Chris Harrison

The details you gave us are a bit unclear.  Is a unanimous vote by the Council required to present the candidate to the congregation?  Or is the default position that the Council presents the candidate to the congregation UNLESS they decided by a unanimous vote not to do so?  Also, do the Bylaws allow the congregation to hire someone without it necessarily having to go through the Council?

If there are more votes than voters than something seems to be amiss there.  A re-vote would seem to be in order.

13 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Is this some sort of disciplinary proceeding? Why is a member being “questioned by the officers”?  
 

am I missing something here or is this just a hypothetical discussion?

I believe the OP was referring to the hearing in the Senate where they were grilling the Postmaster General and one of the Senators wouldn't let him finish an answer before "reclaiming her time."

No.  Unless there has been a rule adopted on the subject no one has a right to see let alone alter the minutes until they are up for approval at the next meeting. The next time the Branch Manager decides to insist to see the draft minutes the Secretary should insist in return she point out some adopted rule granting her  the authority to do so.  If she can't then the Secretary should politely decline the request.

Nothing in RONR prohibits it.

Depending on how large of an assembly we are talking about the Chair may have a duty to remain impartial at all times and if he wishes to express an opinion he should turn the chair to the Vice Chair.  In any case it isn't proper for anyone to interrupt a speaker unless there is a legitimate reason to do so (such as raising a Point of Order, asking the Chair a question that cannot wait until the speaker is finished, asking if the speaker is willing to yield for a question, the Chair ruling something the speaker said is out of order because it violates decorum, etc).  Commenting that "we need to start having the newsletter approved by a board member" doesn't appear to be a legitimate reason to interrupt the speaker.

A vote in progress can't be interrupted with a few exceptions (RONR pp. 408-409).  Of course, the Board member is free to vote against the motion.

Yes (with a possible exception).  RONR has a whole section dedicated to the Appeal.  See RONR pp. 255-260.  Be aware that only members of the body that is meeting (not members of the public) are allowed to Appeal a ruling.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, it will be necessary to amend the original motion,...

Since the $2500 had already been spent wouldn't the motion be fully executed and thus couldn't be amended?

None that I see.  That being said you should look at your City's laws to determine whether the Commission had the authority to do what they did.

This being a RONR forum we try to stay away from some of those questions.  That being said members can't be deprived of their right to attend meetings or vote except through disciplinary proceedings (RONR p. 3 ll. 1-9).  So unless the Bylaws address this sort of situation I would argue that any attempt to exclude members or disenfranchise them is not only invalid but should lead to disciplinary actions against the President and anyone else who were exceeding their authority.   Of course, if a member is feeling ill they owe it to themselves and everyone else to stay home!

See these Official Interpretations.  Also see this thread.

RONR doesn't address your question.

RONR doesn't address what implications (if any) there are for a member taking a "leave of absence".  So it is unclear if anything must, should, or even can be done besides electing a Secretary pro tem at each meeting (and the Secretary pro tem doesn't have any administrative duties outside of the meeting).  So the answer to your question ultimately depends on what your Bylaws say on the subject of what constitutes a "leave of absence" and its implications on the officer taking it.

Resignation is a voluntary action so you can't "make" someone resign.  As for whether a Board member can be removed from office by a majority vote depends on what the Bylaws say.

Although the Board may not have explicitly accepted the resignation it would seem they implicitly accepted it by filling the vacancy.  Of course, in the future it might be better if they tighten up their procedure and accept the resignation first before picking their successor.

The Officers only have the authority the Bylaws give them.  So you will need to look to the Bylaws to determine what (if anything) the Officers can do.

You would need to follow whatever procedures the Bylaws specify in order to call a Special Meeting (assuming the Bylaws actually permit calling them).

Was this "suggestion" an actual motion to purchase Zoom or merely to open up the issue to discussion?  Also, was there any deadline mentioned on when the discussion/vote would be finished?

In either case there is nothing in RONR that would support that lack of response would mean that everyone was in favor of it (indeed it might be that everyone thought the idea was so absurd that it didn't even deserve a response).  However, depending on the circumstances that position may be a bit more reasonable than it normally might be.

Unless your Bylaws have a provision for suspending that rule you cannot (RONR p. 263 ll. 1-7).  Even if you were able to do so I would strongly recommend you contact the agency which gives the organization its nonprofit status first to see what the implications would be. 

Agreeing with the others I will point out two things:

1) Your proposed Bylaws list the 10th Edition of Robert's Rules as the Senate's parliamentary authority.  We are currently on the 11th Edition soon to be the 12th. 

2) I got great amusement out of allowing the most sober campus cop to preside if no one else is at the meeting.  However, beware because both Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences have a very irritating habit of cropping up when you least want them to.  There very well may be  a time when the meeting needs to be cancelled and the most senior sober campus cop knowing this (and his parole officer is about to send him back to the Big House) may decide to take advantage to abscond with the Senate's money to some country without an extradition treaty with the US and the first thing he will do is lose said sobriety. 

The Chair can require it (RONR p. 40 ll. 4-7).  From practical purposes depending on how long the motion is it might be necessary to move on to other business while the member puts the motion into writing.

A member can debate the question and then to conclude move the Previous Question.

You can't use mail-in voting unless the Bylaws specifically authorize it (RONR pp. 423-424).

Instead of giving you a list (which I'm not sure even exists) I would suggest these organizations contact their State's Department of Revenue (or whatever name the State gives the governmental agency which takes our hard earned money).  The agency probably can either give them that information directly or direct them to whoever has it.