When people find out that I hold the designation of a “Registered Parliamentarian”, they do one of a few things: They may change the subject of the conversation, or they may quickly find someone else to talk to, or they may ask me what it’s like to work in a parliament or legislative assembly. For the sake of clarity, let me explain what a Registered Parliamentarian is.

Indeed, the term “parliamentarian” can be confusing and misleading. I prefer the term “an expert on meeting procedures” or “an expert on rules of order”. Outside the context of parliaments or legislative assemblies, parliamentarians are individuals who study parliamentary procedure, i.e.: procedures used in formal meetings. Some parliamentarians go beyond studying and develop a part time hobby of serving as advisors on meeting procedures. Some very odd individuals (like me) make a living in this field. Interestingly, what I often do – in addition to offering procedural interpretations and advice - is “rescue organizations from procedural nonsense”. I find it absolutely exciting to help shift the focus from the technical and sometimes meaningless rules to the core principles behind them.

There are two significant organizations of parliamentarians in North America: One is the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP, with about 4000 members). It focuses exclusively on Robert’s Rules of Order as its “bible”. After rigorous testing on Robert’s Rules, NAP awards the designation of a “Registered Parliamentarian”. The second organization is the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP, with about 800 members). It focuses on several parliamentary books (Robert. Sturgis, Demeter), and – after testing on various books – awards the designation of a “Certified Parliamentarian”. Both organizations have a higher professional designation, e.g.: Professional Registered Parliamentarian. For more on the above organizations, phone 1-888-627-2929 (NAP) or 1-888-664-0428 (AIP).

So what specifically does a practicing parliamentarian do? The individual may serve as a procedural advisor during a large meeting (e.g.: an annual general meeting of an association, public company, credit union, condominium, etc.), or serve as an impartial Chair at a contentious meeting, or write professional parliamentary opinions, or lead workshops. A parliamentarian may also offer advice on nominations and elections, minute taking standards, and organizational and governance structures.

Although the origins of my consulting practice in 1984 were purely as a parliamentary expert, I found out very quickly that the answers to organizational problems did not all rest in a procedural book like Robert’s Rules of Order. There is a real risk when a professional parliamentarian relies too heavily on the book and pays no attention to the client’s reality. Example? If people ask me: “What do we do if we don’t have a quorum in a meeting?” I can give the purely technical advice “You can adjourn the meeting, or take a recess, or take measures to obtain a quorum”. But, with a holistic approach, I may also ask: “Why are you having difficulties getting a quorum to attend your meetings? Why is the level of interest in the organization and its decision making processes low? What can be done to boost member commitment and create interesting and well-focused meetings that no one will want to miss?” The answers to these questions cannot be found in books on parliamentary procedure.

Without a holistic approach and with an exclusive reliance on rules of order, a parliamentarian's advice is likely to provide limited value. I am reminded of the story of a couple that was lost while traveling around the world in a hot-air balloon. Seeing a man on the ground they shouted: “Where are we?” The man shouted back: “You’re in a hot air balloon”. After the initial shock and disbelief at the man’s answer, the woman inside the balloon turned to her husband and said: “This man must be a parliamentarian”. “And how did you reach this conclusion?” asked her husband. To which the woman replied decisively: “The advice he gave us was 100% accurate, but also 100% useless”.