Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Steven Britton

  • Content count

  • 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

709 profile views
  1. Steven Britton


    I believe we're in harmony now on this particular answer.
  2. Steven Britton


    Certainly, if the bylaws prescribe a method for their own amendment, as they should. Myself, as a classically trained musician, I always tried to avoid dis-chord.
  3. Steven Britton


    I agree with Tim Wynn's answer (and welcome him back) except for the phrase " only can be." Further expanding on his explanation, RONR, p. 52,9 ll. 1 - 13, 11th edition, further states: If the bylaws are silent regarding their own amendment, …. "Special requirements for this motion's adoption should be specified in the bylaws, and they should always include at least notice and a two-thirds vote, which (with a vote of a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative) are the requirements for its adoption if such specification in the bylaws is neglected (see pp. 580–82)."
  4. And if there is no need to conduct business other than the bylaws require a meeting, Just call the meeting to order and adjourn.
  5. Steven Britton

    BOD Elections

    Dan, I never stated the nominating committee didn't comply with its duty to obtain the consent prior to reporting-please don't imply that I did. However, generally if the candidate doesn't have an ability to withdraw his/her consent after the committee presents its reports, depending on how much time intervenes, it renders RONR 11th ed. p. 435. (ll. 4-8) absurd. Also, the parallel language regarding obtaining acceptance to nominees in RONR 11th ed. is on p. 434 (ll. 1-6) and it is silent concern candidate's withdrawing his/her consent, and does not specifically use the word consent; it states: It is desirable policy for the nominating committee, before making its report, to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination—that is, his assurance that he will serve in the specified office if elected. The bylaws can make such a practice mandatory.
  6. Steven Britton

    BOD Elections

    Regarding the analysis, thus far, I agree with Richard. In this particular instance, the club bylaws stated: "The nominating committee shall previously obtain the consent of each such nominee." <reference to nominating committee edited.> The requirement concerning obtaining the candidates consent is an issue with the bylaws, not RONR. If the candidate is permitted to withdraw his/her consent, he/she is no longer eligible for election. The committee no longer has the member's consent. Also, in this particular matter, that is, whether a candidate may withdraw his/her consent, is a concern with the bylaws, and as such, is outside of the scope of this this forum.
  7. Steven Britton

    board member moving to a staff position

    Nothing in RONR (11th ed) specific to your prepositional phrase, and nothing in RONR that prevents a board member from serving as a staff member.
  8. Steven Britton

    Discharge from Committee

    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.
  9. 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?
  10. Steven Britton

    Leaving closed session

    Would a better wording be, "to return to public session?"
  11. Steven Britton

    Leaving closed session

    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.
  12. Steven Britton

    Officer positions

    If the bylaws provide for non officer assistant treasurers, book keepers, memberships clerks, and are silent about non-officer assistant secretary's?
  13. Steven Britton

    Officer positions

    That, I can agree with.
  14. Steven Britton

    Officer positions

    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.
  15. Steven Britton

    Officer positions

    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.