Benjamin Geiger

Ah, I stand corrected.

In the absence of provisions in the bylaws for their own amendment, would the normal fnord rules for the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted apply?

This sounds to me like an example of what we in the coding world refer to as an "XY problem". "Is the membership chair an elected position?" is Y. What is X? In other words, why do you need to know? What are you trying to accomplish?

If the membership wants the treasurer to not have to pay their dues, there are ways to do so even with the bylaws mentioned. An altered motion that seems (to me) more likely to pass muster would be for the organization itself to pay the dues for the exempted member. This would work for both the "the bylaws say dues must be paid" issue and the "one organization can't override a parent organization's rules" matter Mr. Brown brings up.

Tangentially related: Instead of having the "more than half need to vote in the negative" rule, why isn't the question changed to "should the decision of the chair be overturned?" with a majority in the positive being needed to overturn?

This is a legal question, not a parliamentary one. You'll need to contact an attorney that practices in the relevant jurisdiction.

Since RONR doesn't allow proxy voting, that would depend entirely on the contents of your bylaws.

Why was the title changed in the first place?

Only if the bylaws explicitly authorize them. In any case, they're a bad idea.

A motion to Postpone Indefinitely (PI) has to be applied to a main motion, so if there isn't already a motion on the floor, the motion to PI is out of order. (Postpone what?) If the only motion on the floor is the main motion, then the motion to PI takes precedence (is handled first). If the PI motion passes, the main motion is suppressed until the end of the current session (in most organizations, the current meeting). If it fails, then discussion of the main motion continues. If any other motion is pending, or if the Previous Question has been moved and passed, the motion to PI is out of order. If another motion is applied to either the main motion or the motion to PI, that other motion is handled before the PI motion. Consult the chart on page 3 of the shaded section in the back for a guide to which motions take precedence over which.

If they actually mean the motion to Lay on the Table (pp. 209ff), then a majority vote would "stop" (temporarily) the original motion. Once some other business has been dealt with (presumably the business that led to the motion to Lay on the Table) has been handled, then a motion to Take from the Table (pp. 300ff), with a second and a majority vote, would bring the original motion back before the assembly. As Mr. Novosielski points out, the motion to Lay on the Table is rarely needed and rarely used. Instead, the term "table" is frequently misused to refer to one of two other motions: Postpone to a Certain Time (pp. 179ff) or Postpone Indefinitely (pp. 126ff). If the mover intends to postpone the original motion to a certain time, up to and including the next meeting, if it occurs within a quarter ("if the second session begins at any time during or before the third calendar month after the calendar month in which the first session ends", pp. 89f), a majority vote is needed to postpone. (The exception is if the question is to be made a special order, in which case it requires a 2/3 vote.) The motion to Postpone to a Certain Time is debatable but the debate must be limited to the merits of the motion to Postpone itself, and not the original question. If the motion to Postpone is passed, the original question will come up again at the specified time. If the mover instead intends to postpone the original motion indefinitely (i.e. kill the original motion), it also requires a majority vote to postpone. However, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is debatable and necessarily requires debate on the merits of the original motion. If you wish to end debate, you'll need to move the Previous Question (pp. 197ff) on the motion to Postpone Indefinitely. (Or move the Previous Question on the original motion which is probably closer to what is intended.) This requires a 2/3 vote.

And again we return to the question of definitions: Is there a difference between having a right one is not allowed to exercise and not having that right? It seems pretty clear to me that the chair is permitted to vote on any question, even though the best practice is for the chair to refrain from doing so.

It should be noted, however, that some states have laws prohibiting more than a certain number of members of certain organizations from meeting in any place without officially calling a meeting, as part of their "sunshine laws". I'm fairly certain this is generally limited to government bodies, though, but some states may include private organizations under their law. For instance, Florida's sunshine law considers a "meeting" to be "any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more members of the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the public board or commission". When those meetings occur, the state required that minutes be taken and those minutes become public record. (Nothing to do with RONR, just something that may be relevant in certain circumstances.)

Effectively, yes. (But if a 2/3 vote is required---a requirement not present in RONR---then it wouldn't have passed even if she had voted for herself, since 3/5 is less than 2/3.) To be precise, though, she "could not vote for herself" because she wasn't present for the vote. If she had stayed, she would have been able to vote for herself. RONR states that a member should not vote when they have a conflict of interest, but nothing says they can not vote in that case.

Can you find another candidate for vice president (or president)?

Exactly. In fact, it is a political party: the Hillsborough County Democratic Executive Committee, the same organization we discussed in that earlier thread. I intend to write a full revision of the bylaws in the near future, and in doing so I will attempt to rename the Steering Committee to something less confusing, almost certainly some variant of "Executive Board". I'll be perfectly honest: I don't know how binding the budget is. I also don't remember the exact wording of the motion that created the committee. If the draft minutes have been transcribed by our secretary, I'll try to get a copy. I guess it depends on how binding the budget is. I'm under the impression that just because something is listed as a line item in the budget doesn't mean it's a requirement. If that's the case, I figure the amendment doesn't conflict.

At last week's meeting of our organization's steering committee, one of the members proposed hiring a field organizer. We voted to refer the proposal to a special committee, to report back at next month's steering committee meeting. The member who proposed the motion, who was also named as chair of the special committee, contacted me later to ask how he could go about proposing an amendment to the budget to set aside funds for the hiring of the field organizer. (The adoption of the budget is a general order for the general membership meeting occurring tomorrow.) I told him that as far as I understood the relevant documents, everything should be clear. The chair of the organization got wind of the amendment in the works, and also contacted me to ask how to handle the situation, given that it was referred to a subcommittee. I think I may have given her incorrect advice, that since the matter was referred to a committee (something I had forgotten when talking to the member), it's effectively "in progress" and an amendment to that effect would be out of order. I did tell her, however, that any two members could appeal that ruling and then it would be determined by a majority of the members present and voting. The special committee is technically a subcommittee of the steering committee, and as such reports back to the steering committee, presumably at the next steering committee meeting, in about three weeks. Also, if I'm reading the situation right, the odds of the amendment passing are relatively low, considering the budget already contains funds that could be used for the hiring of the field organizer. Should I tell the member to hold off on the amendment? Should I suggest that the chair let the amendment proceed?

Yes, with caveats. The exception is if the motion in question requires a majority of those present or a majority of the entire membership. Unless your bylaws specify otherwise, this doesn't apply to main motions.

Bylaws supersede RONR. However, I don't think it would be a great idea. There are too many ways to game the system.

As I understand it, it comes down (as do so many things) to "let the assembly decide". Any member can call another member to order (pp. 645f); I'd presume this would apply even if the member in question is not participating in the debate.

Yes. On p. 447 ll. 16-19:

Or do what we do: "By the way, we have to be out of the building in five minutes"...

Was the committee created by the bylaws or by a motion? If the committee was specified in the bylaws, then changing the duties of that committee will require an amendment to the bylaws (unless the bylaws themselves include verbiage that would allow for it).

Remember the 3-2-1 rule: (At least) 3 copies of your data. (At least) 2 different media. (At least) 1 must be offsite. If you keep your original minutes on your hard drive, I'd recommend an external hard drive for a second copy, and the third copy (and offsite) could be something like Dropbox/OneDrive/Google Drive/etc. That way, if your hard drives fail, or you make a mistake during backup and destroy your local copies, or your headquarters burns down, then you have a remaining backup to go to. EDIT: Just to be absolutely clear, this isn't parliamentary advice. This is IT-nerd advice. RONR doesn't say anything about this, but the collective wisdom of system administrators does.

But in any case, the actions the subcommittee is allowed to take would need to be spelled out in the motion that creates it, no? So it's not just going to be a matter of "we're going to create this subcommittee consisting of just the officers, and nobody else is allowed to know what we do"...