J. J.

The member parliamentarian has the same duty to maintain impartiality as the presiding office (p. 467, ll. 8-19), but there is no prohibition on the presiding officer serving on or chairing a committee. The only problem, in both cases, is that the chair not only reports, but moves to adopt any recommendation from the committee. There are three ways around this. First, the assembly can draft a special rule permitting the parliamentarian to enter into debate, make motions or vote. Second, the assembly can suspend the rules to permit the parliamentarian to do so in relation to that committee report. Third, the committee could designate a reporting member to report and make any motions to growing out of that report.

No, unless your bylaws authorize the board to to do this. It is a complicated process. Chapter XX of the 11th edition of RONR. Unless the president is elected by your board, or the bylaws authorize the board to remove the president, the board cannot remove the president.

If proxies are permitted, it would be possible to give a proxy to a member or secretary with the instruction to "vote with the prevailing side." The bylaws would have to specify that proxies are permitted, which is unlikely for a board meeting. The bylaws would also have to specify that a proxy would count toward a quorum.

Not to mention a 2/3 vote.

One question I have is if the Vice President had expressed an opinion on the motion to censure. In such a case, someone else should chair. I would note that censure can be a penalty in a disciplinary action. A motion "That _____ be censured ....," however, is in order as it expresses the assembly's opinion, and nothing more. Where you will find this in RONR is the famous "Officer George" example, p. 137, ll. 20-25. As noted the footnote p. 643, clearly states this. I would also suggest that you look at p. 125, ll. 15-20, showing a motion to Ratify being amended into a motion to censure; that would be impossible, if censure were a disciplinary action in that case. You may also want to look at "Censure: Penalty versus Motion," Parliamentary Journal, April 2012, which specifically delineates the difference.

If it impossible to get that information, the secretary can write something along the lines, "The chair put the question ...," or "The motion was made... ." Not perfect, but acceptable in the circumstances.

You can remove the officers that control this. See Chapter XX.

The National Parliamentarian's parliamentary research team of the day reached the same conclusion in the Fall 2015 issue (Question 30, p. 31). It cited p. 186, ll. 1-13 as establishing that the main motion was still in the control of the assembly as the act of postponing it to the next regular session made the motion a general order for the next regular session. It noted that the rules could be suspended at the special meeting to permit the postponed motion to be introduced at that time. It also noted that if the motion to suspend the rules failed, it would be a very short special meeting. Adding something, I would opine that the notice would not have to indicate that a motion to suspend the rules would be needed to introduce the main motion. That could be inferred from the answer, but it was not directly stated.

I would note that the steering could could appoint a subcommittee that would meet in executive session. It could include all the steering committee members or exclude one or several of them (p. 497, ll. 14-19). Such a meeting would not be a meeting of the steering committee, but a meeting of that subcommittee.

I do agree that the first action did not set a precedent. The board may have simply found that the was enough information to make a decision on the second motion, but not the first. The only potential problem would be if the second motion conflicts with or is "substantially the same question" as the first notion (p. 112, #4).

This! Notice to fill a vacancy requires notice "Unless the bylaws or special rules of order clearly provide otherwise (p. 468, ll. 7-8, emphasis added)." The bylaws state, " At the next regular or special meeting of the Society an election shall be held to fill the vacancy." There is certainly no specific requirement for notice, so the question would be if this clause is clear enough to supersede the clause in RONR. I would err on the side of caution and suggest that there would be notice, but there is only to remove an argument that the election is improper. I also think "Student" has a point. Even if there is a general notice requirement, it might not apply in the specific circumstance. This may an example of a specific requirement for "the next regular or special meeting of the Society," superseding a fixed notice requirement. Again, I would err on the side of caution. I would mote that the chair's ruling, even erring on the side of caution, that either the notice was required or that notice insufficient is clearly subject to appeal.

At the time that Henry M. Robert was an officer, command was less hierarchical. Commanding generals had "councils of war," made up of heir senior commanders. The general would preside, usually using a gavel, and the commanders would vote, at least in some cases. The most famous was a council of war used by Meade after the third day of Gettysburg. This was more than a commander asking for the advice of his subordinates, though the decision was still ultimately with the commanding general.

I agree with Dr. Stackpole. All of them have could have an impact on revenue, but points B and C will almost certainly have greater impact on other things than revenue.

There is no prohibition in RONR. I would suggest you check the bylaws of each group.

Are the recommendations motions?

Yes, that was my point.

I disagree with the level of the rule needed. An assembly could adopt a special rule governing disciplinary procedures and include a mandatory removal clause. The assembly has the authority to expel members, even beyond that session, if the bylaws are silent (p. 644, ll. 5-8). The assembly, though a special rule, could change this process within the meeting context. Unless the chair has been granted the authority to impose such a rule, he cannot. Such a rule, IMO, would have to remove the right of any member to appeal the chair's decision. I would not recommend that such a rule be adopted, but the assembly may adopt a rule like that. I would note that the presiding officer could do exactly what the rule contemplates, and the majority could sustain his position on appeal, thus resulting in the same outcome.

Does your group actually have a rule that says that?

Did the assembly set a time for the polls to close? Were the ballots securely maintained?

I agree, provided that the staff was not appointed by a main motion. The power to remove would exist, but by means of a motion to rescind.

It could be reversed and made an "opt out" option. Everyone is informed that the notices will be sent by e-mail, except for people wanting a hard copy notice, i.e. opt out, along with those that do not provide an e-mail address.

And which may be done without going into the disciplinary process (p. 643, fn.; see also, pp. 344, l. 1-5).

To show that someone did want to discuss the issue and that no other member did.

Formerly, RONR stated that board meeting are to be held in executive session. It no longer does. If you want to keep the items confidential, you would need to establish an executive (secret) session,

There is no mention of a "course proposal" in RONR. While notice one of the methods required to adopt some types of motion, you will have give more details to the situation before we can make that determination.