J. J.

I am not looking at it in just this situation. I am looking at the broader rule. If the definition is that they all have to be in the same physical location, no matter how conducive for conducting a meeting, I would agree.

Yet, even in a single room, the "opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" may be lacking.

You came up with the definition. I can see a large area, where not every member can be heard.

If you adopt the agenda that way, that will be the order.

It would also lay each intervening item of business on the table when pending.

Even something in a "single room or area" may not be a deliberative assembly, by this definition. A second question is if a meeting of a society whose members are deaf could never be a deliberative assembly?

The key words are "subordinate board of average size." That is certainly not the case in all assemblies. I would not claim that, in a large body, the case where a member may not be heard by all (unless recognized) would change that characteristic of a deliberative assembly.

If RONR is applicable, at least until the member is notified of the charge, he may vote.

I would first note that holding a meeting that is not in person must be authorized in the bylaws. Second, at some point, the chair will have to take someone off mute. At that point, if there has been abuse, that member can raise a point of order and appeal if necessary. I would also note that the same type of abuse could happen at an in person meeting.

I will note that, absent a bylaw prohibiting them, write-in votes are permitted for the election of officers. I am not certain if Zoom can handle that.

This was my concern. I think that, if it there would the requisite number of members that wanted to consider Item A and a requisite number of members that wanted to consider Item B, they could both be noticed on the same piece of paper (if anyone still uses that).

There would be, in theory, the possibility of calling two simultaneous meetings at two different locations. 15% could call one special meeting that would deal with two items of properly noticed business.

I am not sure why they would need to call two. If they wished to deal with two separate items of business, they could call the meeting for both of them. If for some reason they could not, then it would have to be to separate meetings,

If the secretary did not previously agree to perform the duty, I would take it to be out of order?

If there was disagreement on the board and the subject would be decided the parent assembly, the losing side on the board might request permission to present a report.