Chris Harrison

The question is under what authority does she or whoever imposed this "special rule" on you think they have the power to do so and make it stick? I suspect that authority only exists in their own minds (though I could be wrong so you should do your research). If that authority doesn't exist then it's up to you to decide whether this "special rule" should be obeyed.

As far as RONR is concerned the duty to keep what was discussed in Executive Session within Executive Session isn't waived just because what was discussed involved that particular member. That being said, if I discussed it outside of Executive Session and was called out on it I would argue that if I am being accused of something or my reputation is being impugned I darn well have a right to refute those allegations in any forum I darn well please. Of course, they may then toss me out on my ear but such is life. Since you said this had "nothing to do with board jurisdiction, (nor an authorized executive session topic, as far as local laws go)" I would suggest you talk to a lawyer as to any legal implications but as for RONR see my above response.

I was originally going to suggest you check out FAQ #14 but since there are potential legal issues involved you should talk to a lawyer who can better advise you.

Besides talking to everyone outside of a meeting (you have no obligation to talk to the President or anyone else for that matter) there is really no way to prevent the President from speaking in debate. Granted, the President in order to remain impartial shouldn't be speaking in the first place but there is no way to actually prevent her from doing so if she is so inclined. Also, if she is involved in your situation she should be turning the chair over to the Vice President and then she would be free to speak in debate as any other member.

I suspect Guest LRB got more than he or she bargained for. Definitely food for thought though.

Assuming your Bylaws don't say otherwise the consequences can range from censure (a slap on the wrist merely stating the assembly is not happy with the offending member) to being expelled from the organization. See RONR Chapter XX for details.

If your Bylaws say nothing about discipline then you follow RONR Chapter XX. If they do discuss discipline then you follow them. As far as RONR is concerned a Chapter XX trial (with all its rigamarole) is necessary unless the offending member was "caught in the act" during a meeting (for example repeatedly using indecorous language) in which case the assembly deals with it then and there. No. There could be situations where something took place during a meeting and for whatever reason the assembly didn't deal with it at that point. For example the assembly really can't do much at the time if all actions taken at the meeting would be invalid in the first place (no quorum or the meeting was improperly noticed). In that case the assembly would need to hold off taking action until it can be validly done though at that point a full trial would be necessary since not everyone who was there in Meeting #2 were there at Meeting #1 to see what happened.

Do the Bylaws specify where the meeting is to be located and what time of the day? The easiest solution while staying in compliance with the Bylaws is for one or two members to meet at the location and time specified in the Bylaws and call the meeting to order. Immediately they can set an Adjourned Meeting (RONR pp. 242-247) with whatever time and date the Members had agreed to (via email or some other method). Then they adjourn until that date and time.

Who is responsible for posting those requirements and under what authority do they believe they can make such requirements? Do the Bylaws say it? Did the General Membership previously adopt a Special Rule of Order specifying the member must be present to accept the nomination? Also, is the requirement about having to be a member in good standing for a year in order to hold office in the Bylaws?

I don't view it as a conflict or a gap. I saw it as a ceremonial "swearing in" or "installation" sort of action where the newly elected officers "take office" at the May Board meeting but as of 12:00:01 AM May 1st it is "out with the old and in with the new". However, I can definitely see both other interpretations and agree the wording should be clarified.

Unless your Bylaws have separate language regarding terms of office for Board members all Board seats fell vacant as of May 1st (RONR pp. 573-574).

The simple answer is unless more (Board) members vote in favor of allowing a nonmember (of the Board) to attend the meeting than vote against it then the nonmember won't be allowed to attend. The not so simple answer is those two Board members need to work together otherwise no business will get done and the General Membership need to get more people on the Board (assuming there are indeed vacancies that can be filled).

If the Bylaws specify meetings of the Executive Committee are open to members wouldn't it be the duty of members wishing to exercise their rights of membership to find out when and where the meetings will be held? Is there someone who members can contact to get that information? If not, it would be a good idea to designate someone. In addition, in order for more transparency maybe you all should make that information available to all members (send our a calendar, post it on your website, etc).

Sure, but you can't raise a Point of Order based on future events and a quorum will exist while you are still in the room and you have to be in the room to raise the Point of Order. Thus the Chair should rule the Point Not Well Taken because a quorum does exist. However, if you have an ally who is willing to raise the Point of Order as soon as you leave the room...

RONR p. 251 (c) would suggest it is.

Has the Subcommittee been tasked to do anything or is it just sitting around? Also, who does the motion establishing the Subcommittee specify it reports to? Just because it is called a Subcommittee doesn't mean it is really a subcommittee (as RONR defines it).

Has the Subcommittee finished the task(s) the Committee gave it? Or is it still working on them but the Committee no longer desires its existence?

...And the citation (if anyone demands to know where you get the authority) is on RONR pp. 648-649.

No. See RONR p. 500 ll. 4-8.

See FAQ #1.

There is no reason (under RONR) to give special treatment (or a special label) for a meeting just because the Board is meeting with a lawyer.

Strictly speaking I believe p. 89 would require you to send out a notice each month. Though, if I were the presiding officer knowing all members had received a calendar with the meeting details, I would likely rule any Point of Order that notice wasn't properly given Not Well Taken per RONR p. 456 ll. 13-18. However, stay tuned for other thoughts.

It probably would be helpful if all the Committee members know when and where the meeting will be. There is no requirement (under RONR) for anyone else to have those details. No (RONR p. 500).

The OP stated each delegate gets 3 votes so there were a total of 150 votes at play.

RONR doesn't require it. However, I would imagine many organizations as a matter of custom (or rule) have went that way.