Rob Elsman

"...in writing..." RONR (12th ed.) 32:5.

The resignation really ought to be submitted to the secretary of the electing assembly in writing. Unless something else is provided in the bylaws, the resignation must be accepted by the electing assembly. This is done by adopting the motion, Request to be Excused from a Duty, by majority vote. See RONR (12th ed.) §32. The member may withdraw his resignation without the permission of the assembly until the chair has stated the question on the adoption of the motion to accept the resignation; thereafter, the assembly's permission is required.

Don't be so sure. "We" get to debate and amend the proposed agenda before "we" vote to adopt or reject it. What "we" finally agree upon may look nothing like what is being prepared.

Yes, I agree with J.J. that each intervening item of business can be laid on the table when it is called up. The advantage is that each intervening item of business can be temporarily disposed of by a majority vote; the disadvantage is that the process may be inconvenient and time-consuming if there are quite a number of intervening items of business .

If the assembly has an established order of business, the adoption of a non-conforming agenda requires a two-thirds vote, since the adoption of the main motion has the effect of suspending the rules. RONR (12th ed.) 10:8(7)(b).

The proper motion to take up an item of business ahead of its assigned place in the established order of business is the incidental motion, Suspend the Rules: "Mr. President, I move to suspend the rules that interfere with the immediate consideration of [...]." This motion is not debatable and requires a two-thirds vote for adoption. See RONR (12th ed.) §25.

Members cannot be compelled to vote; nevertheless, there is a duty to vote when a member is able to form a judgment on the advisability of doing what the motion proposes.

As St. Lawrence is reputed to have said on the gridiron, "You can turn me over--I'm done on this side."

Nothing in RONR (12 ed.) prohibits motions from being voted on, provided 1) the call of the meeting has been properly sent to each member a reasonable time in advance; and 2) there is a quorum at the time the vote is taken; and 3) any required previous notice of the motion has been properly given.

In the back of RONR (12th ed.), there is an appendix, "Sample Rules for Electronic Meetings". These are not intended to be binding on societies that have adopted the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as their parliamentary authority, but they may be useful as guides for crafting special rules of order for those societies that authorize electronic meetings in their bylaws.

There is no such book put out by the Roberts Rules Association or the authorship team of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th ed.

I am with Mr. Martin in wondering whether I understand the facts. If nothing has changed since the first motion, then I would guess no additional motion is needed at all. On the other hand, if something has changed since the first motion, then the motion I previously mentioned is the one you want. I am instinctively guessing the latter is the case, but this is going to require some study of the book to see what is actually the proper route.

Assuming that such a project is not so far along that it is irretrievably "set in stone" (pardon the pun), the motion, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted can be adopted to change the text of the previously adopted motion. The motion will require a majority vote for adoption if previous notice of the motion has been properly given; otherwise, it will require either a two-thirds vote or a vote of the majority of the entire membership. See RONR (12th ed.) §35 for all the details about this motion.

Churches are often governed by muscular sets of their own laws, so I can well image that the proper rules for voting might be found there. As far as RONR (12th ed.) is controlling, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that voting is limited to members who are actually present in the one room or area where the meeting is being held. This principle would preclude people from voting before the meeting is even held. As an aside, it is hard for me to imagine how this is done. How does one vote on a question until the question has been fully subject to modification? It seems to me possible--even likely--that the "pre-voters" will vote on different questions than the questions that actually get put to a vote during the meeting.

Were Mr. Mervosh with us, he would remind us that there is not a Robert's Rules Police Force (known as an RRPF in law enforcement 😉). Assuming that the members of this board are elected, I would assume that the board is working just the way that the electors want it to; otherwise, they would have elected different members who are more competent. This being so, the path to improvement is straightforward--the organization can be more discerning about who is elected to the board in future elections.