Chris Harrison

If you had done it before he withdrew the resignation, yes. However, since he has changed his mind and withdrew it you are stuck with him. See RONR pp. 295-298.

Since your CBL are silent on the issue nothing in RONR requires you allow the Officer to take back his position after the suspension nor does it prohibit you from doing so. However, I suspect they do address the situation even if indirectly. For example, do the CBL even permit electing/appointing a temporary officer for a specific period of time and allowing the replaced officer to resume his position without any further action?* *: Granted RONR does provide for a Chair Pro Tem and a Secretary Pro Tem, but those are intended for when the Chair or Secretary aren't present for a meeting or a portion thereof, not for six months of meetings.

Also, it sounds like you are operating from the 4th Edition which was Copyrighted in 1915 and we are now on the 11th. Edit: Yeah...what Richard said.

Check out RONR pp. 174-175

RONR doesn't require it.

I would say initiate further disciplinary proceedings against this member for sharing the proceedings of a closed session with nonmembers. You could also go after her for recording the meeting without permission but you might be on more shaky ground unless there was a rule in place prohibiting it.

The President only has the authority the bylaws give him. You should also ask him how well claiming that worked for Richard Nixon regarding the Watergate tapes.

That depends on what the organization's governing documents say. Nothing in RONR would prevent it. That depends on what the organization's governing documents say.

RONR doesn't have a definition for "ground rules" but I would say that depending on the nature of the rule it could be standing rule (requires majority vote for adoption) a Special Rule of Order (2/3 vote with previous notice or a majority of the membership without notice) or maybe even in the bylaws.

If you hover your cursor over the Posted date it will give you the time stamp.

I would think it would be germane to the question for a member in debate to indicate that there may be other business that should be conducted before leaving Executive Session and if the motion wasn't debatable the members wouldn't be advised before the vote were taken. I'm sure there are other reasons but this is what I can come up with before my 1st cup of coffee.

Do the bylaws of the branches that don't have a Chair or Vice Chair not provide for those offices (maybe the positions have a different title but the same duties) or are those offices provided for but for some reason the branches have not filled them? If the branches have differing titles for their officers RONR doesn't have an issue with it as long as the bylaws of the parent organization doesn't. On the other hand, if some branches simply haven't elected someone to be Chair or Vice Chair then they should be encouraged to do so ASAP. and see RONR pp. 452-453 in the meantime. I would also suggest you all inquire as to why they haven't done so. Are there too few members to fill the offices required? Are there enough members to do so but there is some reason they aren't willing to serve? What is going on in their neck of the woods?

Executive Session is discussed in multiple locations in RONR and is not available online. I would suggest you get a copy of the 11th Edition look in the index and make copies of any pertinent passages.

Do your bylaws require a ballot vote? If so, is there a provision allowing an unopposed candidate to be declared elected?

I would think so assuming the body is hearing the evidence and determining the accused fate. Yes (RONR p. 95). RONR doesn't say that. I think that is a good practice because if the accused were to resign, plead guilty either merely to save themselves a hearing or to get a lesser punishment (assuming the Committee has the authority to make a deal like that) it saves everyone the time and resources of having to hold a hearing1. 1Technically speaking a hearing might still have to be held in order to accept the accused guilty plea and impose the punishment.

Wouldn't Postpone Indefinitely allow debate on the question (which is what the majority apparently wants to avoid)? Wouldn't it be better (after whoever made the motion gets their time to speak in debate) for a member to move the Previous Question?

I think it will ultimately boil down to whether the bylaws make the Treasurer a member of the body which is meeting. Members can vote (unless the bylaws disenfranchise them-which it doesn't sound like in your case) and nonmembers cannot vote.

You can't conduct business via email unless your bylaws specifically provides for it (RONR p. 98). However, even if email voting was permitted for the Board you wouldn't have any right (under RONR) to see the email thread unless you are a Board member. Of course, your rules may grant you rights RONR doesn't.

Not really. Even if you had an odd number of Board members one being absent or abstaining would cause you to have an even number of members who voted so a tie could still happen. No. A 3-3 ties defeats the motion the same as if 4, 5,or all 6 members voted against the motion. A decision was made. The motion was defeated. If in the future you all want to consider the motion again it can be renewed. See RONR pp. 336-342.

The motion fails (RONR pp. 53-54). Each member gets one vote no matter how many hats he may wear unless the bylaws say otherwise (RONR p. 407).

Until the Chair has stated the question (putting the motion to accept the resignations before the assembly) the member can unilaterally withdraw the resignation. See RONR pp. 295-298 and FAQ #18.

There is no need to break the tie since a tie means that a majority wasn't in favor of the motion and thus the motion failed. As for actually filling the vacancy you could look to see if there is anyone who is more palatable to the members or the 3 who are in favor of this person might have to do a bit of horse trading with one or more of those who were against this person ("if you vote for Mr. X then we will vote for something you want").

Chances are she would search the Web and link the person to the 4th Edition (which is the most recent edition that is in the public domain).

You posed in (pretty much) the right place. Stay tuned but since RONR/11 isn't even available for Kindle yet I suspect there is no app yet.

Maybe so regarding him taking away the floor (as for having the member removed by the Sheriff, unless the bylaws say otherwise only the assembly has the authority to order a member removed-see RONR pp. 645-648 for details). Does this Board have a rule adopted regarding how long members can speak and how long was he speaking for?