jstackpo

In the order you asked... Make the motion Your phrasing is correct Any member Any time (during the meeting) As you wrote it Majority

Yes. RONR calls this renewal of motions

Are punishments actually limited to those? P. 643 says "generally fall under..." which seems to leave room for others. Also 667-668 allows the assembly to set a penalty by motion.

Whatever the assembly thinks is appropriate -- see Chapter XX.

Yes, but properly there is no vote on "approving minutes" -- see page 355.

If, as is supposed to happen, the matter(s) to be bought up, in motions, were sent around with the call for the meeting, then those descriptions of the matters, ARE the agenda. Nothing else can be (properly) brought up. If the details of why there is a special meeting were not spelled out, then the entire meeting is improper. See p. 91.

But fun...

RONR does suggest, however, that co-chairs are not a good idea, p.176. And here are some reasons why... https://www.dropbox.com/s/jbcnnjcq5l9eaux/Problems With co-anything.docx?dl=0

I'd say the whole assembly, on the basis that, in RONR-land, the assembly has the ultimate power to say who does what, &c. Any specific powers for individuals or groups other than the assembly must be in bylaws or (other) adopted motions.

A guess: "per capita" means a "roll-call" vote. The answer is still no, however.

RONR doesn't define an "interim" president. The "standard" (baring contrary provisions in bylaws) is that a V.P. becomes President if/when the presidency goes vacant, instantly, with no "vote in" required. If your bylaws have special provisions, you will have to answer your own question -- RONR doesn't.

Or you could just move to adjourn -- proper any most any time. Majority will do it. (Might not work, of course.)

Is the CEO a paid employee of the club?

And that is all - so read the bylaws carefully!

Sure, but doing it in steps might keep the strict parliamentary fussbudgets placated, and give the board more opportunities for nominations in case the elections were contested. The final choice of VP might be contingent on who was initially selected as president.

To be super formal about it: you now have a VP vacancy which you can fill by a Board vote. When you do, that person will immediately become president, automatically. Then you just have another board vote to (re)fill the just vacated VP position.

Yes, the bylaws win out. Sometimes, since RONR doesn't define a "non-voting member", arguments will come up as to which of all the other membership rights are still retained by the "non-voting-member". Raise points of order, appeal rulings, make motions, debate, Etc, etc? If you see this as a potential problem, it might be wise to offer a bylaw amendment to clarify.

Sure, but someone, or some law or legislation, created the Board and authorized the council to name people to serve on ("appoint") the board. What does that establishing law say about how the board is to conduct business? RONR? Or something else?

RONR doesn't include (or define) the concept of a "continuing resolution" other than to note that ANY adopted resolution remains in effect until it is in some sense exhausted, or formally rescinded. Looks like your bylaws have taken care of the rescinding for you, some 6 years ago, and I trust your bylaws define how your "continuing resolution" differs from any old resolution. And rest easy, a "resolution" is a standard term in RONR -- it is no more that a plain old motion dressed up in fancy clothes -- see page 105. Any adopted motion/resolution should be recorded in the minutes of the meeting in which it was adopted for future reference.

RONR has no specifications for "nominee withdrawal". So once nominated... that's it. You certainly can't "force" him to run, but folks are free to vote for him. Or not. There are no "formal" withdrawal rules -- the secretary is confused (perhaps).

Yes. Baring any legal requirement on your association, only members of the board have rights to participate in board meetings. "Participate" includes everything - see RONR page 3.

Tied vote = lost motion. No "do-overs" when the chairman shows up.

We are talking about the parliamentary mechanics for removal, not the motives. "Or until" and "And until" make a big difference in the mechanics.

Just to be sure I have your position clearly in mind (and to close out the debate, I suppose, unless you or others have more to say), your contention is that the presence in the bylaws of an explicit statement (of the "or until" variety pertaining to election to membership) authorizing expulsion from membership by a 2/3 vote eliminates the requirement for a trial (I agree up to this point). But also the presence of such a "2/3 and you are out" expulsion option means that any lesser penalties can be imposed without a due process type trial. (At this point we disagree.) If I got it wrong, please correct me.

Clarifying my question: By "same position" I mean that if the society included the "or until" exception to a trial requirement for removal from office, would some (any-?) lesser penalties also be excluded? And if so which ones? Where in the hierarchy of possible penalties would you place removal from office?