As it Pertains to Seeking Chapter Endorsements According to Article XXI of the National Bylaws
2/9/2025 | Martha Laird Recording Secretary sends email to the Texas State Regent asking to meet or speak on the phone to gain a better understanding of why the NBM rejected the Martha Laird proposal in anticipation of drafting a new proposal. Received no response.
2/27/2025 | Martha Laird Recording Secretary sends email to the Texas State Regent asking for advice on protocol as it pertains to seeking chapter endorsements according to Article XXI of the National Bylaws. Received no response.
3/9/2025 | Martha Laird Recording Secretary re-sends email to the Texas State Regent asking for advice on protocol as it pertains to seeking chapter endorsements according to Article XXI of the National Bylaws. Received no response.
3/9/2025 | Martha Laird Recording Secretary sends email to the National Parliamentarian (Texas State Regent copied on email) asking for advice on protocol as it pertains to seeking chapter endorsements according to Article XXI of the National Bylaws.
Received response on 3/28/2025 – some questions answered, some deferred to Texas State Society.
3/18/2025 | Texas State Regent sends mass email to all Texas Daughters. This email clarifies the role of regents but also, it seems erroneously, gives advice for members to “Consider tabling any proposal to join with those advocating for a bylaw change on this issue while your chapter thoroughly examines the facts.” See below for more information on this.
3/27/2025 | Martha Laird Recording Secretary sends email to the Texas State Parliamentarian (Texas State Regent copied on email) asking for advice on protocol as it pertains to seeking chapter endorsements according to Article XXI of the National Bylaws. Received response on 3/28/2025 deferring to National Parliamentarian.
3/28/2025 | Martha Laird Recording Secretary sends email to the Texas State Parliamentarian and Texas State Regent for answers to questions deferred to the Texas State Society by the National Parliamentarian. Received response on 3/28/2025 from Texas State Parliamentarian.
Received response from Texas State Regent on 3/29/2025.
Below are the questions asked (in bold) and answers received (in italics). Some questions may have been answered by one or more state or national officer. I have added additional commentary (in bold, italics) to answers I feel I can provide additional clarity when the answers received are somewhat vague…
Q1. Hundreds of members have expressed a desire to present our proposal to their chapter as a motion to endorse the proposal. Many of these members and chapter regents have been told that they cannot present this to their chapter without first getting permission at the state and/or national level. Is this true? If so, please provide the text that delineates this either in the National Bylaws or the Handbook. If it’s not true, why are members being told this? Please provide clarity as to how members are to seek chapter endorsements according to Article XXI of the National Bylaws without threat of violating the Circularization Policy.
A1. Possibly, because of the National circularization policy and National standing rules. States may have similar policies or rules to which the state parliamentarian will be able to assist you. -B. Przybylski (National Parliamentarian)
A1: Any chapter member (not an Associate Member) may make a motion. This includes a motion to endorse a bylaw recommendation. The motion would require a second, debate, and a vote. -S. Tillman (Texas State Parliamentarian)
The Texas State Regent responded: Thank you, Mrs. Tillman, for your answers. I hope Ms. McDonald has acknowledged receipt of your email and corrected her erroneous assumptions about parliamentary procedure.
Since neither the National Parliamentarian nor the Texas State Parliamentarian provided clarity as to how members are to seek chapter endorsements according to Article XXI of the National Bylaws without threat of violating the Circularization Policy and since it was asked but not answered, we should assume that presenting this legitimate proposal, whether verbally, via email, or in physical form to seek chapter endorsements according to Article XXI of the National Bylaws is not a violation of the Circularization Policy. Again, you can see our good faith efforts to seek clarity on this very serious question. Further, the Texas State Regent confirms that this is an “erroneous assumption.”
Q2. Members have been told that talking to other members about this proposal violates the Circularization Policy found in the Standing Rules at the back of the National Bylaws and also found in the Handbook. Is this true? If so, please advise as to how members should seek chapter endorsements according to Article XXI of the National Bylaws.
A2. There are no rules in the National Bylaws against members having general conversations. The National Board of Management decides whether a member has violated the circularization policy. -B. Przybylski (National Parliamentarian, March 28, 2025).
Q3. My understanding is that regents at the chapter and state level are to remain neutral in these types of circumstances. Can you offer clarity on this?
A3. During a meeting, while a motion is being debated, the presiding officer remains impartial. -B. Przybylski (National Parliamentarian)
A3: While regents should maintain impartiality, they have a duty to ensure members understand both sides of any issue. For informed decision-making, all members deserve to know the complete picture. -S. Johnston (Texas State Regent)
Q4. What are chapters to do if the chapter adopts the motion to endorse the proposal, but the regent and/or recording secretary refuses to sign the endorsement?
***The National Parliamentarian, deferred to advice given by a State Parliamentarian***
A4. Robert’s Rules of Order, 12th Edition, Section 47.7 states, in part, that a duty of the presiding officer includes authenticating by her signature, when necessary, all acts, orders, and proceedings of the assembly. It is my opinion that the request for the Regent’s signature on the proposed resolution is simply an authentication/affirmation of the action taken by the Chapter and is not a representation of the Regent’s personal opinion. It is my opinion that the same holds true for the Secretary as she is the custodian of the records.
March 18, 2025, the Texas State Regent sent the following in an email to all Texas Daughters:
“Consider tabling any proposal to join with those advocating for a bylaw change on this issue while your chapter thoroughly examines the facts.”
HOWEVER, Roberts Rules of Order § 17 LAY ON THE TABLE
(To interrupt the pending business so as to permit doing something else immediately)
17:1 The motion to Lay on the Table enables the assembly to lay the pending question aside temporarily when something else of immediate urgency has arisen or when something else needs to be addressed before consideration of the pending question is resumed, in such a way that:
• There is no set time for taking the matter up again;
• But (until the expiration of time limits explained in 17:8) its consideration can be resumed at the will of a majority and in preference to any new questions that may then be competing with it for consideration.
This motion is commonly misused in ordinary assemblies-in place of a motion to Postpone Indefinitely (11), a motion to Postpone to a Certain Time (14), or other motions. Particularly in such misuses, it also is known as a motion “to table.”
17:2 By adopting the motion to Lay on the Table, a majority has the power to halt consideration of a question immediately without debate. Such action violates the rights of the minority and individual members if it is for any other purpose than the one stated in the first sentence of this section. In ordinary assemblies, the motion to Lay on the Table is not in order if the evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure. If a time for resuming consideration is specified in making the motion, it can be admitted only as a motion to Postpone (14), in which case it is debatable (see also 17:13-19).
The NSDAR Handbook also confirms this under Miscellaneous Parliamentary Points
The motion to Lay on the Table should not be used with the idea of killing a question. It should be used only to dispose of a question temporarily which it may propose later to Take from the Table. This motion is properly used if business is pending when the hour for an address arrives or added information is needed before intelligent action is possible and it is not possible to ascertain the exact time to return to the question before the assembly. If the time is certain, the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time should be used. Example: “I move to postpone the question until after the address.” To permanently dispose of a question without a direct vote on the question, a motion may be made to Postpone Indefinitely.