Chris Harrison

Well, if he doesn't have a copy he should get one. If you are going to war you should first know and understand the Rules of Engagement.

See RONR pp. 417-419.

After the meeting is started and a quorum was determined to exist the continued presence of the quorum is presumed until the Chair announces the loss of the quorum or a member raises a Point of Order (RONR p. 349). In other words, it is presumed there is a quorum until someone points out there isn't.

The minutes reflect what was done at the meeting. However, generally the minutes are approved by the body for which they were created (in this case the Executive Committee). Is there a reason why the General Membership is involved in their approval?

Yes, the Bylaws should be amended. I'm not sure an amendment is required but having the same position with two different titles in two different documents can only lead to chaos and confusion eventually

Ordinarily, (subject to applicable rules or laws) it is up to the body to decide how to deal with correspondence from nonmembers. They could do anything from reading it and putting it in their files to immediately relegating it to the circular file (trash can). However, from what you are saying it sounds like non-Board member owners have a right to have their comments regarding the budget be presented to the Board in some form or another (though you will have to look to all applicable rules and laws to determine how much of a right do they have). In other words, the standard RONR answer that it is up to the Board to decide quite possibly isn't the correct one here and you all will need to do some research to determine what the correct answer is. As for the non-Budget related comments it doesn't sound like the Board has any duty to hear them so they may have more leeway in how to deal with them however they see fit.

Also, who says that the member behind in dues cannot vote? That isn't a rule from RONR.

I don't know if I would trust the Chair to comply with such requirement after having put his own opinions into the original letter without Board consent. I would probably get another Board member to write the letter specifying the Chair went beyond the Board's instructions and those opinions don't reflect their position. In addition you might strongly consider removing him from office for exceeding his authority and insubordination.

I don't know but between the 7th and 11th Editions there has been roughly 10 years between each edition so by that math we are about due. However, there was 19 years between the 6th and 7th and 28 years between the 4th and 5th. So who knows?

In 2008 Barack Obama was a Senator when he ran and was elected POTUS. Only after election did he have to resign.

We don't know the hierarchy of the organization so it is hard to say for sure but my default position is that anyone claiming that something is "null and void" will need to prove it. As far as RONR is concerned there are only five exceptions to the rule that a Point of Order needs to be timely and they are on p. 251. Whether this is the case and if this "Regional Phylacter" has the authority to make this claim is for you all to determine.

That is true though if you look at sports the game abhors a tie (and the rules governing how to deal with one are equally artificial). In baseball a tie at the end of 9 innings means the game goes into extra innings until there is a winner (for example a game during the World Series that went for 18 innings), in hockey it goes into overtime then a shootout until there is a winner, basketball goes into overtime until there is a winner, soccer goes into overtime and a shootout until there is a winner. The only sport I can think of off the top of my head that actually allows for a tie (outside of unusual circumstances) is football (in which case neither team won or lost the game). I agree completely that in parliamentary procedure a tie should mean the motion is defeated otherwise there would be a continual vote until someone changes their mind or leaves the meeting. However, if you were to ask the average person I suspect many of them would say to keep on voting until the tie is broken (or debate should be reopened to allow further discussion) in order to get a clear decision.

I think there is also a psychological aspect to it as well. To a lot of people (and to me to a certain extent) a tie vote just doesn't feel right because there should be a clear decision (either more people are in favor of the motion or more people are against it). Having neither occur grates on our innate desire for certainty and an artificial declaration that a tie goes against the motion won't necessarily alleviate that "sticking point".

How do your minutes reflect nonmembers making comments regarding the budget? As for what to do with the emailed comments at the meeting it is ultimately up to the Board (in conjunction with any applicable rules and laws) to figure out. However, I think it would be reasonable to argue that a Board member could read the parts of the email regarding the budget (and if the Board wishes to hear the non-budget comments they can vote to do so).

Agreeing with Mr. Honemann, depending on the language in the bylaws there could be other ways to accomplish your goal. Can you give us the EXACT language regarding amending those bylaws?

Who are authorized to name the members to the Special Committee (the first and second one)? If it is the members who name the Committee members then they can prevent the delaying tactic by choosing people who are in favor of the objective.

Several years back I was a member of a Board that frequently would discuss things via email between meetings. Our Vice President (and later just a member) often couldn't be bothered to attend meetings which was problematic because we had few members and his not attending often led to us not having a quorum. Numerous times in the email exchange he would talk about not having time for the meetings and when asked for clarification he would specify that he was offering his resignation. Of course, whenever this happened we would end up not having a quorum in order to accept his resignation or he would have a change of heart and state he was withdrawing his resignation (but still would not show up at the meeting). I don't remember why we couldn't just remove him from the Board but there must have been a darn good reason or we would have done so. Needless to say, when we were FINALLY successful in accepting that resignation there was much relief. In other words, if you want to accept this person's resignation do it when you have the chance.

Wouldn't a motion be "not in order" and a (misbehaving) member would be "out of order"?

Would an adopted motion to censure be continuing in nature? I had thought the effect of censure is the assembly formally saying "we don't like what you did" and then everyone moves on. If it were continuing wouldn't that mean the member would be "in the doghouse" until the assembly tells them otherwise?

Time to amend those bylaws to be more specific as to the Treasurer's duties so this (hopefully) doesn't come up again. I can understand him being upset at getting rebuked for doing what he thought was being helpful but it probably isn't a good idea to spend or work with the organization's money unless he has clear authority to do so.

You'll need to look to the National Guidelines (and any other applicable governing documents) to see what (if anything) they say on the subject. Some National organizations may like to keep their subordinates closely in line with them (so there is very little leeway for them to vary from the National). Then again, some may give their subordinates wide latitude to do what they want.

If only RONR applies then if the Open Forum took place during the Board meeting the minutes would reflect what was done there too (so probably all they would say is there was an Open Forum with no further details). However, you said that the law requires an Open Forum so it may also require more detail in the minutes than RONR does so you should check.

Yes. Yes. That being said you all will need to decide whether having the Parliamentarian serve on the Nominating Committee (or be its chairman) outweighs any need you may need for her to maintain her impartiality with any upcoming business (especially the elections). There may be no problem but just food for thought.

Sounds like the Chair is a small fish in a large ocean.

Have an ally make the Appeal for you and hopefully you will have enough friends to overturn the Chair's ruling.