Subscription and change-of-address requests should be directed to NAP at the above address
Annual subscription: $30 • Single copy: $8
NP Submission Guidelines
National Parliamentarian® generally publishes only original works that have not been published elsewhere Articles will be edited to conform to The Chicago Manual of Style (18th ed .) and may be edited for content and length Article text should be submitted in Microsoft Word or rich text format and transmitted via e-mail Any images, photos, illustrations and graphics should be submitted separately as high resolution files . Any images or other copyrighted materials must be accompanied with permission to use Materials submitted will not be returned unless special arrangements are made in advance with the editor . Authors should include a short biography note and a high resolution headshot for publication Any AI tools used in the preparation of the submission must be described Contributors must include a completed “Assignment and Transfer of Copyright” form with their submission, granting NAP the copyright or permission to publish
Submission Deadlines
Volume 88, No 1 (Fall 2026) August 1, 2026
Volume 88, No 2 (Winter 2027) November 1, 2026
Volume 88, No . 3 (Spring 2027) . .
.February 1, 2027
FROM THE EDITOR
What is the National Parliamentarian®’s (NP) approach to artificial intelligence (AI)?
The NP has a clear policy: material generated by AI is not published . The purposes of the NP are to “promote the object of NAP” and “provide guidance on parliamentary procedure through feature articles and a questionand-answer section where members can submit questions . ” (NAP Operational Policies and Procedures Manual, July 15, 2025)
To accomplish these purposes, the NP publishes original scholarly content intended to enhance members’ understanding of parliamentary procedure . This is achieved through the expertise, judgement, and insight of its authors, peer reviewers, and members of the research committee . Publishing derivative text of uncertain provenance generated by AI agents is not aligned with the NP’s purposes .
The NP is committed to the principles of authorship and copyright . Content is based on the principle of authorship responsibility through originality . Articles published in the NP must be eligible for copyright protection and the right to distribute . To ensure this, the NP uses the Assignment and Transfer of Copyright form . Currently, authorship and consequent copyright issues for AI-generated content, including both text and images, are ambiguous and unresolved . Authors may use AI tools to assist in writing, provided that such use does not transgress the principles of author responsibility and originality, nor does it raise copyright concerns . If AI tools are used, authors should acknowledge and describe their use within submissions, enabling the NP team to assess compliance with editorial policy .
To fulfill the NP ’s purpose, uphold originality, and avoid copyright complications, the NP will continue to publish original works . The current processes of volunteer human peer review, editing, and research remain integral to producing a high-quality publication . Looking ahead, AI is rapidly evolving . The current policy is not based on fear of change, but rather on respect for the NP ’s role as an educational resource for you, the members .
Yours in service,
Carl Nohr, PRP
NAP NP Editor,
2025-2027
npeditor@nap2.org
Pursuing Parliamentary Excellence
The transition from winter to spring serves as a meaningful metaphor for the work of the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) . Just as the change of seasons brings growth and renewal, the strength of NAP members lies in our collective commitment to evolving our practices and renewing our dedication to NAP’s mission . In recognition of Parliamentary Youth Month, we turn our attention to the next generation of leaders . Investing in our young parliamentarians helps ignite the future of our profession as we prepare them to lead . Mentoring our youth reminds us that the principles of fairness and order are timeless . As we observe Parliamentary Law Month, we celebrate the profound impact of our craft . Extending beyond our association membership, this month is a testament to the value we provide to the clients and organizations we serve . The proper use of parliamentary law ensures that every voice is heard and that the fairness of the deliberative assembly is protected . NAP’s mission—to provide education and resources to facilitate efficient and democratic decision-making processes through the effective use of parliamentary procedure—is more important than ever . The heartbeat of NAP is most strongly felt in its Districts, Associations, and Units . I express my profound gratitude and encouragement to each of you as you plan and carry out your annual meetings . Your leadership on the front lines keeps our members connected and informed . Thank you for your tireless work in educating members and the communities you serve . Your dedication to our organization’s legacy provides a stable foundation for its future .
Finally, a successful organization is fueled by the hard work of those behind the scenes . I extend heartfelt thanks to Barbara Proctor, Sam King, Wanda Sims, our Executive Director, Jessica Herzog, and our technical consultants . As we celebrate 150 years of Robert’s Rules of Order, their collaborative spirit and careful planning for the Spring Conference on March 28th have been exemplary . Their dedication ensured an educational offering for all learning levels and provided a platform to advance our skills and strengthen our community . Thank you all for your service, your commitment to NAP, and your dedication to pursuing parliamentary excellence .
In Parliamentary Service,
Mona Y. Calhoun, PRP 2025-2027 NAP President
Committee of the Most
Jonathan M . Jacobs, RP
Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) (12th ed .) provides for committees in a range of sizes, from a committee of one (4:11, 54:17) to a committee consisting of every member of the assembly that is present, known as a committee of the whole (52:4) . RONR states that in cases of deliberations and investigations, committees should be large . These committees may serve as places where delicate and troublesome questions may be debated (50:18) . These principles can lead to the formation of what can be called a committee of the most . It can be very appropriate in special circumstances . The term committee of the most, which is a bit tongue in cheek, does not appear in RONR, but is a very good descriptive term . It is a committee consisting of most, but not all, of
the members of the assembly that are present . It is, in effect, a special committee, as defined in (50:10), but unlike most special committees, is very large . Unlike a committee of the whole, it excludes some members, perhaps even only one member . Why would this exclusion be necessary?
Why a Committee of the Most?
A member of the assembly has a right to attend meetings, speak in debate, make motions, and vote (1:4) . Members may exercise these rights so long as they are in good standing, i .e ., the “members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws . ” (1:13n3) This is true even in the case of voting on issues where the member has a “personal
Committee of the Most
or pecuniary interest not in common with other members . ” (45:4) Even in that case the membership rights of a member with the interest cannot be curtailed . The solution is to create a body, a committee, which excludes the member with the personal or pecuniary interest . Since the person with the interest is not a member of the committee of the most, he has no right to attend or participate in that committee (50:27) .
There are several relatively common examples where this exclusion is necessary, and it would be advisable to refer a matter to a committee of the most . The first instance would be where a member or members are a party to litigation involving the assembly . 1 The assembly may wish to have confidential discussions about strategy for handling the suit, without the litigant members being present . Appointing a committee of the most could exclude the litigant members . A second instance would be adopting charges in a disciplinary case . A member may have his rights of membership (except those relating to a trial) curtailed, but only after being charged and formally notified of the charge (63:26) . The assembly may wish to hear and debate the charges without the respondent of the investigation being present, and without the respondent being able to interrupt with points of order, inquiries, and possibly amendments; the responding member may even try to
offer a defense prior to being charged . Sending an investigatory committee report with charges to a committee of the most that would exclude the respondent may help the assembly consider charges in a more neutral environment
There can be other instances where establishing a committee of the most would be useful, e .g ., where a very small minority wishes to use methods that are obstructionist, but otherwise in order, to thwart the will of a large majority .
How to Form a Committee of the Most
A motion to create or appoint a committee is a form of the motion to Commit, either raised as a subsidiary motion, or as a main motion . 2 Unlike a committee of the whole (52:6), the assembly could not go into a committee of the most . It would appoint the committee, give instructions to the committee, and then recess . During the recess, the committee of the most would deliberate; after the recess, it reports its findings .
As an example, assume that three members, Ms . Anderson, Mr . Wilson, and Mr . Presley, are parties to a suit against the organization . The assembly wants to consult with its attorney and authorize a response; it obviously does not want the three people on the other side to hear those discussions . A member could make the following main motion:
“That a committee be appointed consisting of all members present, except for Ms . Anderson, Mr . Wilson, and Mr . Presley, to meet with our attorney, Ms Lord, and report back recommendations regarding the suit . This committee shall be instructed to meet when the assembly recesses and report when the recess terminates . Ms . Patrick shall chair the committee . ”
After this motion is adopted, the assembly would recess, either for a fixed time or at the call of the chair of the assembly . There are several things to note . First, additional instructions could be given to the committee of the most, just as they would be to a smaller special committee . In this case, an instruction, “This committee shall meet in executive session,” would not only be reasonable, but expected .
Second, unlike a committee of the whole, the regular presiding officer of the assembly could continue to chair a committee of the most . Ms . Patrick, from the example, could be the regular presiding officer of the assembly or a member appointed as the chair . Third, when the committee of the most reports, it is discharged, just
like any special committee (36:8) . This committee is intended to be a mechanism to permit more robust debate . Should there be a need at a future session to exclude someone, even the same three members from the example, then the assembly could simply renew the motion to appoint a committee excluding them .
Fourth, like a special committee, the committee does report back to the body that created it . Those members who were excluded get a chance to debate and vote on the motion, if they so desire It is certainly possible that this debate will change members’ minds and that the assembly’s decision will be different than that of the committee of the most .
A committee of the most does give the assembly a way of dealing with problematic members . NP
ENDNOTES
1 The author saw this while serving on a public school board in the early 1990s . A member of the board sued the board for the sum of $3 30 and unlimited photocopy use . After the board voted to countersue for costs, he dropped the case
2 When raised as a main motion, it can be either an original main motion or an incidental main motion depending on the circumstances (13:6)
Jonathan M. Jacobs, RP, is the former president of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians, Inc , and the current secretary of the Montgomery County Unit .
Robert’s Rules of Order Is Not…
. . . Self-enforcing! Huh? Let me repeat that: Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) (12th ed .) is not self-enforcing! Do you agree? Disagree? Think about it .
Just as with the civil code or criminal law, the existence of a directive may embody moral suasion, but it does not in itself contain a mandatory enforcement that would mean the directive is automatically followed by all involved . It would be up to some outside entity to compel its enforcement . In the case of law, it takes a police force or judicial entity to ensure that it is followed . In the case of RONR, just because a rule exists does not mean that it will spontaneously be carried out . There is an enforcement element in parliamentary law which is the “majority rules;” but even that isn’t always the case . Anything less than a two-thirds vote cannot force debate to end . So, what can compel compliance with the various rules and practices of Robert’s Rules? We know that rules are meant to be followed, but what can be done when rules aren’t followed?
The simple answer is to invoke a Point of Order to note an error in procedure or the failure to comply with an RONR procedure . But what if the Point is ruled not well taken by the chair or if the assembly votes not to validate the Point? What if the chair’s ruling is appealed from, but a majority of the assembly sustains the ruling? What if a non-majority group simply refuses to follow the majority’s determination?
David Mezzera, PRP
A sports analogy illustrates that before beginning to play a baseball game, all players must agree to abide by a certain set of ground rules so the game can even begin . But those rules are not self-enforcing if people try to bend them to their own advantage . It takes an outside enforcer—in this case an umpire—to carry out the adjudication . Similarly, when “playing the game” of parliamentary procedure, all participants must agree to play by the rules up front or not join the “game . ” That is one reason why new members of an organization should be provided with a copy of the group’s bylaws upon joining . Does your unit do this? And remember, enforcing the rules takes an outside enforcer, in addition to simply saying “majority rules . ” Such an authority may be a presiding officer who applies the rules objectively and places the organization’s interests first . But how can RONR be self-enforcing, keeping in mind the interests and rights of all the members? Or can it?
At this point, please set aside this article and open your RONR (12th ed .) to page xlix and read that entire page…
Are you back from reading that page about the bases of parliamentary rules? This author likes to add a sixth bullet to the other five: The rules exist to serve the membership, and everyone agrees to abide by the first five bullets to allow a level playing field and an understanding up front of how the “game” will be played . A turnabout of all this would be a situation where the majority has ruled (either by its vote on a Point of Order or by a vote appealing the decision of the chair), but the chair refuses to abide by the order of the majority . This happened once when a civic group in Southern California came to a meeting to elect new officers, but the chair autocratically ruled that the elections would not take place at that meeting for some bogus reason . A Point of Order was raised, and the chair ruled the Point was not well taken . On an appeal, the chair refused to even recognize the appeal . Properly using RONR (12th ed .) 62:9, a member from his place conducted the vote, and the chair was overturned by a unanimous vote . With that, the chair stormed off the dais, and the vice-president assumed the gavel to proceed with the elections . Had the president still refused to vacate the chair, RONR (12th ed .) 62:10 could have been employed to remove the presiding officer from the chair for all or part of the session; but again, that only happens with enforcement by a factor
outside the book itself (in this case, the majority of the members) . It doesn’t just happen spontaneously because RONR says it should!
And what if the offending person is a member of the organization who is disruptive and refuses to abide by the ruling of the majority? RONR (12th ed .) 61:10-18 explains the process to enforce proper order and compliance; but here also, the assembly—not the chair— has the final authority to enforce the directives in RONR . Roberts’ Rules may have the procedure embedded, but the rule is not inherently enforced just because it is printed in the book .
With all of this, enforcing RONR depends on the rights listed on page xlix and the agreement by all members that they will play by the rules which apply to all, even to those in the minority who may disagree on a particular matter . And if some members just can’t live with that, then it would be incumbent upon them to leave the meeting or leave the group, letting the majority prevail . That’s as close as it gets to RONR being self-enforcing . Playing by the rules doesn’t happen spontaneously or inherently or automatically just because it says so in the book . It requires work and agreement among all the players, and that means all So, what do you think now about the opening proclamation that Robert’s Rules of Order is not self-enforcing? NP
David Mezzera, PRP, is a past president of the California State Association of Parliamentarians, a past District Eight Director, and a past chair of the Educational Resources Committee
Will AI Replace Parliamentarians?
Kirby Glad, PRP
Imagine that sitting on the table next to the chair of a meeting is only a glowing ball . A main motion is made followed by a few subsidiary motions, until someone raises a Point of Order . The chair turns to the ball and says, “Alexa, what should I do?”
Some parliamentarians worry whether the meeting chair can just bring up ChatGPT on a laptop and dispense with having a parliamentarian altogether . While we don’t know what progress future decades may bring, the answer for the foreseeable future is definitely not . There are a few good reasons for this . Artificial intelligence or AI is not really intelligent; it simply mimics the human process of analyzing data—which it can do at lightning speed . As Kavita Ganesan, PhD, author and expert on the topic of AI, explains, “We simply haven’t reached the stage . . . where AI can think, learn, and reason as humans do . ”1
It is true that AI can do some very specific things in amazing ways, mainly involving pattern matching, but it doesn’t really understand any of the information it processes . It cannot, for example, tell the difference between what people say on the internet compared to authoritative sources, such as Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) (12th ed .) or court records .
Such was the case of an attorney who researched legal cases using ChatGPT and gave the judge several quotes, with apparently complete references, from previous cases that supported the attorney’s legal arguments . The only problem was that when the judge looked up the cases, they either did not exist, or simply did not say what the attorney quoted . 2 When ChatGPT was asked, “Why do you make up answers that are not true?”, it provided this in its “own words”:
“…it’s important to note that I generate responses based on patterns and examples I’ve learned from a vast amount of text data . Sometimes, when faced with queries or topics that fall outside of my training data or knowledge cutoff, I may not have access to the most up-to-date information or accurate facts . In such cases, I might provide speculative or incomplete answers . ”
“Speculative” answers mean it can hallucinate and just make stuff up!
ChatGPT gives more weight to articles about RONR than it does to the actual text of RONR . Of course, RONR (12th ed .) isn’t available to ChatGPT because it’s a copyrighted work and not published online, which means it isn’t part of the data ChatGPT was trained on .
To illustrate this point, the author performed an experiment using ChatAI to answer a parliamentary question . This resulted in having a bit of an argument with the AI as you can see below . Here is a transcript of the conversation .
Author:
Under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, can the chair and secretary of a meeting be the same person?
ChatAI:
“According to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, the chair and the secretary can be the same person However, it’s important to ensure that this does not create a conflict of interest or a situation where the responsibilities of either the chair or the secretary are compromised . If the same person is serving as both the chair and secretary, they must be careful to fulfill the duties of both positions to the best of their ability without any unfair bias or negligence . ”
Author:
What is the reference for that?
ChatAI:
“Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised states in Section 45, ‘The Role of the Secretary,’ that ‘In a small society, or when the work of the secretary is not burdensome, the presiding officer may perform the duties of the secretary .’ This implies that the chair and secretary could be the same person if necessary ”
Author:
The duties of the secretary are in section 47, not section 45
ChatAI:
“You are correct . I apologize for the error . Section 47 of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised outlines the duties of the secretary in an organization or assembly ”
Author:
What paragraph in section 47 says the president may perform some duties of the secretary?
ChatAI:
“Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, Section 47, states that ‘In the
absence of the secretary, the president, or whoever is presiding, may perform the duties of the secretary ’ This is mentioned in paragraph 3 of Section 47 . ”
Author:
No, that is not correct . Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed .), Section 47, paragraph 3, states, “ An office carries with it only the rights necessary for executing the duties of the office, and it does not deprive a member of the society of his rights as a member If a person holds an office in a society of which he is not a member and the bylaws make that officer an ex-officio member of the board, the nonmember is thereby a full-fledged board member with all the accompanying rights; but this does not make him a member of the society ”
ChatAI:
“Thank you for bringing that to my attention . You are correct, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses Section 47, paragraph 3 of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised clearly states that an office only carries with it the rights necessary for executing the duties of the office and that a person can hold an office without being a member of the society The paragraph does not specifically address whether the chair and the secretary may be the same person, but it is generally accepted that this is permissible as long as it doesn’t create a conflict of interest or interfere with the proper execution of the duties of either role ”
Author:
Using only Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed ) as your source, is there any rule that specifically says that the secretary and president of a meeting can be the same person?
ChatAI:
“Yes, there is a rule that addresses this issue . According to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition), the secretary and the president of a meeting can be the same person . However, it is generally not recommended for the same individual to hold both offices, as it can create a conflict of interest and compromise the impartiality of the presiding officer Specifically, the rule that addresses this issue is found in Article V, Officers, Section 48, ‘Secretary and Other Officers .’ The section states that ‘In small organizations, one person may hold two or more offices, except those of president and secretary or of president and treasurer’ (p 466) ”
At this point the author threw up his hands in frustration after turning to page 466 of RONR (12th ed .), noting that page covers committees, which is not even in section 48 .
In short, would you suggest to your client that they get any of their parliamentary advice by reading articles on the internet? That is where ChatGPT is getting its data . As stated by Noble Ackerson, “GPT is trained on massive amounts of text data without any inherent ability to verify the accuracy or truthfulness of the information presented in that data . ”3
Finally, AI lacks perhaps the most important quality needed for applying RONR to any given situation . This is summarized in RONR (12th ed .) 47:19 which states “…The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting . Good judgment is essential…” This good judgment must consider the assembly’s character and disposition, the chair’s experience and sophistication, and the patience and frustration level of both before deciding on the correct application of the rules in a given situation . AI just doesn’t have this judgment . Dr . Ganesan wrote, “Machines lack the common sense, adaptability, and emotional intelligence that humans have . ”1 AI does not currently have the ability to correctly advise or consult with the chair during a meeting, or even correctly answer an RONR question .
Effective ways to use ChatGPT’s amazing ability to summarize vast amounts of online information might be preparing a checklist or outline for drafting bylaws tailored to the type of organization, preparing lesson outlines, or even suggesting the wording of a resolution .
Any input from ChatGPT should be taken as a suggestion and reviewed by an experienced, professionally trained parliamentarian—for now, at least . NP
REFERENCES
1 Kavita Ganesan PhD, The Business Case For AI, Opinosis Analytics Publishing, 2022, p 51
2 Katherine Fidler, https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/29/why-does-chatgpt-keeplying-clue-it-doesnt-its-hallucinating-18862262/, retrieved March 20, 2025
3 Noble Ackerson, https://towardsdatascience.com/chatgpt-insists-i-amdead-and-the-problem-with-language-models-db5a36c22f11/, retrieved February 24, 2026
Kirby Glad, PRP, has seventeen years of parliamentary experience and thirty years of experience in the computer industry
Let’s Take Action! Original Main Motions
When students of parliamentary procedure attempt mastering the more than eighty motions in RONR (12th ed ), the basic Original Main Motion1 may not attract much attention . However, the original main motion is foundational to the work of an organization, and well-composed main motions promote meeting efficiency . While RONR states that the motion to Amend is the “keystone [emphasis added] of the power of the general membership to keep details of the direction of an organization under its control,”2 the main motion starts construction of the arch . This article highlights the important skill of crafting an excellent original main motion .
An Original Main Motion introduces a substantive question as a new subject . 3 It enables a deliberative assembly to decide on actions for the organization, making it essential to achieving the organization’s mission and vision . It is sometimes referred to as a principal motion4 or, depending on its length and complexity, a resolution . 5, 6
The ability to draft and move a main motion that is clear and concise is the responsibility of every member of an organization . 7 Motions must also be in order to be considered, and adoptable if they are to commit the
Carl Nohr, PRP
organization to the desired action . While it is principally the responsibility of the members to write main motions, they may receive assistance from a helpful presiding officer . However, it is important that they do not depend on this, since the distinction for the presiding officer between aiding a member and expressing an opinion, which could compromise the impartiality required of the chair, is subtle . Mainly, it is the responsibility of the presiding officer to rule that a motion is in order or not . Crafting an original main motion with a high degree of adoptability begins well before putting pen to paper . The mover should have a good knowledge of the organization and its mission and vision . They should also be aware of who is influential in the organization and those whose
1 RONR (12th ed ) 10
2 RONR (12th ed ) 12:3
3 RONR (12th ed ) 10:3
4 George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law, (Little, Brown and Company, 1969), p 50
5 RONR (12th ed ) 10:13
6 George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law, (Little, Brown and Company, 1969), p 51
7 Body of Knowledge, National Association of Parliamentarians
support is needed for adoption of a motion . Consulting with those who might oppose the proposed action can be an effective way to anticipate negative debate and produce a motion that will meet with less opposition . Asking supporters to speak favorably in debate is helpful . All these actions will increase the adoptability of the planned motion .
To create an excellent original main motion, begin with the desired action . This must be clear; so, the motion should be built around the precise action verb the mover wishes the organization to take (buy, sell, plan, adopt, etc .) . The object of the action can then be added (the vacant lot next door, an event, a policy, etc .) . If needed, the entity taking the proposed action, if not the entire organization, can then be included before the action . Finally, any necessary limiting details like cost or dates can be added next . These should be as precise as possible, e .g ., an exact cost ceiling or an exact date . This will produce a concise, unambiguous, and complete motion . 8 If the mover wishes to provide flexibility on a detail, a blank may be inserted into the main motion . 9 Then the members may contribute multiple suggestions for the assembly to consider . For example, the following main motion contains a verb, object and a cost ceiling, “I move that the association purchase the adjacent lot for a sum not to exceed
$5,000 . ” If the mover wishes to have the assembly make suggestions for the purchase price ceiling, the following motion may be made, “I move that the association purchase the adjacent lot for a sum not to exceed $______ . ”
It is usually inadvisable to include arguments supporting a motion within the motion itself . Some members may agree with the motion but not the reasons, and vote against . The best opportunity to present arguments favoring the motion comes when the mover is recognized first after the motion is stated by the chair . 10 Other supporters can add further reasons favoring adoption . However, if circumstances require some explanation of the background or reasons for the motion as it is introduced, the motion can take the form of a resolution, with the explanation or reasons stated in a preamble to the resolution . 11 A preamble is placed before the resolving, or action clauses of the motion, and should itself be as brief and succinct as possible . The form in this case involves placing the word “Whereas” before each clause in the preamble, and “Resolved” before each of the action clauses . 12 If the assembly wishes
8 RONR (12th ed ) 10:9
9 RONR (12th ed ) 12:92
10 RONR (12th ed ) 4:27
11 RONR (12th ed ) 10:16
12 RONR (12th ed ) 10:17-18
to amend a clause in the preamble, this is done after amending the resolving clauses . 13 In the above example, if a reason to purchase the adjacent lot were added, the motion would be, “I move that the association purchase the adjacent lot to increase parking for a sum not to exceed $5,000 . ” In most cases, unless essential to the intent of the mover, such reasons should not be included in the motion itself; these are usually better presented by the mover during debate, as described above
Motions should be written whenever possible using affirmative or positive language rather than negative words . 14 The key word to search for a negatively worded motion is “not . ” For example, a motion to “not support” an issue may be rewritten to “oppose” the issue Other effective substitutes for “not” phrases include cancel, refuse, decline, stop, withdraw and terminate . Using positive language will avoid the confusion that may be created by a negative vote on a negatively worded motion . Sometimes the negative form cannot be avoided, because rejecting a positively worded motion is not always equivalent to adopting a negatively worded proposition . 15 For example, voting down the motion, “I move that the association endorse the candidacy of Mr . Jones,” is not the equivalent of adopting the motion,
“I move that the association does not endorse the candidacy of Mr . Jones . ” Members who do not support taking a position one way or the other would vote against both motions . Members who wish to be on record as endorsing the candidacy would vote in favor of the first motion and against the second, while those who wish to be on record as not endorsing the candidate, would vote against the first motion and in favor of the second . Their wish to be on record as not endorsing the candidate cannot be met by voting down the first motion, only by adopting the second, negatively worded motion . When a negative form of a motion cannot be avoided, the chair must make a concerted effort to ensure the members understand the effect of an affirmative or negative vote
Motions should be as brief as possible . Superfluous words and punctuation should be eliminated to preserve the core meaning and intended action of a motion . Adjectives that qualify any part of a motion are best avoided, as they may distract from the motion’s purpose during debate, often prompting unnecessary amendments, and may reduce the motion’s overall adoptability . Providing
13 RONR (12th ed ) 10:19
14 RONR (12th ed ) 10:12
15 Henry M Robert, Parliamentary Law, (Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc , 1923), p 10
information in an original main motion as to how an organization could accomplish the proposed action is operational and should generally also be left out . To go back to the vacant lot purchase example considered previously, suppose the following motion was made, “I move that the nice adjacent vacant lot, ideally suited to increase parking to better support our growing staff, be purchased as soon as possible after negotiating with the present owner to obtain a price reflecting market value and less than $5,000 . ” That is forty-one compared to sixteen words! Removing adjectives, purpose, and process will focus the debate and voting on the essential question, whether to purchase the lot . When preparing an original main motion, look at every word to ensure it is needed; the best main motions contain only words that are essential to accomplish the mover’s intentions . Whether a main motion is made verbally from the floor or is written is determined by its complexity and the organization’s rules . If made verbally from the floor, the mover may simply say, “I move that…” or “I move to…”. This is satisfactory for short simple motions . Except for the simplest and briefest of motions, it is useful to write them . Thomas Jefferson uses the phrase, “Every motion shall be reduced to writing, if the Speaker or any member desires it . ”16 This
suggests that a written motion is likely to be shorter, more succinct, and hopefully less ambiguous than its spoken equivalent and provides for the authority to demand that a motion be written
For longer or complex motions, or whenever the organization’s rules require it, motions should be written as resolutions . In this case, motions may begin with the phrase, “Resolved, that…”. If the motion contains instructions to employees, the word “Ordered” is used instead of “Resolved . ”17 AIPSC18 and Demeter19 explicitly provide the presiding officer with the authority to require any motion to be submitted in writing . In electronic meetings, a specified online area, commonly the chat function, is used for this purpose . 20
Some organizations use a Resolutions Committee, particularly for a convention . Its basic purpose is to screen all original main motions not screened by some other committee . 21 Members of such a committee review motions to ensure they are in order
16 Thomas Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice, (Jonathan Phillips, 1848), p 57
17 RONR (12th ed ) 10:24
18 American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code (2nd ed .) 12:6
19 George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law, (Little, Brown and Company, 1969), p 54
20 RONR (12th ed ) Appendix, Scenario A(9 )
21 RONR (12th ed ) 59:67
and as high quality as possible . They may also sort motions according to topic for presentation, eliminate duplication, and review previously adopted motions to ensure a motion is not considered on a matter that the organization has already taken a position on . Whether the committee may change the wording of a motion or only recommend changes to the mover depends on the degree of power granted to it . 22 The limitation such a committee may place on the right of members to propose unlimited motions directly from the floor is balanced by the opportunity to improve motions and consequently increase meeting efficiency .
AIPSC refers to such committees as Reference Committees, and devotes a chapter to describing their composition, procedures, and reporting . 23 While such a committee can be an asset in studying and improving original main motions, members should realize they retain the authority and responsibility to decide each motion, regardless of any recommendation by the Reference Committee . When teaching how to write original main motions, the familiar six questions of news writing are useful: who, what, when, where, why, and how . What is the action, the most important question . Who, when, where, and how should be left out if possible but may sometimes be
needed . Why is debate and should be relegated to the mover’s comments after the motion is stated by the chair, and the mover is recognized to speak .
Table 1 lists those characteristics of an original main motion that would render it not in order . 24 Two exemptions should be noted . Proposed bylaw amendments are exempted from the prohibition against a main motion that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted . 25 This is necessary so that conflicting bylaw amendments for which notice was given may all be considered . Also, an assembly may consider a motion that proposes action outside the scope of the organization’s object if the consideration is supported by a two-thirds vote . 26
Table 2 provides a helpful checklist that can be used to train inexperienced members on framing excellent motions . To conclude, developing the ability to compose excellent original main motions will enhance the members’ opportunity to get their organization to do what they want, increase everyone’s satisfaction with meetings, and fulfill the democratic purpose of a deliberative assembly .
22 RONR (12th ed .) 59:74
23 American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code (2nd ed ), ch 25
24 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26
25 RONR (12th ed ) 57:1(4)
26 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26(2)
Table 1. Characteristics of an original main motion that render it not in order
A motion is not in order if it:
• employs language not allowed in debate . 27
• is dilatory in any way . 28
• reaffirms a previous position . 29
• proposes refraining from taking an action . 30
• contravenes procedural rules prescribed by law in the relevant jurisdiction . 31
• conflicts with the charter, constitution, or bylaws . 32
• is outside the scope of the organization’s object . 33
• presents the same question as a motion finally disposed of in the same session 34
• conflicts with a motion previously adopted at any time . 35
• presents the same question as a motion temporarily disposed of by:36
° referral to a committee . 37
° making it an order for a later time 38
° laying it on the table . 39
° making it the subject of a motion to reconsider . 40
27 RONR (12th ed .) 10:9
28 RONR (12th ed .) 39:3
29 RONR (12th ed .) 10:10
30 RONR (12th ed .) 10:11
31 RONR (12th ed .) 10:26(1))
32 RONR (12th ed .) 10:26(1)
33 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26(2)
34 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26(3)
35 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26(4)
36 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26(5)
37 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26(5)(a)
38 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26(5)(b)
39 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26(5)(c)
40 RONR (12th ed ) 10:26(5)(d)
Table 2. Original Main Motion Checklist
Is it compliant with the bylaws?
Is it within the scope of the object of the organization?
Does it further the mission of the organization?
Is it something the association can do?
Does it propose a new action for the organization?
Is it compliant with jurisdictional procedural law?
Is it not dilatory?
Is it unambiguous?
Is it expressed in the positive?
Is it as brief as possible?
Is it safe to debate and vote on?
Will it accomplish the intended purpose?
Are there other delegates or constituents who could improve the motion?
Who will oppose it, and what can be done to gain their support?
Carl Nohr, PRP, joined NAP in 2013 and became a PRP in 2018 He has served as a director, chair, vice chair, secretary and speaker for several associations He has served in NAP as a director-at-large and vice president . He is a student of good governance, meeting management, and professional presiding, and loves to share his knowledge and experiences through workshops and articles
Follow Us On
https://twitter .com/ napparlypro
https://fb .com/ parliamentarians/
August 26-30, 2026 • Birmingham, AL
Ignite the Magic: Honoring Our Legacy, Inspiring Our Future
Join us for a conference experience that blends professional growth and Southern charm, with excellent educational sessions and practice labs in a historic setting. Forge new friendships and renew old ones.
Hyatt Regency Birmingham –The Wynfrey Hotel
2026 National Training Conference
August 26-30, 2026 • Birmingham, AL
Experience Birmingham.
In 2026, NAP heads to Birmingham—and our host hotel is directly connected to the Riverchase Galleria, one of the Southeast’s premier shopping and dining destinations. Step out of your session and into dozens of restaurants, cafés, and retail shops, all without leaving the property.
Beyond the hotel, Birmingham offers:
• The powerful Civil Rights District and Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
• Vulcan Park’s panoramic city views
• Award-winning Southern cuisine and legendary barbecue
• Railroad Park’s scenic green space
• Boutique shopping and charming neighborhoods nearby
This is the kind of city you will want to experience—not rush through.
Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
Photo by Leah J. Holder Wiggins,
Connect. Learn. Lead.
Join parliamentarians and leaders from across the country for a weekend of education, networking, and inspiration—all under one spectacular roof. Conference sessions begin promptly at 8:00 a.m. Friday, so plan to arrive Thursday, get settled, and start refreshed.
Bring your spouse. Extend your stay. Make it a weekend.
Stay through Saturday night to fully enjoy the weekend atmosphere and join us for a special Sunday morning closing event you will not want to miss. Wrap up your conference experience on Sunday morning with a special farewell breakfast, featuring an inspiring keynote speaker. It’s the perfect way to connect, reflect, and celebrate the weekend together—plan to stay through the final event!
August 26-30, 2026 • Birmingham, AL
Registration opening soon!
Watch your email for official announcements.
Full details will be posted at: www.parliamentarians.org/2026-ntc/
Registration Fees
Full Conference registration fee includes admission to all business meetings and educational sessions, as well as breakfast Friday to Sunday and Lunch Friday to Saturday. Tickets for the NAPEF gala dinner are also available on the registration web page for $140/person.
PHOTOGRAPHY POLICY
By registering for this event, participants agree to allow NAP, NAP divisions and NAPEF to use conference photographs, video footage, and their names for NAP promotional activities . You may opt out of being photographed by notifying NAP in writing at hq@nap2 .org at least one day prior to the opening of the event Photographs and videos taken in large group settings, such as general sessions or workshop audiences, etc , are not governed by this exemption
NAPEF
2026 FUNDRAISER
Saturday, August 29, 2026
The NAP Educational Foundation (NAPEF) is a charitable organization that raises funds to support NAP’s efforts to develop, promote, and provide educational content and programs that will enhance the parliamentary profession. NAPEF also provides scholarships to students and young professionals that fund annual membership dues and other fees.
The theme for the gala dinner is A Day in the Life of Henry M. Robert III. Tickets are $140/person.
Join the NAP Educational Foundation for an evening of fun and fellowship while supporting the Foundation.
Sign up for the NAPEF Fundraiser when you register for the Conference.
See you there!
Learning from Mistakes
Beverly Przybylski, PRP
Scenario #1
Two years ago, the club unanimously adopted a brand-new set of bylaws because the original set had vanished . The new bylaws were prepared by a committee authorized to do so, and notice had been given at the previous regular meeting . The mystery of the lost bylaws was solved subsequently when a member unearthed a 20-year-old version of the lost bylaws The find has raised some eyebrows: the old rules outline a different leadership structure, strict term limits, and dues that are higher than what members pay today . Did we make a mistake? Can we learn from this?
Scenario #2
Our president never uses an agenda, making it difficult to follow the order of business . Is there a requirement for a written agenda to be distributed to members? Is the president making a mistake? Can we learn from this?
Scenario #3
At our last meeting a motion was adopted to confer the title of “honorary member” upon a distinguished, long-term member for her extensive contributions . However, a review of the bylaws contain no provisions for honorary member status . Did we make a mistake? Can we learn from this?
Answers are on page 32.
Beverly Przybylski, PRP, began studying parliamentary procedure when she was faced with taking on a leadership role in a large organization She joined NAP in 2007 and has been a PRP since 2011 . She serves local, state, national, and international organizations as a parliamentarian, bylaws consultant, and presiding officer She recently completed two terms as president of the Oregon Association of Parliamentarians and now serves as treasurer She has served two terms as president of the Rose City Unit of Parliamentarians and presently serves as the secretary/treasurer She also serves on the board of the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians as the MAL representative
&Questions Answers
The intent of this column is to provide general answers or advice (not formal, official opinions) about the questions asked . The answers are based on the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, unless otherwise indicated, and do not take into account such governing authorities as statutes, bylaws, adopted special rules of order, other parliamentary authorities, or earlier editions, except as specifically mentioned . The abbreviations used in these questions and answers are explained in National Parliamentarian, Vol . 87, No . 1, Fall 2025, p . 17 .
Questions should be e-mailed to npquestions@nap2.org.
The Role of the Parliamentarian at a Virtual Meeting
QQUESTION
I serve on the board of a large non-profit corporation that conducts its meetings virtually. According to this organization, “the role of the parliamentarian at a meeting is to…assist the chair in the conduct of the meeting. The parliamentarian sits adjacent to the chair and gives the chair help, guidance, and support during the meeting.”
The parliamentarian often interrupts board meetings by calling out “point of order” to inform the board that proper procedure is not being followed and who repeatedly raises his hand to argue his parliamentary point of view with the board membership.
How would the requirement that the parliamentarian “sit adjacent to the chair” work at a Zoom meeting?
What can be done to correct the parliamentarian’s conduct?
ANSWER
Obviously, it is impossible for the parliamentarian to sit physically adjacent to the chair at a Zoom meeting . There are a variety of means to circumvent this problem . Consider the following three suggestions:
1 . Zoom offers a chat capability that can be used to accommodate a private written conversation between the chair and the parliamentarian .
2 . The chair can instruct the assembly to stand at ease while the two conduct a telephone conversation offline .
3 . The Zoom host can arrange a breakout room into which only the two can enter . “The parliamentarian’s role during a meeting is purely an advisory and consultive one—since parliamentary law gives to the chair alone the power to rule on questions of order or to answer parliamentary inquiries . ” RONR (12th ed .) 47:46 .
continued
&Questions Answers
The president, knowing in advance the business to come before the assembly, should confer with the parliamentarian before the meetings opens, and during recesses, in order to anticipate any problems that may arise and to avoid, as much as possible, frequent consultations during the meetings . ” 47:49 .
“During a meeting the work of a parliamentarian should be limited to giving advice to the chair and, when requested, to any other member . It is also the duty of the parliamentarian—as inconspicuously as possible—to call the attention of the chair to any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or may otherwise do harm . ” 47:50 .
“An experienced parliamentarian will often see a problem developing and be able to head it off with a few words to the chair . ” 47:51 .
“Only on the most involved matters should the parliamentarian actually be called upon to speak to the assembly; and the practice should be avoided if at all possible . ” 47:52 .
“After the parliamentarian has expressed an opinion [to the chair] on a point, the chair has the duty to make the final ruling and, in doing so, has the right to follow the advice of the parliamentarian or to disregard it . ” 47:54 .
“A member of the organization who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote…If a member feels he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept the position . ” 47:55 .
It is the duty of the presiding officer “to enforce the rules relating to debate and those relating to order and decorum within the assembly . ” 47:7(6) . A parliamentarian who is not a member of the organization has no rights of membership, including the rights to make motions and speak in debate . 1:4 . Only members can make a Point of Order, an incidental motion, followed by the chair’s recognition of the member to state his point of order . 23:12-14 . Doing so constitutes a breach of the rules . It is therefore incumbent upon the presiding officer to refuse recognition of that parliamentarian and ask that he be seated and refrain from the future making of this or any other motion . The presiding officer can do this discretely by allowing the assembly to stand at ease while he consults with the parliamentarian . Furthermore, it is the right of every member who notices a breach of the rules to insist on their enforcement . If the chair notices a breach, he corrects the matter immediately; but if he fails to do so—through oversight or otherwise—any member can make the appropriate Point of Order . 23:3 .
Therefore, a parliamentarian is obliged to speak only to and through the chair, act inconspicuously, maintain impartiality, and refrain from engaging in debate .
&Questions Answers
It is the chair’s responsibility to be aware of the parliamentarian’s duties and restrictions and to call him to order when necessary . If the parliamentarian is a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians or the American Institute of Parliamentarians, it is his duty to comply with Rules 4 .5 and 4 .6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians (Initially Adopted 2001, Revised and Renamed 2020) . Should the parliamentarian fail to meet the functional and ethical expectations of his position, it is advised that the organization pursue his removal and replacement .
Notice of Intent/Previous Notice
QQUESTION
The state’s Open Meetings Law precludes any spontaneous New Business on the agenda for meetings of the Town Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, the individual supervisors are uninformed as to how to use Notice of Intent/ Previous Notice to initiate subjects for future discussion. Research has revealed a total lack of information on this subject. I would appreciate comments from the Research Team, including specific examples of language one could use when communicating with the secretary or other persons involved in drafting both the minutes and/or the agenda.
ANSWER
“A society may follow the order of business given in the manual that the bylaws of the organization designate as its parliamentary authority, or it may have adopted its own particular order of business . RONR (12th ed .) 3:16 According to RONR, the order of business regarded as usual or standard for one-meeting sessions lists New Business as the last item of business . “Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of an assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law and would be null and void if in violation of such law . ” 1:5 . In this case, because the state’s Open Meetings Law precludes any spontaneous New Business on the meeting agenda of the Town Board of Supervisors, the requirement arises to use Notice of Intent/Previous Notice to initiate new business .
“A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced…must be included in the call of the meeting…at which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible alternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval…will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announcement must be made at the preceding meeting . ” 10:44 .
“Subject to any rules of the organization that provide how notice shall be given, it can be given as follows:” 10:46 .
continued
&Questions Answers
“If previous notice is given at a meeting, it can be given orally unless the rules of the organization require it to be in writing . Unless the rules require the full text of the motion, resolution, or bylaw amendment to be submitted in the notice, only the purport need be indicated; but such a statement of purport must be accurate and complete . ” 10:47 .
“A notice can be given and taken note of in a meeting as follows:
MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I give notice that at the next meeting I will move to rescind the resolution adopted April 17, 20__, relating to…
CHAIR: Notice has been given that at the next meeting … [repeating the substance of the notice] . 10:49 .
The secretary then records the notice in the minutes . ” 10:50 .
“Instead of being given at a meeting, a notice can also be sent to every member with the call of the meeting at which the matter is to come up for action, in cases where there is a duty or established custom of issuing such a call . In such cases the member desiring to give the notice writes to the secretary alone, requesting that the notice be sent with the call of the next meeting, and the secretary then does this at the expense of the society . ” 10:51 .
A General Order is any question which…has been made an order of the day without being made a special order . 41:22 . By virtue of its previous notice to be taken up at the next meeting, the motion may be listed in the order of business either under General Orders or Special Orders .
Best Practices
QQUESTIONS
1. Is (the heading) NEW BUSINESS included in the minutes even if there was no new business at the meeting?
2. §41:35 states after the completion of new business…necessary announcements can be made by either officers or members. And the chair may make an urgent announcement at any time. Are announcements regularly included in the minutes? If yes, at what location?
3. What if after the approval of the minutes, a motion is made to change the order of headings (or paragraphs) in the minutes, e.g., to place announcements before adjournment? This is not a correction. How is this handled? Is this a main motion? Is this motion in order? What vote would this motion require?
ANSWERS
1 . The topic New Business is included under the Order of Business to allow members the opportunity of initiating new matters for consideration at the
continued
&Questions Answers
meeting . RONR (12th ed .) 3:16 The body of the minutes may or may not contain headers; it should contain a separate paragraph for each subject matter, and should show:
a . All main motions or motions to bring a main motion again before the assembly that were made or taken up stating the wording in which each motion was adopted or otherwise disposed of and the disposition of the motion .
b . Secondary motions that were not lost or withdrawn, in cases where it is necessary to record them for completeness or clarity . 48:4 .
Therefore, the heading New Business is not included in the minutes when there was no new business to come before the assembly at the meeting .
See the illustrated model form for minutes . 48:8 .
2 . Whereas Announcements are not considered required contents in the minutes (§48), it is advisable to include important announcements . These announcements are crucial to keeping all members informed about significant developments or changes that affect the organization . Including these announcements ensures that everyone is aware of what is happening within the organization and helps maintain transparency and communication . General announcements by the chair and guests may be listed under one heading in the meeting agenda; the agenda should be used by the secretary as a guide in writing the minutes .
It is suggested that announcements be listed in the place and order they were made at the meeting .
3 . “If the existence of an error or material omission in the minutes becomes reasonably established after their approval—even years later—the minutes can then be corrected by means of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which requires a two-thirds vote, or a majority vote with notice, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent . ” 48:15 . It is advised that minor errors, such as grammatical errors or formatting changes, be handled by the procedure of unanimous consent .
Questions & Answers Research Team
Ronald Dupart, PRP, Chair
Rosalie Stroman, PRP
Al Gage, PRP, Parliamentarian
Answer Key
Learning from Mistakes from page 26
Answer #1
No mistake was made . After notice, the unanimous adoption of the new bylaws prepared by an authorized committee constituted a valid revision that effectively replaced the old ones . To avoid future issues, the secretary should maintain the official archives, and the club should ensure every member receives a copy as a standard right of membership . RONR (12th ed .) 57:5 and 47:32-33 .
Answer #2
According to RONR (12th ed .) 3:16 and 41:5, your organization already has a “standard order of business” that acts as a default agenda . A simplified order of business is also found on page 13 of RONR In Brief (3rd ed .) . To make a printed copy a permanent requirement, propose a standing rule requiring its distribution before meetings .
Answer #3
Because the bylaws are silent on the matter, the motion was technically not in order . “If there are to be honorary officers or honorary members, they must be authorized by the bylaws . ” RONR (12th ed .) 47:42 . To rectify this, first amend the bylaws to establish an honorary member category and then adopt a new motion During the amendment process, it is wise to specify any associated perks (e .g ., dues exemptions) or any limitations (e .g ., removing the right to make motions or vote) .
Rooted in Legacy, Igniting Our Future:
The Work of the NAP Communications Committee
As the 2025–2027 biennium progresses under President Mona Calhoun’s leadership, the Communications Committee remains actively engaged in advancing its work, firmly grounded in the legacy of the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) and guided by the president’s theme, Rooted in Legacy, Igniting Our Future . Clear, consistent, and purposeful communication plays a central role in advancing NAP’s mission and strengthening its visibility as a professional organization . Accordingly, the committee’s work is rooted in the NAP Bylaws and the National Association of Parliamentarians Operational Policies and Procedures (NAPOPP), with a vision that emphasizes streamlined, coordinated communication and serves both internal and external audiences . Internally, the focus is on ensuring that members receive timely, accurate, and relevant information through established channels . Externally, the committee seeks to reinforce NAP’s branding as a globally recognized premier provider of parliamentary leadership and education . Launching weekly Parliamentary Tips in January (shared on social media and included in the Monthly Member Update) marked a step toward advancing parliamentary
education in accessible, practical, and visible ways . These tips highlight parliamentary principles, reinforce best practices, and promote ongoing learning for members and the broader public . As part of its foundational work early in the biennium, the Communications Committee is developing updated communications guidelines and a comprehensive social media policy . These documents are intended to provide clarity, consistency, and practical guidance for leaders and volunteers involved in communications throughout NAP They are in the final stages of review by NAP leadership . Collaboration is essential to achieving communication goals . During this biennium, the Communications Committee is working closely with other branches of the national body, including the national officers, the Professional Development Committee, the Educational Resources Committee, the Pricing Committee, and the Commission on Credentialing . This coordination ensures that information about educational programs, credentialing, pricing, and professional development opportunities is communicated clearly, consistently, and effectively . By reaching both the membership and, when appropriate, the public, these efforts strengthen
partnerships and support continued membership growth . The Communications Committee reflects the breadth and depth of NAP’s membership and experience . The committee includes Cherise Story, PRP, Chair (Texas); Todd Brand, PRP (Canada); Donald Garrett, PRP (Virginia); Marsha McFadden, PRP (Hawaii); Beverly Przybylski, PRP (Oregon); and Cynthia “Rena” Ramsey (Alabama) . The committee is supported by C .J . Cavin, PRP, NAP Vice President and Board Liaison, and Dane Peterson, Staff Liaison . This
diversity of experience strengthens the committee’s ability to meet NAP’s communications needs while remaining firmly aligned with governance requirements and organizational priorities . Rooted in NAP’s legacy and guided by its bylaws and policies, the Communications Committee looks forward to supporting President Calhoun’s vision by delivering clear, educational, and mission-driven communications that inform members, engage the public, and help ignite NAP’s future .
NAP is approaching a historic milestone— 100 years in 2030!
100TH Anniversary Celebration
The 100th Anniversary Celebration Committee is officially underway and wants to hear from you!
Scan the QR code or use the following address to help us shape a celebration worthy of this legacy by submitting your ideas.
www.parliamentarians.org/100ideas/
NEW REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS*
NAP congratulates the following members for attaining the status of Registered Parliamentarian:
Scott Blackford (BC)
Willie Byrd (GA)
Kevin Gardner (FL)
Andrew Gerst (DC)
Carly Wells (OK)
NEW PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED PARLIAMENTARIANS*
NAP congratulates the following members for attaining the status of Professional Registered Parliamentarians:
John Bieker (BC)
SILENT GAVELS*
Kimberly Fisher-Alexander (MI)
NAP remembers our members who have passed from our midst; may they rest in peace:
John Tatum, PRP (DC)
NEW MEMBERS*
Nicholas Agao (HI)
Randal Allen (FL)
Kathy Amery (AZ)
John Andrews (TX)
Janet Ballantyne (CO)
Hanieh Berg (BC)
Rachael Bliss (NC)
Sidney Brown (AL)
Venus Brown (MI)
Allison Clock (VA)
Ronnie Collins (PA)
Angela Crawford (PA)
Amanda Crunk (PA)
Jacqueline Curtis (NC)
Keith Darby (IL)
NAP welcomes our new members:
Sherry Davis Tucker (AL)
Maria DiGiovanni (NJ)
Tucker Dortch (FL)
Kathy Dupuy-Bruno (FL)
Emma Dvorak (MA)
Barbara Elliott Kirkland (SC)
Vicky Fannaly (LA)
Kimberly Fanniff (NY)
Edwina Floyd (GA)
Sharon Franklin Mallory (VA)
Amelia French (DC)
John Glidden (CA)
Candice Golden (WA)
Justice Graves (MA)
Jonathon Hauenschild (VA)
Lula Hicks (VA)
Jodie Holder (CO)
Bettie Jarvis (NJ)
LaToya Jeeter (SC)
Floyd Jernigan (MO)
Rohit Joy (TX)
Joy Layton (MS)
Tanai Lobban (IL)
Marilyn Martin (BC)
Deagan Martinsen (WA)
Denise Matthews (NC)
Jacquelyn McClinton (MI)
Tristan McKay (MI)
Chieyen Meachem (MD)
Tanisha Mitchell (VA)
* For the period November 3, 2025 through January 31, 2026
NEW MEMBERS* (CONTINUED)
Gail Morgan (GA)
August Murray (NEAP)
Margaret Negrelli (NY)
Ferlanda Nixon (NJ)
Lacie Olivieri (AK)
Ruth Ann Paige (NJ)
Devin Palmer (OH)
Amy Parker (CA)
Gwendolyn Patrick (SC)
John Puskar (PA)
Sera Rothermal (AZ)
Kristin Schall (NY)
Donna Schmitt (SC)
Timothy Snyder (TN)
Colleen Spears (TN)
Gary Stahlberg (GA)
Kaylyn Stevenson (SC)
Jacquelene Stewart (IL)
Adam Striker (WI)
Virginia Tate (IL)
Dont’a Taylor (IL)
Elsa Thompson (FL)
Karen Threlkeld (AL)
Tiffany Vinson (AL)
Niquela Wallace (DC)
Valerie Ward (FL)
Minervah Wathke (KS)
Cheryl Weaver (PA)
Lem Wheeles (AK)
Tynisha Williams (FL)
Thank you instructors!
A special thank you to the instructors of the aforementioned new members:
Kay Crews, PRP
Deborah Underwood, PRP We Want You!
* For the period November 3, 2025 through January 31, 2026
In our article “NAP History 2023-2025,” National Parliamentarian® 87, no 1 (Fall 2025), we note the following correction:
p . 31, in the first column under the heading “New Units:” add
• Virginia: The NOVA Gavel Unit of Parliamentarians
We apologize for this error
Parliamentary Resources at Your Fingertips
There is only one place to turn for your parliamentary resources: NAP.
Browse our online store for
• Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and In Brief –we offer spiral-bound versions not available anywhere else!
