Rob Elsman

I have to wonder on what basis of authority did the Executive Board appoint this committee. Ordinarily, I would have expected the convention to appoint such a committee.

If the president is not a voting member, he may not vote in any circumstance.

I disagree with you, Mr. Novosielski. By definition, previous notice must be given at the "...the preceding meeting or must be included in the call of the meeting...". RONR (12th ed.) 1:7. Notice that there might be an election at some indefinite future time is not previous notice.

Did you want to cite RONR (12th ed.)?

The director should submit his resignation in writing, and the electing body should accept it. Thereafter, the electing body should proceed to elect a replacement, previous notice of the election being required.

I think the correct answer depends on whether the final disposition of the main motion occurred at the same, or a later, meeting.

Could you explain your statement, "The committees cannot be eliminated"? I had the impression that the committees are subordinate bodies of the board, so it puzzles me why they cannot be eliminated.

I recommend that these committees be dispensed with. The board can be (or already is) charged to do what the committees are currently charged to do. Such small boards can operate under the "relaxed" rules for small boards, so the less formal procedures used in committees will also operate in the board's meetings.

Thousands of volunteer organizations all over the United States successfully use Robert's Rules without a parliamentarian. Few of their presiding officers are "polished", but many have learned well enough to serve with distinction. The authors of Robert's Rules have worked hard for a century and a half to make this possible.

My point is that the presiding officer of such a council should be able to make use of the rules without the need of a parliamentarian. Otherwise, I have to wonder if the presiding officer has any business being in the chair at all.

I have to question why a local council (of Catholic women or otherwise) would need a parliamentarian at all. If the presiding officer is experienced and possesses the proper temperament, my sense of it is that the organization could easily do without.

The correct answer depends on whether adoption of the budget carries with it an authorization for expenditures. In some organization it does; in other organizations, it does not.

No, I think what is said is that the assembly took no action to proceed to elections to fill the vacancies of the so-called "resigned" board members. The assembly, instead, fell for the stunt, gave the conspirators what they wanted, and went on with the meeting as if nothing had happened at all.

I think you all ought to totally drop the agenda thing and use the established order of business. Just you all forget you ever heard of an agenda. Train yourselves to use §41 as guidance.

This is correct. In this case, the proposed agenda is just a list of items of business that the assembly wants to be made orders of the day. If the proposed agenda only creates general orders (by not assigning particular hours for them to be taken up), the agenda can be adopted by majority vote. On the other hand, if the proposed agenda creates any special orders (by assigning particular hours for them to be taken up), the agenda must be adopted by two-thirds vote. It is ordinarily not customary to propose and adopt such an agenda at each regular meeting. In the occasional case where the established order of business is not practical or applicable to use, the assembly can adopt, by a two-thirds vote, an agenda that does not conform to the established order of business. It is ordinarily not customary to adopt such an agenda at each regular meeting. It is customary to adopt an agenda (or program) at the beginning of each regular meeting of an assembly that does not meet as frequently as the quarterly time interval. This is particularly true of conventions of delegates, but it would also apply to those assemblies that only regularly meet annually or semiannually.

Apparently, the assembly fell for the stunt and the directors resumed their seats at the table as if nothing had happened. Nothing about elections is mentioned, so I assume none was required or conducted.

Adjourn is disposed of first.

The motion to Adjourn is in order. "...although it can be interrupted by a still-higher privileged motion."

If it helps you, you can assume a motion, Postpone Indefinitely was also pending.

I don't understand the second question.

Let's suppose there is pending a main motion and a subsidiary motion, Lay on the Table. A member then moves to apply a subsidiary motion, Amend, to the pending main motion. I raise a Point of Order that Amend cannot be applied to the pending main motion in the current parliamentary situation because of the order of precedence of motions. The third bullet is saying that the Point of Order must be disposed of before the question recurs on the adoption of the pending motion, Lay on the Table.

An organization that adopts the book as its parliamentary authority commits itself to conduct its business meetings using the procedures the book sets out, remembering that many rules of order can be suspended for a particular purpose. The book is not a book of statutes. It should be more thought of as a manual of parliamentary procedure.

A resignation is not effective until accepted, but, at the same time, the person resigning must not abandon the performance of his duties until there has been a reasonable opportunity for the resignation to be accepted. I do not understand why the directors were sitting together at a table. During a general membership meeting, the board is not in session, and one might ordinarily think the directors would be scattered among the seats for the other members of the organization. At any rate, I would not blame this organization for expelling all these directors from the society for bullying their superior assembly.

If the association's general membership only meets annually, it should provide for the approval of the annual meeting's minutes by a committee or board. The minutes should not be left for the next annual session of the general membership assembly to approve. RONR (12th ed.) 9:22.

A vote of the general membership is taken in a meeting of the general membership assembly; a vote of only the board members is taken in a meeting of the board. This topic is so confusing that I am not sure any of us understand what is going on or which assembly is really at issue.