Benjamin Geiger

I was under the impression that "reclaiming my time" is a peculiarity of the rules of the US House of Representatives, not something found in RONR.

Agreed, but this still leaves open the question of how an incidental main motion to Postpone Indefinitely (or Postpone to a Certain Time) would work. If it weren't for the condition that the incidental main motions share the same names as the subsidiary motions, I could see how Amend Something Previously Adopted could be the incidental main motion variant of Amend, and Rescind Something Previously Adopted could be the incidental main motion variant of Postpone Indefinitely, et cetera.

Yes. You'd need to pass a motion to Rescind Something Previously Adopted (RONR 11e pp. 305ff), which requires a 2/3 vote, a majority vote with prior notice, or a majority of the membership (unless your bylaws or special rules of order say otherwise). The fact that it was adopted unanimously isn't relevant. After all, a vote that passes with one vote in favor and no votes against is adopted "unanimously".

That depends entirely on what your bylaws say. As you're revising your bylaws, you can choose either answer, and the question of whether they should have a vote is a completely different one.

I can't wait for the BOTY (Book Of The Year) edition, with all the DLC and soundtracks. But in seriousness, I've preordered both. I was debating waiting until I could take the NAP entrance exam so I could buy the spiral-bound version, but I decided to go ahead and preorder so I could get it right away.

The organization I'm most active with is a similar sort; until just a couple of months ago, we actually had a rule in our bylaws that any business not placed on the agenda by the Steering Committee (i.e. board) would require a 2/3 vote to be heard. Not to pass, mind you. We actually had to have a 2/3 vote before the new business would be on the floor to be debated. In the roughly four years I've been a member (with monthly meetings), I think I've seen it called for a grand total of once. (We've recently amended the bylaws to something more reasonable, in my opinion: business that wasn't placed on the agenda by the Steering Committee requires a 2/3 vote to pass.) Our general membership meetings tend toward pep rallies rather than deliberative assembles. The real knock-down-drag-out arguments happen at the Steering Committee.

Ah, I missed that part. Sorry.

I do see a small wrinkle here, though: what happens when those committee members aren't members of the parent body?

In this case, by the chair (informed by custom and a desire to avoid arguments down the line) during a meeting. I didn't bother to appeal because it really wasn't worth it; the amendment is likely to pass, so the current interpretation only directly affects this particular set of amendments.

I concur but I was overruled. In fact, the bylaws committee report had the relevant portion labeled "Clarify Language Regarding Electronic Notification of Bylaws Amendments".

My organization is amending its bylaws. Our current bylaws require ten days' "written notice" for bylaws amendments. We've interpreted that to mean it must be delivered by US Mail. (Incidentally, one of the amendments would explicitly allow for notice by electronic mail unless the member has opted out.) We mailed out the notice several days ago. We've had some reports that the notice hasn't arrived, and it's likely that others will be returned. Once we mailed the notice to the address on record, was our obligation to provide notice fulfilled, or does it only become fulfilled when the member has the notice in hand? Do we need to ensure that every member receives notice before the deadline? Is that even feasible?

Only in the colloquial, incorrect sense (where the term "order of business" better fits).

I interpreted the original question as: "How do we handle situations where the handwriting on the ballot is obviously not the person whose signature appears on the ballot [potentially raising questions of forgery]?"

Signed ballots are a thing, no? Treated like a roll call vote?

As I understand it, the chair walked away in order to effectively "run out the clock" and prevent further discussion on a group of resolutions (I'm not sure whether anyone attempted a Division of the Question). They also only allowed five minutes for discussion, but I haven't heard any confirmation on whether that part was done properly. The issue is (again, as I understand it) that the meeting was effectively unchaired (de facto unilaterally recessed?) for much of the time that was allocated for this particular discussion, so nobody could debate the motion (or amend it, or call to divide the question). It should be noted again that I wasn't there; if I had known there would've been this much drama, I would have been there to lend my meager parliamentary skills. Really, the main reason I asked for the proper wording (aside from wanting to know for future reference) is so I could make a snarky comment about what should have actually happened instead of "peace out, fend for yourselves".

Suppose that the chair needs to step away from the lectern for reasons unrelated to the meeting itself*, turning over control of the meeting to a vice-chair. How would this be properly worded? Also, would the restriction on page 395, lines 15-18, apply, since they didn't relinquish the chair for reasons of lack of impartiality? * Apparently, the chair walked away and refused to acknowledge dissent, claiming the next day that he needed to use the restroom. I'm hearing most of this secondhand, but it sounds as though there's no way to properly describe what actually happened without using the word "cluster". (I've been thumping RONR pretty hard, trying to get people to learn it so this doesn't happen again. I would've gone myself if I had been able to get time off of work.)

If I understand this Wikipedia article correctly (keeping in mind I am not a lawyer, copyright or otherwise), anything published before 1924 (which includes Parliamentary Law, published in 1923) is already in the public domain in the US.

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, all you have to do to abstain is simply not vote. In fact, during or after the vote, there is no opportunity to demand or provide an explanation; the proper time to explain is during the debate (and explaining why you're abstaining is a bit odd to begin with).

I presume the group could adopt a special rule of order to prohibit the motion being brought up again, if it so chose?

Unless your bylaws or applicable law state otherwise, it takes a 2/3 vote, or a majority vote with prior notice, or a majority of the entire membership.

Amen, brother. Gooble gobble.

... yes?

In some cases, even that won't be enough. If memory serves, in Florida, even two people on a board discussing the business of that board is considered a "meeting" and minutes must be made available. Other states are likely to be similar. In fact, if you go by the law in Florida as written, I shouldn't have been allowed to have a whiteboard in my office as an employee of a county school board, since anything we wrote was considered "public documents" and must be made available to the public on request.

If they rule against your Point of Order, you can Appeal. During the appeal, you can lay out your case (including explaining the rules in question) to the membership (through the Chair, as usual).

Presumably your bylaws specify a method for amendment (and if not, it's Amend Something Previously Adopted).