Dan Honemann

Well, if the meeting is being held in a single room, that is all that is required to constitute this particular characteristic of a deliberative assembly. But since you simply refuse to recognize the obvious in connection with what RONR so clearly says in regard to all of this, I see no point in making any further effort to convince you to do so.

That may well be, but since the assembly is meeting in a single room or area, the assembly is obviously meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".

Not if you understand the english language.

I do not disagree. The test is whether or not the assembly is meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area". All that is needed is an honest answer to the question as to whether or not such conditions exist.

At an in-person meeting of a subordinate board of average size, whenever a member says something he will be heard. Whether it is or is not in order for him to do so is beside the point. If this is not true, for any reason, then as far as RONR is concerned the meeting is not a meeting of a deliberative assembly.

If I were the secretary, i would record the name of the member who actually made the (quite unnecessary) motion to approve the minutes. No vote should have been taken, but since it was it should be recorded that the motion was approved (or approved as corrected if corrections were made).

We were referring to the non-existent duty to publish the minutes within the specified period of time.

But if it has to be two separate meetings, the question asked is "Could that 15% call two special membership meetings simultaneously or must they only call one and then hold that meeting before calling another?". I think they certainly do not need to wait for meeting A to be held before calling meeting B (unless, of course, what meeting B will be called for depends in part upon what happens at meeting A), but can they be called simultaneously? I see nothing in RONR which addresses this question, and I cannot at the moment think of any reason why this could not be done. One reason to do it might be to save postage. If so, I would suggest that two separate calls be prepared to be included in one envelope. Incorporating both calls into a single document is apt to lead to confusion. If the cost of postage is not an issue, it would be best to mail out separate calls, and I see no reason why this could not be done on the same day.

Yes, I think that it is not in order to direct an officer to perform a duty which the bylaws place him under no obligation to perform.

Under some rather unusual circumstances I would think. Minority reports are customarily resorted to by members of a committee (see RONR, 12th ed., 51:64-70).

Yes, I think it does make a difference. As I may have previously indicated, I think that a motion regarding the timeframe for publishing the minutes of a meeting currently in session is a motion "that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting", thus permitting its consideration at a special meeting even although it was not mentioned in the call. My concern was with the fact that the motion appeared to be a motion directing the secretary to perform a duty which the bylaws place him under no obligation to perform. If, as now appears to have been the case, the secretary had previously agreed to perform this duty, it seems to me that the motion may well have been in order.

Federal and state.

No, it doesn't. An organization can adopt whatever rules it wishes for the governance of its proceedings provided that such rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any of its members or conflict with any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to it. With respect to meeting held electronically, RONR tells us, in 9:31, that "[a] group that holds such alternative meetings does not lose its character as a deliberative assembly (see 1:1) so long as the meetings provide, at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area. Under such conditions, an electronic meeting that is properly authorized in the bylaws is treated as though it were a meeting at which all the members who are participating are actually present." This sentence (which I have bolded) is simply noting that, if these conditions exist, holding such a meeting will not disqualify it from constituting a deliberative assembly as defined in 1:1. If these conditions do not exist, as in the instant case, the meeting does not constitute a deliberative assembly as defined in RONR. Well, so what? The answer, as far as I can determine, is found in the footnote to 1:1, "... many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable (see also 9:30–36)." As noted in 9:36, all sorts of additional rules will have to be adopted regarding the conduct of meetings held electronically, regardless of whether or not they constitute deliberative assemblies.

Whether the Chair is or is not inclined to abuse a rule is beside the point. Mr. Martin, do you have any doubt but that a rule such as the one presented at the outset of this thread will, if applied, remove the opportunity for simultaneous aural communication such as exists when the board members are present at an in-person meeting?

No, of course not. The opportunity for simultaneous aural communication exists when the members present are able to hear each other.