Steven Britton

That, I can agree with.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And I was just getting used to the TFPs.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.