overide budget submited from budget committee to general membership for approval

[Guest sylvia falcon]

Budget committee submitted budget to executive board which approved it.

Budget presented to general membership for vote of approval.

One member made motion to increase amount allocated for one committee for extra expenses.

Treasurer explained she/he can always submit an expense reimbursement request for any extra expenses without changing budget approved by board.

General membership meeting let the motion call to vote. Treasurer explained no need to change budget to apply for extra expense.

Membership approved change.

Should the parliamentarian stopped the motion and advised the member to simply submit request for reimbursement?

[Gary c Tesser]

Some of this has to do with Guest_sylvia falcon_'s organization's own rules, particularly (but probably not limited to) the rules governing the budget-approval process, which, if there is any conflict or ambiguity, must be decided on by the organization itself (and certainly not by commentators here on the Internet's premier parliamentary forum, however seasoned, experienced, knowledgeable and/or savvy, who cannot), and those governing the relationship between the authority of the board and that of its membership assembly.

I can say, no, the parliamentarian should not have stopped anything. He has no such authority, barring some bizarre job description in your bylaws about his duties and authority.

About the presiding officer is another story.

[J. J.]

Should the parliamentarian stopped the motion and advised the member to simply submit request for reimbursement?

First, unless your rules say otherwise, the parliamentarian cannot stop any motion.

Second, unless your rules say otherwise, the proposed budget was perfectly amendable.

[tctheatc]

Treasurer explained she/he can always submit an expense reimbursement request for any extra expenses without changing budget approved by board.

The treasurer (presumably) is allowed to participate in debate just as any member is, and she can speak against the proposed amendment if she so chooses. But her remarks should only serve to help the members make an informed decision on the amendment; it carries no veto power.

[Trina]

Budget committee submitted budget to executive board which approved it.

Budget presented to general membership for vote of approval.

One member made motion to increase amount allocated for one committee for extra expenses.

Treasurer explained she/he can always submit an expense reimbursement request for any extra expenses without changing budget approved by board.

General membership meeting let the motion call to vote. Treasurer explained no need to change budget to apply for extra expense.

Membership approved change.

Should the parliamentarian stopped the motion and advised the member to simply submit request for reimbursement?

Presumably the budget was a motion before the assembly. As such, it would be subject to amendment. Just because there is some other mechanism in place to deal with extra expenses, that doesn't have any effect on the membership's right to amend the motion that is before them.

The parliamentarian has no such authority (stopping motions). And, even if he/she had such authority in your particular organization, what violation of the rules of parliamentary procedure do you believe occurred here? Do the organization's rules (bylaws) actually prevent the membership from amending the budget proposal handed to them by the board?

[Gary Novosielski]

Treasurer explained she/he can always submit an expense reimbursement request for any extra expenses without changing budget approved by board.

Wow, that's strange.

[Tim Wynn]

Wow, that's strange.

Gender is not always cut and dry, apparently.

[Tim Wynn]

Membership approved change.

It sounds like the majority is happy.