aajjss

I just want to clarify, the constitution makes clear that this position is appointed and not elected.

Our bylaws state that "All Chairmen except those who are elected as provided for in this Constitution shall be appointed by the vice-president with the approval of the Executive Board" and that "A non-elected Chairman is subject to removal from his position by decision of the vice-president with consent of the president". However, at the end of our elections meeting, the chair sought nominations from the floor and then proceeded to hold an election for a non-elected chairman position. Some are now arguing that the chairman elected at the end of the meeting is subject to the rules governing elected committee chairman and not appointed ones. What can be done to remedy this situation?

In such a situation with the rules against attacking another member's motives RONR (12th ed.) 43:21 and against insinuations unfavorable to an officer RONR (12th ed.) 63:11 be waived?

Our organization's bylaws provide that "The terms of officers shall be one year." Therefore, according to section 62:16 an officer can only be removed through the procedure set out in section 63. However, the bylaws also contain a provision that "Any officer may be removed from office a two-thirds majority (2/3) vote of all active members in good standing." Under the bylaws does the procedure in Section 63 have to be followed or can an officer be removed by a 2/3s vote on a motion?

Rule 61:11 states that after a member who had the floor is declared out of order and directed to be seated, the puts the question "Should the member be allowed to continue speaking?" to the assembly. If the assembly votes that the member should be allowed to continue speaking, does that constitute a decision that the chair was wrong to declare the member out of order and the member may continue his remarks in the same vein or that the member may continue his speech within the confines of the rules?