J. J.

It could have a past effect, or perhaps could make correct incorrect. Suppose that the Society A's rule in that members can only vote for certain officers if they have members for three years. A group of Society B's voted in one of these elections, nobody caught it at the time. The amendment, as stated above, would prevent a challenge to the election on the ground. (BTW, though I usually don't recommend it, I believe that a bylaw amendment could make valid a previously invalid election.)

That would require authorization in the bylaws.

The could be made to have a retroactive effect. For example: The bylaws of Society A could mandate that members must be members for three year. A group, Society B, merges with A. The bylaws could be amended to declare members use to be in Society B, that were members for three years shall be retroactively become three year members of Society A.

Short answer is no. provided that the change was carried out in accordance with the bylaws. That said, if the dues had been set by a motion, it would require the vote need to R/ASPA in order to change it. If the dues were set it the bylaws, the strictures needed to amend the bylaws. You might find this interesting: John of Gaunt

Assuming that the board can amend the bylaws, they can make a retro active change.

Agreeing, I will note that in the first case, even if an appeal, presumably placed from the floor, was successful, there would be a breach of a continuing nature, and subject to a point of order at a future meeting (pp. 251, ll. 2-7; ll 20-23).

A resolution suggesting some action has taken place would be in order, e.g. "Resolved, the assembly censures the treasurer for engaging in graft." (It would probably be libelous, but that is not the issue.) It would be amended to strike out, "for engaging in graft," but other things could be added. The clause, "Except as may be necessary in the case of a notion of censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures ... (p. 344, ll. 1-2, emphasize adde)," exempts censure from the improper language clause. However, the motion to censure does not impair any of the rights that the treasurer may have as both as an officer but as a member.

There is no "accused" in motion "That ______ be censured." This is the expression of the opinion of the assembly of the named entity; it is not a finding of guilt nor a punishment. The blank could be filled with a name of a member, officer, any nonmember or entity. The could be filled with the name "North Korea," for example. You certainly could not fit North Korea in most venues. (see p. 137, ll. 20-29 for an example). It is treated as a main motion, usually. As such, it could be amended by striking out "censured," and insert "commend," leaving the motion reading "that _____ be commended." It would be out of order, IMO, to amend a penalty after a finding of guilt to do the same thing. The chair would say "what penalty shall be imposed on the member" in cases of disorderly conduct within a meeting (p. 647, l. 14), but the member may offer a defense (ll. 21-3). Censure could be a penalty. Note that, if the motion "That ______ be censured" referring to the member was made, it would be out of order, technically, because it is a main motion.

I agree that something "in the nature of a rule of order" should be treated as a rule of order, provided that it: A. Was adopted by the vote needed to adopt a special rule of order. B. Was properly incorporated into a set of rules of some type, e,g. bylaws, that supersede a rule of order. I also agree that this is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. That said, you answer gives the implication that if something is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, it can only be superseded by a bylaw (or higher level rule). I disagree with that implication in the general case, though I agree that, in this parlicular case, it would. .

A simple "no" to the bolded part. Bylaws are superior, by their nature, to any special rule. Let's take a fairly simple rule in a hypothetical dog club: Each member may speak once for five minutes on motions regarding the standards of the breed. The parliamentary authority for the society that has this rule is RONR. I will refer to this as the "five minute rule." That five minute rule could a special rule, in general (p. 16, ll. 1-5). It would supersede RONR's rules on the length of debate. That five minute rule could also be included the bylaw (p. 17, ll. 11-17). That would also supersede RONR's rules on the length of debate (p. 14, ll. 17-22). However, it there some different limitation on debate in the bylaws, e.g. Each member can speak twice in debate for two minutes, it could not adopt the "five minute rule" as a special rule, because that special rule would violate the bylaws. The bylaws and special rules are never "on par" with each other. The special rule is inferior to the bylaws and will be superseded by the bylaws, if they conflict. You will have to get past that point before continuing on with the question.

Simply asking.

Looking at this slightly differently, it might be better if the number of members that can call a meeting be at least a quorum. It seems clear that the majority does not support what you are doing.

The majority demands that the chair call for the ayes and noes.

I'll go a bit further, if this is in a meeting context. If someone not eligible to make a nomination for a position, still makes one, the person he nominated is eligible hold that position, and there is no timely point of order, it is still a valid nomination. Chair: Nominations for the Assistant Deputy Grand Nagus are open. Nonmenber: I nominate Stan Smith. Chair: Stan Smith is nominated. Member A: I nominate Hank Hill. Chair: Hank Hill is nominated. Member C: I nominate Peter Griffin. Member B: Point of order! Mr. Nonmember is ineligible to make nominations. Chair: The point of order was not timely and Stan Smith has been nominated. Peter Griffin is nominated.

And what if there is an objection to that and the chair's declaration is overrule. (I am not advocating this, but it does happen.)

Sorry, I made the edit. It should have said "speak" not "vote."

That bolded notes that both bylaws and special rules supersede RONR where there there is a conflict. If a special rule set debate at one speech of 5 minutes, that would supersede the debate rules in RONR. If that debate rule was put in the bylaws, it would supersede the debate rules in RONR. It doesn't say that bylaws and special rules are "on par" with each other, just that the supersede anything in the special rules or bylaws that conflicts with the parliamentary authority.

I'll add a new wrinkle. The minutes record what the chairman said when stating the question, not how the motion is written. If the chair read motion as "Let's eat, Grandma," it would improper for the secretary to write, "Let's eat Grandma," even if that was how the written motion was worded. This would be a definite reason for draft minutes to be distributed before, or for a committee to review the draft. I have seen a transcripts of meetings where the text reads, "All those in favor say I." I'm quite certain I never said that.

Well, if they were to suspend the rules to permit non voting members to speak, those nonmembers could speak, even if the bylaws clearly give them the right to speak. The assembly could interpret the bylaws in a way that nonvoting members could not speak (majority vote) and suspend the rules to permit it (2/3 vote). I would be interested on if the nonvoting members have been speaking in debate of other questions. That would be an indicator on how they have interpreted the bylaws.

That may be one of those unstated fundamental principles of parliamentary law. I'll let a few other people make that decision.

By adopting RONR, the society agrees not to do certain things, unless the society specifically authorizes those things in its bylaws. In this case, the society, by adopting RONR, agreed not to have absentee voting unless the society authorizes absentee voting in its bylaws.

Can you lay a motion on the table for a specific time?

I think you might mean Postpone.

Absentee voting must be authorized in the bylaws (p 424, ll. 4-9)

I only found one