Steven Britton

Members
  • Content count

    546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Steven Britton

  • Birthday 02/03/1956

Profile Information

  • Location
    Montrose, Michigan 48457
  • Interests
    Professional Registered Parliamentarian. Second vice-president of the Michigan Association of NAP, president of the Michigan Unit of Registered Parliamentarians and treasure of the Genesee Area Unit of Parliamentarians My interest in the subject corresponds to my family's participation in the sport of pure-bred dogs.

Recent Profile Visitors

460 profile views
  1. Presuming 19 affirmative votes is a majority of the entire membership of your board of directors and there is no conflict with the Wisconsin Open meetings law, the motion to discharge a committee - without previous notice - was adopted. See RONR (11th ed.) pp. 310 - 315. Also, according to Standard Descriptive Characteristic #8 (p.312), at the time, reconsideration was not in order. If counsel advises that there was a conflict with the Wisconsin's Open Meetings Laws, follow counsel's advise regarding compliance with Wisconsin law.
  2. Page 656 of RONR, 11th ed. states " member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated." To what extent is this a fundamental right under common parliamentary law?
  3. Would a better wording be, "to return to public session?"
  4. You should check with an attorney licensed to practice law in Michigan. Your question for the attorney should concern - what limitations on voting in executive session does the act prescribe? If the act limits voting - in executive session, it is possible that the qualification in Dan's motion to go into executive session to vote was not in order due to rules outside of RONR. You need to check with your own attorney.
  5. If the bylaws provide for non officer assistant treasurers, book keepers, memberships clerks, and are silent about non-officer assistant secretary's?
  6. That, I can agree with.
  7. I'm still not buying Mr. Novesielski's analysis. We have no way of knowing what else is contained in in OP Joe C's bylaws. Often, bylaws contain detailed particular duties assigned to particular offices. We have no way to determine whether Joe's particular bylaws would allow for particular duties to be given to an assistant, without additional analysis.
  8. Generally, I would agree with Mr. Mervosh's analysis, and disagree with with Mr. Novsielski's analysis. The reasoning lies with Principle of Interpretarion #4, pp. 589, l, 33 - 590, l.-8, that states: If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited. Thus, where Article IV, Section I of the Sample Bylaws (p. 585) lists certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited. IMO, the particular bylaws would need to somehow authorize the appointment of assistant officers, or more specifically, an assistant secretary.
  9. Try pp. 263 ll. 24 - 28 (11th ed.) The citation is copied bellow: Likewise, since it is a fundamental principle that each member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question, the rules may not be suspended so as to authorize cumulative voting (pp. 443–44).
  10. And I agree with Mr. Martin's statement.
  11. RONR (11th ed.) makes no provision for interim officers, or interim anything else for that matter.
  12. If the next regular meeting is within a quarterly time period, the motion to Reconsider and Enter On The Minutes may be called up at any appropriate time during that meeting.
  13. Shmuel - Will the authorship-team be issuing an official interpretation in the near future?
  14. Generally, the council uses the committee of whole format as a planning meeting. When details concerning a specific item of business are sufficiently worked-out, the committee rises and reports the item is out of the standing committee of the whole and its moved to the regular meeting agenda for action. As far as the council referring business items to the COTW meeting, it would depend on the adopted rules. Generally, a different person, chairs the committee meeting.
  15. Generally, to comply with public open meeting laws, some, municipal councils or boards provide for Formal Committee Of The Whole as a standing committee in its rules. This allows the municipal board or council to meet and use the device of Formal Committee of the Whole to plan and discuss pending business, when the business isn't quite ready for adoption at the regular meeting, and to comply with requirements of public open meeting laws.