Gary Novosielski

It breaks no rule in RONR to do so, but it would seem a bit unusual to me.

If your version of Robert's has Article XII in it, it is very likely that it is over 100 years out of date. The current version of RONR is the 12th edition. See: https://robertsrules.com/our-history/Other Media

No. Not at all. Apparently a majority felt that they could adopt the motion without having the information. If they felt otherwise they could have postponed the matter to a future time, which they did not do.

And what do you do when this happens?

There's no footnote in 63:2

The motion to Reconsider would not apply once that meeting ended, so it no longer matters who voted how. If a motion fails, it can simply be moved again (renewed) next time. So that's how you do it.

But that exception refers us to §63, which contains the limitations Josh referred to.

There's your answer, unless there's some additional language that you left out, such as "except in cases where..."

Yes to what question? I didn't see one. I looked harder. Never mind.

It sorta does: In 25:10 we learn that rules protecting absentees cannot be suspended. This is the essence of the protection they afford. If they could be suspended without the consent of those absentees, then they afford only as much protection as does the vote required for suspension--in this case one-third of those present (and none for those absent). So allowing this rule to be suspendible does more than blunt the protection of absentees, it vitiates it.

Are there really? And what about annual audit reports? Is the report of an accountant different in kind from the report of an attorney or other outside professional? Presuming that these reports will potentially affect the course of business, it is absurd to think that members can proceed on the basis of no information. (Governmental examples notwithstanding.) In my experience, if members seek to keep the contents of an attorney's report secret from other members it is because the opinions if released would support the position of the latter to the detriment of the former, i.e., content-based suppression.

RONR recognizes only committee members and non-members, so it has no applicable rules on the subject. The word "emeritus" appears on none of its pages. If the rules of RONR apply, former members are non-members, and would be unlikely even to be present at a committee meeting, much less participating in its business.

Not really. I don't think that a majority of the board can vote to deny the minority the opportunity to see information to which "the board" is, of right, entitled. For example, a meeting is not properly called if only a bare majority of the board was notified. What's next, reports of committees to only some of the board? Approval of minutes with some members not allowed to see the draft? Double-secret points of order?

Yes, that's why I specified "in a large assembly". There are still a lot of organizations who think that the AGM is just a board meeting with a lot of extras allowed in, presided over by the Board President, or maybe the whole board. In an actual small board, the president has few such restrictions, but then again, there is typically little or no need for any formal nomination process on intra-board elections.

Saw that. Unfortunately I can not now edit or remove my message, due to previous deënhancements.

A board member as an individual has surprisingly few powers except to vote in board meetings. If the board hired the attorney, then the board is the client, not the member. So the board should see the report. If the board voted to pay the attorney bill for one member, they can do that, but only by adopting a motion. If the member hired an attorney and then got the board to pay for it, while refusing to share the information, well, good for that member, but in my view, the board got played. In any event, this report can't be considered binding upon anyone, especially if its contents are not revealed. This amounts to something like the double-secret suspension in Animal House

Not unless there is a rule or custom that the roll is called at the start of the meeting, which would be recorded in the draft minutes and therefore available to all members. This is not required by any rule in RONR. And if the draft minutes contain a notation that Mr. X made a certain motion or was mentioned in some other context in the minutes, that would be obvious evidence of his presence. But aside from that, No. A single member may not hold up the approval process by demanding to know who attended. The only way to object to the approval of the minutes is to offer a correction, which may or may not be agreed to. In fact it's not quite clear whether this "someone" is even a member of the board, and if not, has no rights in RONR in regard to the approval of minutes, or to attendance records if, in fact, any exist.

RONR is generally in opposition to the president having anything to do with the nominating process. It recommends that when drafting bylaws, if there is to be a fairly common provision that the president is, ex officio, a member of all committees, the phrase "except the Nominating Committee" should be included. But those are recommendations for rules to be adopted. They are not rules that are in force unless the society accepts those recommendations. So the answer will depend on your own rules. In my view, in a large assembly not under small board rules, when opening the floor to nominations, a nomination by the chair is tantamount to making a motion or participating in debate, and the chair should the practice or relinquish the chair first. But even this is not categorical prohibition. I would frown on it, but I don't think I could raise a point of order against it.

Yes, I've seen this requirement, referred to as a "signed ballot".

It's not. There is no rule in RONR that remotely resembles that one. And that's the same for all motions, not just agenda approval. Once a motion is placed in the hands of the assembly for consideration, it belongs to the assembly, and no longer to the original mover, who cannot even withdraw the motion at that point, without getting the assembly's permission. Furthermore, the original mover has no power to judge whether amendments are acceptable or not, which is another common misconception.

Yes I'd agree with that interpretation. In RONR, when there are multiple numbered vice-presidents, and the president leaves office, all the VPs shift one number over, leaving a vacancy in the highest numbered VP position. Specifying a variant line of succession would suggest that the same behavior applies. I'm not necessarily saying that I think it's a good idea, though. In some societies, Vice presidents, although numbered, are not interchangeable but are assigned specialized roles, which may be adversely affected by a sudden game of musical chairs. In such societies, this is an area of the bylaws that deserves careful consideration.

No.

In political parties, what would be normally be considered a board is often named a committee--executive committee, steering committee, etc. This sounds like one of these.

You don't say what the result of the vote was, but I assume that the bylaws were changed. If that's true, it's a done deal and there's no "revote" to be done. If you've got some remorse about what the bylaws now say, the way to fix it is to propose new bylaw changes to make them say what you wish them to say, just like last time. Only this time hope that people don't vote based on half-baked information.