Steven Britton

32 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Well, in that case, this is a matter if bylaws interpretation, something only Guest Joe's organization itself can do.   I think we can safely say, however, that nothing in RONR, in and of itself, prohibits a body from selecting someone to assist various officers with their duties.  Any prohibition would have to come from a provision in the bylaws.

That, I can agree with.

9 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Yeah, the original question was about making them an officer, but Josh and Gary seemed to cover the rest.

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.

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.

20 minutes ago, KatB said:

Q: "If not then since he holds two positions does he vote twice and get paid for both positions?"

A: "He only gets one vote, but no rule in RONR would prevent him from being paid for both positions. Your rules may provide otherwise. "

I'm trying to find this "two positions, one vote" determination in RONR, but failing miserably. Can you please direct me to the proper page, line or section?

Thank you

KBeringer

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).

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

If your bylaws do not address the naming of interim officers, then it cannot be done. You must follow your bylaws and appoint a Vice President, with the approval of the board.

And I agree with Mr. Martin's statement.

RONR (11th ed.) makes no provision for interim officers, or interim anything else for that matter.

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.

4 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

I agree with 1stChurch, and with the others who have said that two members of a committee may call a meeting when the chair has failed to do so. And as Josh Martin has noted, attempting to schedule a meeting (and delaying the actual meeting because of your own illness and scheduling conflicts) is not the same thing as actually calling a meeting.

You should also look at this earlier thread referred to by Hieu Huynh.

It seems to me that your question has been answered as well as it's going to be answered on this forum, and pretty soon this topic is going to be locked closed.

Shmuel -

Will the authorship-team be issuing an official interpretation in the near future?

1 hour ago, Rev Ed said:

From what you said, it sounds like no motion has to be referred to the Committee of the Whole, although motions could certainly come out of it.

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.

11 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

I am curious about why a committee of the whole is being used by the city council.

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.

7 minutes ago, Guest D.Llama said:

Again , here member X is not asking the chair to make her  " speech " part of any debate by the chair . She simply wants the chair to read it in - as member X debate . Member X is attempting to use the chair to facilitate her debate and not to use the chair to augment any debate of the chair . The chair can simply refuse and ignore the request or advise member X before the meeting ( time allowing ) that the chair will not attempt to read in member X debate . Or the chair could exercise discretion and seek to deal with this by a motion to allow the reading in - or  allowance by unanimous consent to read in . Or so it seems to me so far .

Generally, correspondence is read by the secretary. Also, any member could objection by moving the incidental motion, Object to Consideration.(p. 268, ll. 1 - 3). A two-thirds vote against consideration is necessary.

What you're describing IMO, is correspondence; there is nothing in RONR that requires or prohibits its reading. It's up to the assembly to determine whether to permit its reading.

5 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

There can be no discussion without a motion pending.  That would be the reason to rule any discussion out of order.

Under the circumstances, at your annual meeting, you might consider referring the business topic to Formal Committee Of The Whole. The motion to commit -depending on the situation - may be made as either an original main or a incidental main motion. This would permit the assembly - as a committee - to discuss the business without it directly pending.

4 minutes ago, Guest Linda J said:

Our bylaws state that we must vote on our budget and elect trustees and officers at our annual meeting. Notice must go out 30 days before the meeting. Anything else that we want to address should also be sent out in this notice. The bylaws also address special meetings of the membership. If members have anything else that they would like to address at the annual meeting (not specified when the notice went out), can they suspend the rules and ask to vote on a motion? Wouldn't the special meeting be the forum to address this new issue so that people who are not at the annual meeting can receive notice of vote?

Generally speaking, the rule as you've described is intended to protect absentees. Therein, the rule can't be suspended. However, the assembly may take action on the business and later ratify those actions at a later properly noticed special meeting - if the situation warrants.

6 hours ago, Todd Crowder said:

Under Robert's, when a person abstains from a vote, they do not announce that they abstain, they do nothing.

 

Correct, but, if it's important the minutes note the member's abstention, perhaps for obvious reason, he/she is permitted to request that his/her abstention be entered on the minutes - thus it may be recorded if requested. 

If Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition, controls - no. Under RONR, the board may permit non-board members to attend.

14 minutes ago, Guest Steven Hogue said:

How many times can you bring back a motion to change the ByLaws of an Association once its been defeated (by a narrow margin) the first time.  For instance, can it be brought back at the next Board meeting without any substantive change to the motion's text?

There is no rule in RONR (11th ed.) that prohibits the renewal of a previously defeated bylaw amendment.

3 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Yeah, but does RROL have a Porsche?

And I was just getting used to the TFPs.

7 hours ago, EAult said:

Does a new Board, with some new members, vote on and approve minutes from the old Board from the last meeting last year? Can they request changes to those minutes?

It depends whether the previous board took action as Mr. Mervosh has described. If they haven't, they could also  appoint a committee as Mr. Mervosh has described . But, there is nothing that prohibits the "new" board from approving the minutes. RONR, 11th ed., p. 355 ll. 7 - 9, states, "It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval."

Also, if  these draft minutes come before the new board at its  first meeting, it would utilize the same procedure for approval as any other assembly, and as described on pp. 354 - 355.

7 minutes ago, Guest Lona said:

Is it necessary to read the minutes of the previous meeting? Can the assistant secretary signed checks legally?

If the secretary's draft minutes were distributed with the call to the meeting, it is unnecessary to read the minutes. However, if any member present asks that they be read, that is, or objects to they're not being read, the secretary is obligated to read them.

For a legal opinion - about signing checks - speak to a lawyer. We don't offer legal opinions here. I don't recall RONR specifying who can or cannot sign checks. Review your bylaws and other rules for more information.

17 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

 

Members of the board are entitled to the same access to minutes of board meetings, regardless of whether the meeting was in executive session.  The same obligation of confidentiality applies.

Regular members (the general membership) do not have the right to inspect minutes of board meetings unless they are also board members.

However, the general membership - as Richard Brown has parenthetically described - at one of its meetings, may vote to order passages of board meeting minutes read - including the minutes of an executive session. Without previous notice, a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership is required to adopt the order. With previous notice, the threshold to adopt the order is a majority vote.

Thank you. Based upon the facts provided, it will be necessary for the society to use formal disciplinary procedures, including a trial, to remove the wayward board members. These procedures are fairly lengthy and complex, and it would be advisable to read Section 63 of RONR in its entirety before proceeding.

Also, check your bylaws for its own rules and procedures on discipline.

When does unfinished business carried over from a previous meeting finally die?..........

 

I cannot find a clear answer in RONR.  If it is addressed and I'm overlooking it, I would appreciate a citation.

Try pp. 236 - 237; points a) & b ).

Ok, let me be more specific: Does Robert's Rules address recusals at all?

The point of a recusal is to remove a member's influence from the discussions. Taking part in the discussion is exerting an influence, but influence can also be exerted by mere presence while discussions are taking place.

So, if Robert's Rules addresses recusal (which I have not been able to find that it does), I would be keenly interested in how its treated.

Page 407(l. 21 - 31):

"ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances."

So all it says is that they should abstain. It doesn't say they must or they shall, abstain.

So.... How do the members of the POA/community know what is going on? We have board members who have led us into law suits and police action. I write an Internet News Letter for our community in an attempt to get more members aware of actions taken by our Board, and actually come out to vote for the better candidates.

I'm not sure that Diane and Guest_Guest_ are the same or different persons.

You would go to the membership meeting and move the reading of th Board's Executive Session minutes. If this is done without previous notice, the motion would need to be adopted by a two-thirds vote.