Here's what happened:
The chair came to a recent select board meeting and said he intended to announce his plan to resign as chair in executive session, but the town attorney advised him that he had no grounds to do that. So it was done in an open session. The resigning chair said he wanted to make a two part motion to both resign as chair (but stay on the board) and elect a member he had already chosen to be the new chair. (The "new chair" was not the sitting vice chair.)
The resigning chair indicated he had been "working with" the proposed new chair for six months and felt "confident" he would do a great job, so he wanted to have a hand in steering the board forward as he announced his resignation.
There was some indication that the other board members, except for the Vice Chair, had been tipped off to the chair's impending resignation. The vice chair only learned of it at the meeting. The chair admitted later that the "new chair" was told about the chair's intention to resign soon after he made the decision, even though the chair didn't inform anyone else on the board (supposedly.)
The vice chair objected to the two part motion and to the chair's efforts to choose his own successor, rather than resigning in one motion and then letting the board decide as a group on electing a new chair. The two part motions were passed despite the vice chair's objections, with only the vice chair voting against them.
The resigning chair initially refused to answer press inquiries about when he told each of the other members he was planning to resign, and the other members refused to disclose that information on the record. (Except for the vice chair, who openly said he found out about the resignation for the first time at the meeting.)
At the most recent SB meeting, the resigning chair said the town attorney advised the board to "ratify" the two part motion by making another two, separate motions (i.e., to resign, and to elect the new vice chair.) Again the motions were passed, and again the vice chair voted against.
Just seems to me there was some effort made to bypass what is standard practice of having the vice chair take over as chair. In other meetings when the chair was not present, the vice chair would step in as chair. Robert's Rules indicate the vice chair should become the chair. It seems like the resigning chair just made a decision to pick his new successor without any guidance (he seemed to state that he did not seek the town attorney's input or guidance on the issue until after his two part motion aroused concern among the public.)
One thing that might figure into this -- there was a recent scandal involving a member of another board, and the resigning chair had made some public comments in the press about the person involved in the scandal that the vice chair publicly disagreed with. I don't get the feeling they like each other a whole lot.
I contacted the town attorney to inquire as to what guidance the town uses in cases where the policies and procedures do not address a situation, and he refused to answer any questions. He said he has not been given the authority to speak to the press about anything involving the town or its general policies and procedures. I guess they keep him on a tight leash.
And that's where it stands right now. The new chair has been appointed, the former chair remains on the board as a member, and the vice chair remains the vice chair.