Amend Chairs decision

[Anthony]

The Chair removed 3 Board members stating the three had resigned and he was accepting their resignation per our bylaws which allow the 4

Committee members to act on behalf of the board "in matters that require expediency, but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions". 

At the January 25th in-person meeting it was noted under "unfinished business" that the 3 members had been removed on December 4th by the Chair and Secretary by a 2-0 vote (Treasurer and Vice Chair did not vote) which took place via email @ 10 o'clock at night.

In January they took an email vote to fill those vacancies (our bylaws allow email voting however this was the first time it was used). Our Executive Board accepted the new members in a roll call vote (not sure how a quorum works with email voting as our bylaws do not address it). 

The Board Members were unaware that the Chair and Secretary alone voted to accept non-existent resignation that should have been brought before them for a vote.

Now, the Board Members want to amend the Chairs decision to circumvent the Board.

Is this still possible being as new Board Members were voted in to those "open seats"?

[Josh Martin]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:49 AM, Anthony said:

The Chair removed 3 Board members stating the three had resigned and he was accepting their resignation per our bylaws which allow the 4 [Executive?] Committee members to act on behalf of the board "in matters that require expediency, but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions". 

In so far as RONR is concerned, only the body authorized to fill the vacancies has the power to accept the resignations.

Whether the Executive Committee has authority to act in this matter under the authority “to act on behalf of the board in matters that require expediency, but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions" is a question of bylaws interpretation the assembly will have to answer for itself.

Generally, I’m skeptical this could not wait until the next board meeting.

On 3/26/2024 at 8:49 AM, Anthony said:

At the January 25th in-person meeting it was noted under "unfinished business" that the 3 members had been removed on December 4th by the Chair and Secretary by a 2-0 vote (Treasurer and Vice Chair did not vote) which took place via email @ 10 o'clock at night.

To the extent the Executive Committee has the authority to act on this matter at all, voting by email is not permitted unless your bylaws or applicable law so provide. If your rules do authorize email voting (and apparently they do), you will have to look to those rules.

On 3/26/2024 at 8:49 AM, Anthony said:

Our Executive Board accepted the new members in a roll call vote (not sure how a quorum works with email voting as our bylaws do not address it). 

The term “quorum” refers to the number of members who must be present at a meeting to conduct business. This term has no meaningful application for an email vote.

Many organizations which use email voting will adopt rules requiring a minimum number of members to respond to an email vote for it to be valid. This serves a similar purpose to a quorum requirement, but is not quite the same thing.

Your organization may wish to consider adopting further rules on this subject.

On 3/26/2024 at 8:49 AM, Anthony said:

The Board Members were unaware that the Chair and Secretary alone voted to accept non-existent resignation that should have been brought before them for a vote.

If it is in fact correct these were “non-existent” resignations, no one had the authority to accept the “resignations.”

On 3/26/2024 at 8:49 AM, Anthony said:

Now, the Board Members want to amend the Chairs decision to circumvent the Board.

Is this still possible being as new Board Members were voted in to those "open seats"?

They can try.

A member could raise a Point of Order that the acceptance of the resignations was null and void, and therefore, that the subsequent elections were also null and void.

The chair will rule the point “well taken,” meaning he agrees, or “not well taken” meaning he disagrees.

A member may appeal from this ruling m. If seconded, this places the question in the hands of the assembly. A majority vote is required to overturn the chair’s ruling.

Edited March 26, 2024 at 03:24 PM by Josh Martin

[Anthony]

Thank you for your quick response. 

Can the 3 board members that were illegally removed by the Chair be able to vote to overturn the Chairs decision?

[Josh Martin]

On 3/26/2024 at 2:03 PM, Anthony said:

Can the 3 board members that were illegally removed by the Chair be able to vote to overturn the Chairs decision?

Well, that’s where it gets tricky, I think.

This is an unusual situation for a board, in which two different groups of people are purporting to be board members. Things like this don’t usually happen. It’s normally clear who is (and isn’t) a board member.

I’m honestly not sure.

One would certainly hope that it wouldn’t make a difference, and that all members will vote in good faith on their honest interpretation of the rules.

[Joshua Katz]

On 3/26/2024 at 12:03 PM, Anthony said:

Can the 3 board members that were illegally removed by the Chair be able to vote to overturn the Chairs decision?

 

On 3/26/2024 at 12:36 PM, Josh Martin said:

I’m honestly not sure.

 

With some hesitation, I'll take a stab. Note: I've argued similar points before in organizations I was a member of, and did not convince a majority, so take it with a grain of salt.

RONR states that the chair's decision stands unless and until overturned on appeal. The chair's decision has not been overturned on appeal. Therefore, it stands, and so they may not vote.

[Dan Honemann]

I think the facts as stated are way too muddy.

On 3/26/2024 at 9:49 AM, Anthony said:

The Chair removed 3 Board members stating the three had resigned and he was accepting their resignation per our bylaws which allow the 4

Committee members to act on behalf of the board "in matters that require expediency, but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions". 

I can understand that the bylaws may provide for an executive committee with authority to act for the board, but here we are told that the Chair unilaterally accepted resignations, and are provided with a snippet from the bylaws apparently referring to this committee's authority but ending with "but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions".

Clearly we need to see what these bylaws actually provide in this connection, since the facts get even muddier:

On 3/26/2024 at 9:49 AM, Anthony said:

At the January 25th in-person meeting it was noted under "unfinished business" that the 3 members had been removed on December 4th by the Chair and Secretary by a 2-0 vote (Treasurer and Vice Chair did not vote) which took place via email @ 10 o'clock at night.

In January they took an email vote to fill those vacancies (our bylaws allow email voting however this was the first time it was used). Our Executive Board accepted the new members in a roll call vote (not sure how a quorum works with email voting as our bylaws do not address it). 

Apparently the "they" who took this email vote were members of the board, but I can't tell if this vote was taken before or after the in-person meeting that was held on January 25.  Where were these three members who we are now told were "removed" by the Chair and Secretary (not just the Chair) when this in-person meeting was held? Were they notified of this meeting?

On 3/26/2024 at 9:49 AM, Anthony said:

The Board Members were unaware that the Chair and Secretary alone voted to accept non-existent resignation that should have been brought before them for a vote.

Now, the Board Members want to amend the Chairs decision to circumvent the Board.

Is this still possible being as new Board Members were voted in to those "open seats"?

What "decision" of the Chair is being referred to here"  Mr. Katz seems to think it was a ruling by the chair which would have been appealable, but I see no indication that this is so.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:21 PM, Joshua Katz said:

With some hesitation, I'll take a stab. Note: I've argued similar points before in organizations I was a member of, and did not convince a majority, so take it with a grain of salt.

RONR states that the chair's decision stands unless and until overturned on appeal. The chair's decision has not been overturned on appeal. Therefore, it stands, and so they may not vote.

I am inclined to agree with this principle as a general matter, but the facts of this situation are so unusual that I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that principle as applied in this situation.

We are told that this situation involves three members who resigned and whose resignations were accepted by the Chair or by the Executive Committee (as Mr. Honemann says, the facts are "muddy"). It is disputed whether these persons had the authority to accept the resignations. More troublingly, there is a reference to "nonexistent" resignations. As I recall from previous threads, this relates to the persons withdrawing their resignations, although as I look back on all that, I see those facts are a bit muddy as well.

In these particular circumstances, it seems somewhat problematic, to put it mildly, to accept as true the chair's claim that the three new members are validly serving, and the three "resigning" members are not, unless and until this ruling is overturned on appeal.

On 3/26/2024 at 8:49 AM, Anthony said:

The Board Members were unaware that the Chair and Secretary alone voted to accept non-existent resignation that should have been brought before them for a vote.

To refresh everyone's memory, could you briefly summarize the situation regarding the resignations? Please describe a timeline of the actions in this matter, including:

• When the resignations were submitted
• What action (if any) was taken on the resignations by the full board, including the chair announcing the resignations at a meeting of the board
• When the resignations were withdrawn

On 3/27/2024 at 5:58 AM, Dan Honemann said:

What "decision" of the Chair is being referred to here"  Mr. Katz seems to think it was a ruling by the chair which would have been appealable, but I see no indication that this is so.

My understanding is the "decision" being referred to is the acceptance of the resignations.

I don't believe Mr. Katz is suggesting a ruling by the chair has occurred at this time. Rather, I proposed that the method to raise a challenge in this matter would be for a member to raise a Point of Order that the acceptance of the resignations, and the subsequent elections to fill the "vacancies," are null and void. The chair would then rule on that point, and I believe that is the ruling Mr. Katz is referring to.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/27/2024 at 8:18 AM, Josh Martin said:

My understanding is the "decision" being referred to is the acceptance of the resignations.

I don't believe Mr. Katz is suggesting a ruling by the chair has occurred at this time. Rather, I proposed that the method to raise a challenge in this matter would be for a member to raise a Point of Order that the acceptance of the resignations, and the subsequent elections to fill the "vacancies," are null and void. The chair would then rule on that point, and I believe that is the ruling Mr. Katz is referring to.

It didn't and still doesn't look like this to me, but never mind. 

What concerns me is Anthony's informing us that his bylaws authorize Committee members to act on behalf of the board "in matters that require expediency, but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions".

Does this indicate that there is now a move afoot to insist that singular pronouns be substituted for plural pronouns?

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/27/2024 at 9:14 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Does this indicate that there is now a move afoot to insist that singular pronouns be substituted for plural pronouns?

For all things of any kind, there exists a move afoot to insist on that thing—and another to abolish it.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/27/2024 at 11:40 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

For all things of any kind, there exists a move afoot to insist on that thing—and another to abolish it.

If you say so, but I do wish that people would stop messing around with our pronouns.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/27/2024 at 12:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

If you say so, but I do wish that people would stop messing around with our pronouns.

Well, I agree, the use of "them" to mean "he-or-she" grates on my ears, since, as a person of a certain age, I learned in grade school that if you're speaking of an individual of unknown gender, you say "he".  Somehow that turned from a simple rule of English grammar into a conspiracy theory.   The irony is that English, when compared with many languages, is remarkably gender-free.  Some have gendered treatment for most nouns, and most of those choices make no sense.   

Fortunately, I often have bigger problems to worry about.  🙂

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/27/2024 at 9:14 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Does this indicate that there is now a move afoot to insist that singular pronouns be substituted for plural pronouns?

😀

On 3/27/2024 at 12:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I do wish that people would stop messing around with our pronouns

I haven't heard of anyone who wants to mess with your pronouns, so of course you can continue to use the singular for yourself.

I understand that they are seeking to have their preferences similarly respected.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/27/2024 at 6:13 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I understand that they are seeking to have their preferences similarly respected.

Are you referring to a single person here or to several?  These days it seems we have to guess.

[Atul Kapur]

As there is no identified person or group, it was used to cover any and all circumstancese (it's a very useful word).

[Anthony]

It seems that in my attempt to simplify this confusing situation I have muddied the waters even further. I  will try to me more clear by laying out the timeline. 

In September there was a highly charged meeting were several members stated they were not happy with the way the Executive Committee was making all the decisions and the Executive Board of 44 were not allowed to participate.  Nothing was brought before the Executive Board for a vote.  Admittedly, the Executive Board members should have been more assertive but, in their defense, the Chair is an intimidating person and most just went along.

Not wanting to continue battling with the Chair, the Vice Chair stood and stated that she was resigning.  Additionally, the Membership Chair stood and expressed his disappointment and that he was resigning from his position as Membership Chair.  A third Executive Board member stated he would leave if things continued along the same path.  At no time during this meeting did anyone, including the Chair, make a motion to accept a resignation.  The balance of the meeting was spent with different Executive Board members voicing their opinions and asking questions.  The meeting was adjourned.

The next day the Vice Chair, at the request of several members, rescinded her resignation. However the Chair stated he had already accepted her resignation.  The Chair also stated he was accepting the resignation of the other two elected Board Members.  Keep in mind that the Membership Chair simply resigned his Committee Chair position not his Board seat.  The third accepted resignation never happened.  It was simply this board member expressing his disappointment.  

Our bylaws do not address how resignations are to accepted.  The Chair points to RONR to justify his actions but omits the substance of the rule.  

The Chair sends out an email to the body stating:  None of the accepted resignations have been previously properly withdrawn. The official interpretations of Robert’s Rules of Order states a resignation “may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn”. RR 33:12 and RR 33:13 describe the process for a member to withdraw a motion.  None of the accepted resignations have been previously properly withdrawn in accordance with RR 33;12

The Chair intentionally omits the substance of the rule.  a resignation is a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. It “may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn”.  —before the proposed resignation has been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance, it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, but it may not be withdrawn without permission of the assembly once it has been placed before the assembly for its approval. [RONR (12th ed.) 32:1–8, 33:12–18.] 

The Chair has now expressed to the Executive Board that because the "resignations" were not properly withdrawn, the Board can accept the resignations.  However, instead of bringing it to the Board in a regular monthly meeting the Chair decides that the Executive Committee will act on behalf of the Board. Our bylaws state:

Section 4: Executive Committee
The term "Executive Committee" as used in this provision, and elsewhere in these bylaws, shall not be construed as
interchangeable with the executive committee referenced in Article I Section 1. For the purposes of these bylaws, the Executive
Committee shall refer to, and consist only of, the Board's four elected Officers. This Executive Committee shall have the
authority to act on behalf of the Board in matters which preclude the Board from direct involvement due to matters of
confidentiality or expediency but shall be accountable to the Board for its actions.

On December 4th @ 10 o'clock at night the Secretary sends out an email vote to the 3 members of the Executive Committee (the Treasurer has resigned).

Do you accept the resignation of the Vice Chair  Yes or No

Do you accept the resignation of Executive Board Member xxx  Yes or No

Do you accept the resignation of Executive Board Member xxxxx  Yes or No

The Chair and Secretary both vote yes 

The Vice Chair does not vote

The Secretary then sends out an email to the body that the 3 resignations have been accepted via email using section 4 of the bylaws.  

The bylaws do not expand on what is expediency however the Chair would not call a meeting for over 90 days so there obviously was no reason to act on behalf of the Board when we simply could have taken a vote at an in-person meeting.  The Chair did not want a meeting as the Board would have sided against his decision.  

but here we are told that the Chair unilaterally accepted resignations, and are provided with a snippet from the bylaws apparently referring to this committee's authority but ending with "but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions".

Unfortunately, a "snippit" is really all there is to Section 4 regarding the Executive Committee's ability to act on behalf of the Board.  I mistakenly used his when I should have said the Executive Committee which consisted of the Chair, Secretary and Vice Chair. Hopefully, the above explanation clears that up.

In this layman's opinion:

the chair deceitfully misled the Board when he stated 2 Executive Committee members resigned.  The Board knows the two did not resign as they were at the meeting.

the chair deceitfully misled the Board when he quoted RONR stating resignations were not withdrawn properly omitting the true definition.  

the chair deceitfully misled the Board when he said the Executive Committee must act for the Board in the name of expediency and then not hold a meeting for 90 days. 

Now the Chair is doing everything through email voting stating members that may not be able to attend in-person meetings will have access to vote electronically.

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

In September there was a highly charged meeting

Of what?

On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

However the Chair stated he had already accepted her resignation. 

The Chair is wrong.

On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

Keep in mind that the Membership Chair simply resigned his Committee Chair position not his Board seat.

I'm going to choose not to get into this.

On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

This Executive Committee shall have the
authority to act on behalf of the Board in matters which preclude the Board from direct involvement due to matters of
confidentiality or expediency but shall be accountable to the Board for its actions.

Well this is not great language, and so your organization will have to wrestle with what the EC may do. In the long run, the language should be amended.

 

On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

On December 4th @ 10 o'clock at night the Secretary sends out an email vote to the 3 members of the Executive Committee (the Treasurer has resigned).

 

 

Do your bylaws allow email voting? If so, what do they say about procedure?

 

On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

the chair deceitfully misled the Board when he stated 2 Executive Committee members resigned.  The Board knows the two did not resign as they were at the meeting.

 

 

I'm in no position to sort out the facts or determine if there was deceit, and in any case that's not a parliamentary question.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/28/2024 at 12:46 PM, Anthony said:

Not wanting to continue battling with the Chair, the Vice Chair stood and stated that she was resigning.  Additionally, the Membership Chair stood and expressed his disappointment and that he was resigning from his position as Membership Chair.  A third Executive Board member stated he would leave if things continued along the same path.  At no time during this meeting did anyone, including the Chair, make a motion to accept a resignation.  The balance of the meeting was spent with different Executive Board members voicing their opinions and asking questions.  The meeting was adjourned.

The next day the Vice Chair, at the request of several members, rescinded her resignation. However the Chair stated he had already accepted her resignation.  The Chair also stated he was accepting the resignation of the other two elected Board Members.  Keep in mind that the Membership Chair simply resigned his Committee Chair position not his Board seat.  The third accepted resignation never happened.  It was simply this board member expressing his disappointment.  

Thank you. Based upon these facts, I am inclined to agree that the resignations were never pending before the assembly and were properly withdrawn. As a consequence, there were no longer any resignations for the Chair, the Executive Committee, or anyone else to act upon, and it's not really necessary to address the question of whether the Executive Committee had the authority to act for the board in this matter, or whether the Executive Committee can vote via e-mail.

The Chair appears at one point to claim that the Chair, acting alone, accepted the resignations, but does not seem to point to anything granting him the authority to do this. And there does not appear to be any dispute that the resignations were withdrawn prior to the Executive Committee acting in this matter.

On 3/28/2024 at 12:46 PM, Anthony said:

The Chair sends out an email to the body stating:  None of the accepted resignations have been previously properly withdrawn. The official interpretations of Robert’s Rules of Order states a resignation “may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn”. RR 33:12 and RR 33:13 describe the process for a member to withdraw a motion.  None of the accepted resignations have been previously properly withdrawn in accordance with RR 33;12

The Chair intentionally omits the substance of the rule.  a resignation is a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. It “may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn”.  —before the proposed resignation has been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance, it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, but it may not be withdrawn without permission of the assembly once it has been placed before the assembly for its approval. [RONR (12th ed.) 32:1–8, 33:12–18.] 

I agree that the chair omits important information from the rule in question.

"Is it possible to withdraw a resignation after it has been submitted?

A resignation is a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. It may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn—that is to say, before the proposed resignation has been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance, it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, but it may not be withdrawn without permission of the assembly once it has been placed before the assembly for its approval. [RONR (12th ed.) 32:1–8, 33:12–18.]" FAQ #18, emphasis added

In the circumstances described, the resignation was never "placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance" (or at least, not until after the resignations had already been withdrawn), and therefore, the resignation could be withdrawn unilaterally by the person who originally submitted the resignation.

Edited March 28, 2024 at 06:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Anthony]

Does the board need to amend his decision and if so, how can the board amend a decision the chair had not right to make?  Or, do the three just send a follow-up email to the board stating the chair was not within his right to accept resignations and the three will resume their positions?

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/29/2024 at 4:11 PM, Anthony said:

Does the board need to amend his decision and if so, how can the board amend a decision the chair had not right to make?

At a board meeting, a member could raise a Point of Order that the acceptance of the resignations was null and void, and therefore, that the subsequent elections were also null and void.

The chair will rule the point “well taken,” meaning he agrees, or “not well taken” meaning he disagrees.

A member may appeal from this ruling. If seconded, this places the question in the hands of the assembly. A majority vote is required to overturn the chair’s ruling.

On 3/29/2024 at 4:11 PM, Anthony said:

Or, do the three just send a follow-up email to the board stating the chair was not within his right to accept resignations and the three will resume their positions?

Well, you can try that if you want. I don't imagine the chair will accept that.

Do you have an attorney yet? I have to imagine this is headed to court, since it seems to me the chair is just going to ignore whatever the board does in this matter.

[Anthony]

On 3/29/2024 at 5:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

At a board meeting, a member could raise a Point of Order that the acceptance of the resignations was null and void, and therefore, that the subsequent elections were also null and void.

The chair will rule the point “well taken,” meaning he agrees, or “not well taken” meaning he disagrees.

A member may appeal from this ruling. If seconded, this places the question in the hands of the assembly. A majority vote is required to overturn the chair’s ruling.

Well, you can try that if you want. I don't imagine the chair will accept that.

Do you have an attorney yet? I have to imagine this is headed to court, since it seems to me the chair is just going to ignore whatever the board does in this matter.

Thank you Josh.  You have been extremely helpful!

[Wright Stuff]

The resignations were made during the highly charged meeting. Do the resignations have to be withdrawn during a meeting, or can the members who resigned give notice of their intent to withdraw their resignations prior to the next meeting?

If the resignations have to be rescinded at a meeting, it seems that this “intimidating” chair could entertain the first motion from someone (selected in advance) to move acceptance of the resignations before the “resigners” have an opportunity to withdrawn their resignations.

How would you advise the resigners to proceed at this point to avoid the chair’s gamesmanship?

[Josh Martin]

On 3/31/2024 at 9:09 AM, Wright Stuff said:

The resignations were made during the highly charged meeting. Do the resignations have to be withdrawn during a meeting, or can the members who resigned give notice of their intent to withdraw their resignations prior to the next meeting?

Provided that the chair has not yet stated the question on accepting the resignations, and therefore the resignations are not yet pending before the assembly, the resignations may be withdrawn at any time, including between meetings. From the facts presented, this appears to be the applicable rule in this situation.

After the chair has stated the question on accepting the resignations, the resignations may only be withdrawn with the consent of the assembly. As a result, while a member could certainly indicate his intent to withdraw his resignation earlier, the resignation could not be formally withdrawn until a meeting.

After the resignations have been accepted, the resignations cannot be withdrawn at all, although the persons who previously served in the positions could be elected to fill the vacancies, which would have a similar effect.

On 3/31/2024 at 9:09 AM, Wright Stuff said:

If the resignations have to be rescinded at a meeting, it seems that this “intimidating” chair could entertain the first motion from someone (selected in advance) to move acceptance of the resignations before the “resigners” have an opportunity to withdrawn their resignations.

How would you advise the resigners to proceed at this point to avoid the chair’s gamesmanship?

I don't think the former resigners need to do anything further, at least from the perspective of RONR. To the extent the chair was acting within the bounds of RONR, the resignations have already been withdrawn, and there is no need for any further action on the part of the former resigners.

The chair, however, appears to be quite... creative, and is acting well beyond the bounds of RONR. So I don't know that I can imagine all of the "gamesmanship" that might be attempted by this chair.

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/31/2024 at 10:09 AM, Wright Stuff said:

it seems that this “intimidating” chair could entertain the first motion from someone (selected in advance) to move acceptance of the resignations before the “resigners” have an opportunity to withdrawn their resignations.

It's odd, because we're offering solutions based on RONR, but the assumption is that the chair isn't adhering to those rules. In any case: If someone moves to accept the resignation, then the member who "resigned" can rise before the motion is stated and interrupt the proceedings to raise a question of privilege to withdraw the resignation. The deadline for that is before the chair states the question, which is the third step in processing a motion: 

1. A member makes ("moves") the motion

2. A member seconds the motion

3. The chair states the motion.

[Anthony]

On 3/31/2024 at 12:04 PM, Atul Kapur said:

 it's odd, because we're offering solutions based on RONR, but the assumption is that the chair isn't adhering to those rules.

That is the case but how does the 3 proceed?  Has it now become something the court must settle? 

[Anthony]

That is the case but how does the 3 proceed?  Has it now become something the court must settle?