Chris Harrison

Yes.

"For purposes of determining eligibility to continue in office under such a provision*, an officer who has served more that half a term is considered to have served a full term in that office." *Referring to a provision in the governing documents regarding term limits.

See RONR p. 575 ll. 2-5. So the question is whether he served EXACTLY one year of the 2 year term or a little less or a little more than a year?

Though RONR p. 456 ll. 9-18 applies to this somewhat.

RONR doesn't caution or mention the Chair being careful though with the clear potential of that rule being abused it would behoove the Chair to use that rule VERY rarely. That is why I said " the general opinion of this board in the past is a Chair should be very careful..." With the exception of taking disciplinary action against the Chair later there is really no immediate recourse for the members if the Chair is acting in bad faith other than a member stating the question themselves. Granted there are cases where there cannot be more than one reasonable opinion but, if there is any chance there might be another reasonable argument...even if that chance is very small...the Chair should allow the Appeal. Any time the Chair uses the rule on page 256 he is for all intents and purposes thwarting the will of the assembly by not allowing them to challenge his ruling. That should only be done when it is absolutely...100%...bet your life savings and 401k that you are right...certain that the assembly only has one reasonable way to decide the Appeal. True, though the way I view it is if the Chair rules the Appeal dilatory and won't allow it the effect is the same as if he ignored it. In either case the assembly isn't given the opportunity to consider the Appeal.

I don't think RONR says for sure but given why the Chair's name is called last in larger assemblies I would not think it would be under Small Board rules. Works for me..

If I remember correctly the general opinion of this board in the past is a Chair should be very careful about ruling an Appeal dilatory because there are not two reasonable opinions. A Chair doing so risks 1) having pp. 650-651 implemented and a member stating the question themselves, 2) the assembly taking disciplinary action against the Chair, or 3) both.

As long as this person meets the qualifications for both Treasurer and Governor (and the Bylaws don't forbid holding both offices at the same time) I see no problem.

All the names listed on the bulletin board by both the Nominating Committee and petition(s) would be the members' choices come election time.

You can't have Special Meetings unless the Bylaws provide for them (with one exception). See RONR p. 92 ll. 9-13.

No. They can take a Recess, set up an Adjourned Meeting, Adjourn, or take steps in order to obtain a quorum. There are a few other measures which may be in order as well. See RONR pp. 347-348 for more detail.

I would strongly suggest you all talk to someone who is familiar with the Statute in question (a lawyer?) before having that Board meeting because somehow I suspect the minutes alone would not satisfy the Statute's definition of "recording".

It is up to you all to interpret your own Bylaws.

If your Bylaws provide for alternates on the Nominating Committee then they should also spell out when and how alternates are seated.

Usually a (new) motion to Rescind would be considered in New Business though the rules could be suspended to consider it earlier. However, it is unclear if a motion to Rescind would be the correct one in this case. The motion to defund the item in March may or may not have been a motion to Rescind/Amend a previously adopted motion originally funding it in which case the November one might be a simple Main Motion. A lot more detail would be necessary to say for sure.

Maybe. What are these amendments to? New motions? Previously adopted motions? Amendments to your governing documents? Depending on what exactly you are proposing amendments to it may be possible to unilaterally tweak the amendment prior to the question being stated, or it can be done but the voting requirement for the motion may be higher, or it may not be possible at all.

I'd also suggest getting a copy of RONR and reading the questions and responses in this forum looking up any citations given. For the most part that is how I did it.

Any limitations on who is eligible to be elected would need to be located in the Bylaws.

I'm not that concerned. Of course, I've served on public bodies before and how we would deal with a Chair deeming a motion "unsuitable" wouldn't vary any from how those I've served on that weren't public bodies would have.

See FAQ #14.

If the Chair still refuses to put the question to a vote a member can do it themselves (RONR pp. 650-651). Then they should strongly consider taking disciplinary action against him or her.

Some policies and procedures can be Standing Rules but they can also be Special Rules of Order or they can be located in the organization's Bylaws or Constitution and each of them has a different voting requirement to adopt or change. If you can give us more detail in exactly you are wanting to know we may be of more help.

Those details should be fleshed out in any rules you all adopted governing how public comment is taken. If it were a member speaking in debate there would be a way to inquire if the member would allow a question (which he would be under no obligation to allow) but that wouldn't necessarily be applicable to a nonmember (very likely wouldn't be). See RONR pp. 294-295 for details.

If the President's term expires this spring then an election needs to be held at that point.

Usually one of the major jobs of a Bylaws Committee is to propose amendments which are then submitted to the General Membership (or whatever body that is authorized to amend them) for their consideration.