and practiced in any of our 3 areas of interest. The Parliamentary Journal wants to share your knowledge and experiences.
Libby Willis, PRP, Editor
4
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
The 2025 AIP President’s Writing Award Committee is pleased to recognize the winning author and article for the 2025 President’s Writing Award:
Laura Meade, CPP, PRP Leadership Styles in a Democratic Organization Published in Vol. LXV, No. 2, August 2024 issue of the Parliamentary Journal
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
5
ORIGINS OF PARLIAMENTARY TERMS Dominic Holzhaus, CP, RP Parliamentary law developed over thousands of
Many Latin parliamentary terms are simply literal
years, with each successive culture borrowing
borrowings; pro tem (for a time), ex officio (out of,
and adapting to suit its needs. This rich history is
or due to, holding office), and quorum (of whom).
preserved in the parliamentary terms we use today.
Demeter explains that quorum came from the
The earliest explicit references to parlaimentary law date from the era of Greek city-states more
England:
than 2,500 years ago.1 The Greeks developed many
“We have hereby assigned you, and others as well,
familiar parliamentary procedures, including voice
quorum unum esse volumus [of whom it is our wish
vote and reconsideration but suprisingly few terms
that you be one] . . . .” 7
,2
of Greek origin survive. One notable exception is ballot which comes from the Greek word ballo (to throw) and the Greek voting practice of casting a marble ball, pebble or shell into a box or urn to express a vote.3 This practice was still common in Eighteenth Century England where club members cast a white ball in favor or granting membershp and a black ball against, giving rise to the expression “blackballing,” meaning excluding or shunning.4 In the early centuries A.D., the Romans adapted Greek governance traditions to their own needs and
But some of the Latin terms have a less direct derivation. Proxy is “short for ‘procuracy,’ from the Latin procuro (to attend to, to care for).”8 The word procure comes from the same root.9 A proxy in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), is a power of attorney allowing one person to “take care of” voting on behalf of another.10 Expunge literally means to “poke out”: to indicate that a soldier had retired from service, the Romans made a series of dots or points beneath his name on
spread them throught the Roman Empire.5
the service lists.11 Similarly, if a motion to rescind and
Latin remained the dominant language of European
draws a line “through or around the offending words
civilization “almost exclusively until 1250, and
in the minutes, and writes across them the words,
predominantly and influentially for another 500 years
“Rescinded and Ordered Expunged.”12
thereafter.”6 Latin derivatives are thus common in the argot of many professionals, including doctors, lawyers, and parliamentarians.
6
certificate used to appoint justices of the peace in
expunge from the minutes is adopted, the secretary
Just as the Romans eclipsed the Greeks, the Germans eclipsed the Romans:
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
“The political control of western Europe was
of this compound term has left many other traces of
thoroughly and permanently overturned by the
Anglo-Saxon tribes:
invasions of German speakers in the early fifth century.
Within a single generation Franks and
Saxons, Goths and Vandals, surged westward and southward to master France, Britain, Italy, Spain, and even north Africa. Yet remarkably, Latin was displaced in only one of these provinces, Britain, and the conquerors largely took up the language of
“Among the most notable evidences of the extensive Scandinavian settlement in England is the large number of place names that bear Scandinavian names. When we find more than 600 places like Grimsby, Whitby, Derby, Rugby, and Thoresby, with names ending in -by, nearly all of them in the district
their subjects.”13
occupied by the Danes, we have a striking evidence
Our word germane makes a connection between
For these names all contain the Danish word by,
the Romans and Germans. It comes from the Latin
meaning ‘farm’ or ‘town,’ a word that is also seen in
germanus (literally, having the same parents.)
our word by-law (town law.)20
of the number of Danes who settled in England.
14
The Roman name for the profusion of Germanic tribes was germani (related ones) giving rise to the collective term Germans.15
Parliamentary
authorities typically, and appropriately, use the word
The meaning of bylaw has been fairly stable for 1,000 years. In Old English (spanning the years 450-1150 A.D.),(21) burglagu meant “civil law.”22 In Middle
related to define the concept of germaneness.16
English (1150-1349), bylaw denoted an “ordinance
RONR traces the origin of the American tradition
English (1350-1469), it meant “a regulation made
of parliamentary process to “ways of life in Anglo-
by a local authority or corporation.”24 In the mid-
Saxon tribes before their migration to the island of
sixteenth century, it meant “a secondary, subordinate
Britain starting in the fifth century A.D.”
Because
or accessory law.”25 In contemporary parliamentary
Britain was the only Roman province where Latin
law, bylaws are “basic rules” of an organization,
was displaced by Germanic languages, including
but they are still secondary and subordinate to
English, many of these Anglo-Saxon terms have
legislation, charters, and constitutions.”26
17
been preserved. A good example is the term bylaws:
made by common consent.”23
In Late Middle
An Anglo-Saxon mot or moot was, as RONR
“From analogy with the customs of other Gernanic
mentions, “a deliberative assembly.”27 It is the source
tribes, it is supposed that freemen were accusomed to
of the modern expression moot point (a debatable
come together in the “Village-moot,” to make “bye-
question).28 A moot point is often mistakenly called
laws” for their village and to administer justice.”18
a “mute point” but mute is derived from the Latin
Merriam-Webster lists the etymology for bylaw as Middle English bilawe, probably from Old Norse bylog, from byr (town) and log (law). The first part
mutus (speechless).29 Thus moot and mute have almost opposite connotations — debatable versus speechless.
19
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
7
The Norman Conquest of 1066 resulted in French administration of Anglo-Saxon Britain, and “had a greater effect on the English language than any other [event] in the course of its history.”30 The impact on legal and parliamentary terminology was no less dramatic. One need look no further than the word parliamentary itself, which comes from the French
Riddick comes closest to the etymologies of these words. Debate comes from Old French debatre (de - down + batre - beat) meaning beat down or batter.38 Discuss comes from Latin discutere (from dis - apart + quatere - shake) meaning shake
word parler (to talk).31
apart or disperse.39 Deliberate comes from Latin
To ease the transition to French rule, pairs of words
weigh carefully.40
were often coupled to ensure that both the Anglo-
debate involves beating down the other side with
Saxons and their new French overlords understood
persuasive argument, discussion aims at teasing or
legal and administrative procedure:
shaking apart the issues, and deliberation involves a
deliberare (from de - from + libra - scales) meaning
will and
testament; lands and tenements; give and grant; breaking and entering. In each case, the first word has Anglo-Saxon roots.32 These doublets are still widely used in legal documents today although the ironic effect is sometimes to make them unduly
So, at least etymologically,
careful weighing of the arguments. More than 500 years after the Norman Conquest, British colonies in the New World adapted the rules of the House of Commons for their legislative
verbose and hence less understandable.
assemblies,41 and in 1801, Thomas Jefferson
English has a wealth of synonyms, often with
based on British parliamentary procedure.42 Perhaps
interesting nuances of meaning related to their
the most profound early American innovation was
origins in different root words and languages. RONR
the requirement of a majority in elections where
defines debate as discussion of a pending question
the English used a plurality.43 Some terms acquired
by a deliberative assembly.33
The American
almost inverse meanings. Table in the U.S. refers
Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of
to interruption of consideration of a question; in
Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC) similarly defines
Britain, it refers to introduction of a new question.44
debate as formal discussion of a motion or proposal,34
Previous question in the U.S. usage requires that a
but uses the terms more loosely and interchangeably
question be put immediately to a vote; in England
— “Full and free discussion of every proposition
it was like our motion to postpone indefinitely (that
presented for decision is an established right of
the “question be not now put.”)45
members.”35
Cannon is looser still:
published his Manual of Parliamentary Practice,
“the three
terms ‘debate,’ ‘deliberation,’ and ‘consideration’ are interchangeable.”36 Riddick describes debate as a clash of ideas, “intentional thinking” appropriate for a general meeting, while discussion is “reflective
8
thinking,” appropriate for committees.37
Americans have also added to the parliamentary lexicon. Caucus, a meeting of delegates or partisans of a particular position,46 may be from the nativeAmerican Algonquian cau’- cau’ -as’u (adviser),47 but its derivation is uncertain.48 Whatever its origin,
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
Notes
caucus has an interesting history. According to H.L. Mencken, the word “was in general use in the American colonies by the Revolution, but not until 1878 did it come into general use in England, and then, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), it was ‘grossly misapplied.’ In the United States it had the settled meaning of a meeting of some division, large or small, of a political or legislative body for the purpose of agreeing upon a united course of action in the main assembly, but in England it was applied to what we would call the organization. [It took on the “disparaging” connotation of a “machine politician.”]49
Patnode, Darwin, A History of Parliamentary
1
Procedure, p. 2. West Conshocken, PA: Infinity Publishing, 2006; Robert, Henry M., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 11th Edition, p. xxx. Eds. Sarah Corbin Robert, Henry M. Robert, III, William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2011. RONR, pp. xxx-i; Patnode, p. 5-6.
2
Demeter,
3
George,
Demeter’s
Manual
of
Parliamentary Law and Procedure, Revised Edition, P. 309. Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1960; Patnode, p. 4. Hendrickson, Robert, Word and Phrase Origins,
4
The OED lists the neutral senses of caucus as
3rd Edition, p. 78. New York: Checkmark Books,
a “committee of members of a political party,”
2004.
but also the “frequently derogatory” sense of “a
5
secret meeting of a group active within a larger organization or party.”50
Biography of Latin, p. 101-4. New York: Walker & Co., 2007.
Parliamentary law has a solid foundation in ancient traditions of deliberation and governance.
The
evidence of these traditions is still embedded in the terms of modern parliamentary procedure. The history of these terms illustrates another strength of parliamentary law:
Patnode, pp. 8-12; Ostler, Nicholas, Ad Infinitum, A
its demonstrated ability to
adjust to new demands and different contexts over thousands of years.
Ostler, p. 3.
6
Demeter, p. 152.
7
Demeter, p. 33.
8
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
9
Edition, P. 927. Springfield, Massachusetts, 2000. RONR, p. 428.
10
Merriam-Webster, p. 410; Shorter Oxford English
11
This article originally appeared in the October 2012 Parliamentary Journal (Volume LIII, No. 4). At the time, Dominic Holzhaus was the principal attorney for the Port of Long Beach. He provides legal and parliamentary advice to its five-member Board of Harbor Commssioners.
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
Dictionary on Historical Principles (OED), 5th Edition, p. 899. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 12
RONR, p. 310.
Ostler, p. 128.
13
9
Merriam-Webster, p. 488; OED, p. 1089.
New York: The Overlook Press, 2004.
OED, p. 1089; Merriam-Webster, p. 488.
33
14
RONR, p. 385.
15
RONR,
16
p.
131;
American
Institute
of
Parliamentarians, Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC), p. 52. Eds. Alice Sturgis et al. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012; Demeter, p. 70. RONR, p. xxxi.
17
AIPSC, p. 303.
34
AIPSC, p. 9.
35
. Cannon, Hugh, Cannon’s Concise Guide to Rules
36
of Order, p. 6. Lincoln, NE: Authors Choice Press, 2001.
Ibid; Demeter, pl 216.
37
Merriam-Webster, p. 157.
p. 71. Ed. Miriam H. Butcher. New York: Scribner,
18
19
Baugh, Albert C., and Cable, Thomas, A History of
20
the English Language, 5th Edition, p. 98. Oxford: Routledge, 2002.
. Riddick, Floyd M., Riddick’s Rules of Procedure,
1985. Merriam-Webster, p. 296; OED, p. 611.
38
Merriam-Webster, p. 331; OED, p. 697.
39
Ibid, p. 52.
40
Clark-Hall, A Concise Anglo-Dictionary, p. 60.
41
21
22
Lexington, KY: BN Publishing, 2008.
Patnode, p. 31. Patnode, p. 31. RONR, p. xxxvii.
42
OED, p. 318.
23
Patnode, p. 34.
43
Ibid.; Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English
24
Dictionary, First Edition, p. 1367 (03.04.13/04.05). New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
RONR, p. 217n.
44
Patnode, p. 29.
45
OED, p. 318.
46
RONR, P. 10-12.
47
25
26
RONR, p. xxxi; Merriam-Webster, p.755.
27
OED, p. 1828.
28
RONR, pp. 605-06. OED, p. 361; Mencken, H.L., The American
Language, 4th Edition, p. 177-78.
New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1979. Merriam-Webster, p. 181 (“origins unknown”).
48
OED, p. 1870.
29
Mencken, p. 268.
49
Baugh & Cable, p. 108.
30
OED, p. 361. (emphasis added).
50
Demeter, p. 5; Merriam-Webster, p. 843.
31
Crystal, David, The Stories of English, pp. 152-3.
32
10
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
AIPSC2 IN MOTION! A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MOTIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL AIP STANDARD CODE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE TO THE SECOND EDITION (PART 1) Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP The second edition of The AIP Standard Code of
Purpose Main Motions,” a more descriptive label
Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC2) introduces a
that immediately conveys their unique function
range of substantive and stylistic revisions to its
in addressing past or anticipated actions of the
treatment of motions, reflecting a deliberate effort
assembly. The definitional core remains unchanged,
to modernize language, clarify procedures, and
but the new phrasing distinguishes this category
better align terminology with actual parliamentary
more clearly from general main motions.
practice. This analysis examines the changes found
Additionally, the phrase “tangentially arise” is used
in Chapters 7–10 of AIPSC2, comparing them to
in AIPSC2 to describe incidental motions, replacing
the corresponding sections of the 2012 edition.
the earlier language of “incidentally out of the
Although the revisions maintain adherence to the
business before the assembly.” This revision adds
fundamental framework, they represent a significant
precision and better captures the practical nature of
advancement in both the instructional methodology
these motions.
and practical application of the manual. Below, key changes are identified and assessed across four
Refinement of Examples and Clarifications
major areas: classification, ranking, governing rules,
AIPSC2
and procedural processing of motions.
incorporates
clarified
examples
to
illustrate classification decisions. For instance, the explanation of a motion to table “until ten o’clock” is
I. Classification of Motions Structural Reframing and Terminological Refinement
now explicitly categorized as a Motion to Postpone to a Certain Time—not a Motion to Table. This rectifies common misclassifications and helps dispel
significant
persistent myths around these motions. Moreover,
terminological updates by standardizing terms.
the motion to procure and read a newspaper article
“Specific main motions” have become “Specific-
is now explained more explicitly as a Question of
AIPSC2
introduces
minor
but
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
11
Privilege rather than merely an urgent main motion. The revisions in the second edition include the addition of practical examples within rule explanations, aiming to address possible member confusion and enhance instructional clarity. II. Ranking of Motions
or privileged motions more explicitly retain their voting thresholds (e.g., a Motion to Limit Debate still requires a two-thirds vote even when moved as a main motion). III. Rules Governing Motions Expanded Analysis and Greater Specificity
Consistency in Content, Enhanced Clarity in
Perhaps the most substantial improvements occur
Form
in Chapter 9. The structure is expanded to include
The rank or precedence of motions remains largely unchanged across editions. However, AIPSC2 improves the format and explanatory flow. Numbered paragraphs now provide a modular structure that enhances readability. As an example, the example and chart in 8.10-12 is explicitly crossreferenced with paragraph numbers (e.g., “Motion 10,” “Motion 6”), clarifying the order of operations
clearer subheadings and nuanced explanations, especially concerning interruptibility, seconding, debatability, amendability, vote thresholds, and renewability. Interrupting a Speaker: Greater Nuance The 2012 edition permits interruptions by urgent motions but gives limited guidance. AIPSC2
during complex deliberations.
significantly expands this section. For example, it
Refined Illustrative Example
only in “extreme situations” and warns against
The scenario involving a motion to sponsor students attending music camp is retained but expanded in AIPSC2 with tighter wording and clearer sequencing. The explanation of how the presiding officer proceeds through the motions is more methodical. For example, the use of phrases like “the motion that is next to be voted on in the order of precedence is called the immediately pending motion” replaces more casual language from the
emphasizes that Factual Inquiries should interrupt dilatory use. It introduces a normatively useful threshold: interruptions are valid only when delay would “create a substantive problem” with the matter under debate. Seconding a Motion: Conditionality Clarified AIPSC2 codifies what was previously informal practice: if debate has begun and more than one member has participated, the absence of a second
prior edition and reinforces proper terminology.
is moot. This codification helps avoid procedural
Redefined Motion Behavior
function of seconding rather than treating it as an
One noteworthy update is the more precise handling
missteps
and
reflects
the
consensus-building
inflexible formality.
of when parliamentary motions are offered as a main motion. In AIPSC2, these reclassified subsidiary
12
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
Debatability: Streamlined and Rationalized The second edition reduces the number of motions
IV. Processing Motions Modernized Presentation Framework
listed as having “restricted” debate by narrowing the
AIPSC2 reorganizes the procedural steps for
category and consolidating guidance. For instance,
presenting a motion using tabular and numbered
the motion to amend now appears under limited
formats, lending the material a more professional
debate instead of full debate unless applied to a
and accessible structure. The revised edition
fully debatable main motion. This change prioritizes
includes clear distinctions between verbal and
functional clarity and focuses discussion on the
digital methods of recognition (e.g., addressing the
scope of each motion.
presiding officer via microphone, electronic queues
Additionally, subsidiary motions like “Limit or Extend Debate” and “Close Debate and Vote Immediately” are explicitly labeled as undebatable—a clearer signal than the previous edition’s more tentative language. Amendability: Expanded Categorization The 2012 edition identifies amendable motions but treats the issue briefly. AIPSC2 adds more structured rules, dividing amendability into three categories: freely amendable, amendable with limitations, and unamendable. Notably, “Close Debate and Vote Immediately” is now explicitly amendable, but only as to the scope of application, a clarification not previously articulated. Voting Thresholds: Rights-Based Justification The second edition reaffirms the traditional majority/two-thirds rule but now grounds the higher thresholds in the principle of protecting member rights. By stating that two-thirds votes are required when “changing the rights of members to propose, discuss, and decide proposals,” AIPSC2 introduces a constitutional logic that complements its procedural
in virtual meetings). These updates reflect postpandemic parliamentary realities and the increased prevalence of hybrid or remote deliberative bodies. Clarification of Motion Language The second edition emphasizes precise motion phrasing.
It
explicitly
discourages
vague
formulations like “I so move” or “I make a motion that...” and clarifies the procedural insignificance of casual expressions like “I suggest.” It also includes instructions for handling long or complex motions, encouraging submission in writing and providing guidance for display on screens—suggesting that digital tools are becoming part of standard parliamentary practice. Visual Management and Transparency Where the 2012 edition merely acknowledged that clarity was important, AIPSC2 introduces procedures
for
projected
motions,
including
direction to discontinue display if the version shown is inconsistent with the presider’s statement. These additions indicate a heightened concern with transparency and record integrity.
prescriptions.
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
13
Conclusion
Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP is a past president
The revisions found in The AIP Standard Code of
Parliamentary
Procedure,
Second
Edition
(AIPSC2) reflect a more precise, user-friendly, and procedurally coherent document. While the core structure and substance of motions remain intact, the second edition makes meaningful improvements in how motions are defined, classified, ranked, governed, and processed. These changes serve multiple audiences: they offer clearer instruction for novice members, firmer guidance for presiding officers, and more systematic reference
points
for
parliamentarians.
The
cumulative effect is a Code that maintains fidelity to traditional parliamentary law while embracing practical advancements in meeting conduct and organizational governance. As such, AIPSC2 is intended to represent not merely an update, but a
of the American Institute of Parliamentarians and serves currently as AIP’s Accrediting Director. She led the authorship team of professional parliamentarians which produced the 2nd edition of the American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code. A past president of the Texas State Association of Parliamentarians and the recipient of its Parliamentarian of the Year award in 2011, Kay is routinely hired as a professional parliamentarian serving a national client base of governmental entities,
business
organizations,
professional
associations, homeowners associations, membership societies, labor unions, political parties, religious groups and charitable organizations.
She also
provides services as a temporary presiding officer or recording secretary. Outside of meetings, she provides script-writing and bylaws writing services.
professionalization of the parliamentary process.
14
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
OPINION 2025-690: VOTING BY BALLOT ON FILLING A BLANK A board is filling a blank to complete the motion,
a situation where there are multiple blanks (such
“That our next convention be held in the city of
as choosing the members of a committee) or an
_____” and decides to vote by ballot. Ballots are
expandable blank (when the size of the committee
printed that lists the five nominated cities and a
is not fixed); this is reinforced by the end of that
space for a write-in. The chair instructs the members
same sentence which specifies, “the choice (or
to vote Yes or No on each option. A member raises a
the proper number of choices…)” [emphases
parliamentary inquiry and questions this instruction.
added]. Read together, both parenthetical comments
The chair replies that parliamentary authority,
in this sentence make clear that a voter may vote
Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.)
for multiple choices only when there are multiple
(RONR), states that a member marks “his or her
blanks to be filled.
preference for the choice (or choices) that shall fill the blank.” Is the chair’s instruction correct? Answer: The chair’s instruction was incorrect. It appears to arise from a misinterpretation of RONR 12:103, the first sentence of which states: Alternatively, the assembly may direct that voting be by ballot or roll call (see 30; 45:18ff.), in which case each member marks or announces his or her preference for the choice (or choices) that shall fill the blank—which need not be confined to the suggestions previously made— and the blank is filled by the choice receiving a majority of the votes cast (or the proper number of choices receiving a majority that receive the largest number of votes; cf. 46:33). The parenthetical phrase, “(or choices)” refers to
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
When read with the preceding paragraph (12:102) it is clear that the process for ballot or roll-call votes is different from that which would be used for other forms of voting, such as a voice vote, where the assembly would vote on each option in order until one choice (or as many as required to fill multiple blanks) received a majority vote. This is analogous to an election where each “nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion ‘that ______ be elected’ to the specified position.” While, in a voice vote, the voter could vote Aye or No on each candidate in turn (46:37-46:39) until one of them receives a majority vote, the situation in a ballot vote is as described above for filling a blank. Similarly, the example ballot in 45:24 indicates that the voter is to indicate their desired choice for the second question with a single X, rather than voting Yes or No on each choice.
15
The chair should have instructed members to mark
the chair’s advice would have been correct. The
their preferred choice or write in their preference if
process of filling a blank in AIPSC2 involves a
not listed.
counted vote on every proposed alternative, with
If the parliamentary authority were the American Institute of Parliamentarians’ Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (2nd edition) (AIPSC2),
16
the selected proposal being the one that receives the most votes in favor as long as it is a majority; this requires a vote, For or Against, to be cast on each option. 14.50
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
OPINION 2025-691: TAKING AN ITEM FROM A COMMITTEE THAT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY REFERRED Question An organization has a standing committee on awards that reports to the Executive Board. Some board members have become aware that the committee has,
RONR 36:1 “… the assembly can take the matter out of a committee’s hands after referring it to the committee and before the committee has made a final report on it …”
on its own, started considering a new award. At the
and 36:4(2) “The motion to Discharge a
next board meeting, a member moves to Discharge
Committee …. Can be applied to any main
the Committee from further consideration of the
motion, or any other matter, that has been
new award. The chair ruled the motion not in order
referred to a committee and that the committee
as the topic had not been referred to the committee
has not yet finally reported to the assembly.”
in the first place. Was the chair’s ruling correct?
[emphases added]
Response The ruling was correct. There are, however, alternative ways to accomplish the same objective and the chair could have advised the member about those alternatives. The parliamentary authority was not specified, but the answer is the same under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.) (RONR) or the American Institute of Parliamentarians’ Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed.) (AIPSC2).
AIPSC2 13.24 “The Motion to Recall from a Committee enables an assembly to remove a previously referred motion or subject from a committee …” and 13.27(7) “The rules governing the Motion to Recall from a Committee are that it …. applies to any main motion or subject that has been referred ….” [emphases added] However, as the committee is not an independent body and is subordinate to the board, the board can
Both the motion to Discharge a Committee (RONR)
still stop the committee from considering the topic.
and the motion to Recall from a Committee (AIPSC2)
The most appropriate method to do so depends on
specifically apply to a motion or subject that was
the board’s intentions regarding the topic.
previously referred to the committee. As nothing had been referred to the committee, the chair was correct that neither of these motions were applicable and, therefore, were not in order.
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
If the board wished to end, in this example, any consideration of a new award, it would simply adopt a motion to instruct the committee to cease work
17
on the topic. As the topic had not been referred to
substantially the same question as one which
the committee, the effect of the motion is that the
has been temporarily but not finally disposed
topic would die and not automatically come up for
of — whether in the same or an earlier session
consideration by the board, as would have happened
— and which remains within the control of the
under Recall from a committee (AIPSC2 13.24) or
assembly” [emphases in original]
most occurrences of Discharge a committee (RONR 36:10-11).
AIPSC2 12.16 (table) “Method of Disposal: Temporary Disposal—Refer to a Committee
If the board did not wish to end all deliberation
Outcome: The motion is referred to a committee
of the topic but, instead, wished to consider the
and may not be re-introduced at the same meeting
topic itself, there are two options to bring it up
or subsequent meetings until permanently
for consideration. The first is that the board could
disposed of”
instruct the committee to report on the work that it has already done. When that report is received, the board could consider the topic at that time. The board could omit that step if it wished to consider the topic immediately: any member could introduce a main motion regarding the topic. Under more usual circumstances, this main motion would not be in order while the committee was considering the topic. When an item is referred to a committee, it is considered to be temporarily disposed of, and any new main motion on that topic is not in order. RONR 10:26(5) “No main motion is in order that would conflict with or that presents
However, in both authorities, the limitation explicitly applies to motions or subjects that have been referred to a committee. In the situation described in the question, the board made no referral to the committee, so the board cannot be said to have temporarily disposed of the question as it never considered it at all. Therefore, there is no restriction on the board considering a motion on the same topic that the committee is considering. Rather, it is the committee which is restricted in this situation because it is subordinate to the board (RONR 50:4, AIPSC2 31.26). It cannot contravene the instructions, decisions, or actions of the board.
Do You Have a Paliamentary Procedure Question? The AIP Opinions Committee welcomes requests for parliamentary opinions from members.The Committee responds to all requests informally. An informal response may be published as a formal opinion in the Opinions Column without identifying information. Please direct any requests for opinions to: AIP Opinions Committee Chair: Atul Kapur, M.D., CPP-T, PRP at vp@aipparl.org. AIP Opinions Committee:
18
Atul Kapur, M.D., CPP-T, PRP; Chairman
Ann Rempel, CPP-T, PRP
Michael Malamut, J.D., CPP-T, PRP
Christopher J. Cavin, J.D., CPP-T, PRP, Advisor
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS By the submission of material the author is giving
The Chicago Manual of Style is being used as the
AIP permission to publish that material in any form.
guide for style in the Parliamentary Journal.
Material submitted for publication may be submitted
The deadline for submission of articles for the
by e-mail to PJ@AIPparl.org.
If submitted
December 2025 issue is Monday, November 3,
otherwise, it should be typed on one side of standard
2025 at 5 p.m. Information regarding probable
8-1/2-by-11-inch white paper. A short biographical
publishing date will be furnished when the
note should accompany each submission. Microsoft
manuscript is accompanied by an e-mail address.
Office Word® is the word processing program used by the editor.
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025
19
COPYRIGHT NOTICE The Parliamentary Journal is copyrighted by
within these bounds is considered “fair use,” but
the American Institute of Parliamentarians; all
for any copying beyond fair use, permission must
rights reserved. Brief portions of material in this
be obtained from the Parliamentary Journal Editor
publication may be copied and quoted without
and, in appropriate cases, from the individual
further permission, with the understanding that
author or authors of the materials in question.
appropriate indication of the source of the excerpt will be included in such copying. Single copies
The Parliamentary Journal is published online
of the material in this publication for the use of
in April, August and December by the American
scholars in their scholarly research, and a reasonable
Institute of Parliamentarians.
number of copies for classroom use by teachers within a few days after copying, may be made without further permission if (a) such work is not for profit and does not involve republication of the material in another work, (b) appropriate credit is given to the author or authors of the material and to this publication, and (c) appropriate notice of copyright is included on the copies. Copying
20
The opinions expressed in the Parliamentary Journal are the opinions of the authors of the articles and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Editor or of the American Institute of Parliamentarians. Copyright
©2025 by the American Institute of
Parliamentarians.
Parliamentary Journal, Vol. LXVI, No. 2 | August 2025