Dan Honemann

I agree with Mr. Martin that you should seek legal advice. From a parliamentary law point of view, if a motion was adopted that you believe should not have been adopted it may well be that you can move to rescind it or amend it. For this procedure, see RONR (12th ed.,) 35:1-13. If a motion was rejected that you believe should not have been rejected, it may well be that you can simply move it again. For this procedure see 38:1-9.

Mr. Martin, if you will look back over this entire (unnecessarily prolonged) thread you will note that the question initially asked relates to proceedings in a board, and every one of my responses was directed to this factual setting. I have constantly been referring to an assembly the size of an average subordinate board, and many times direct responses to what I have posted have been flat-out wrong because they do not say anything at all about their being addressed to a materially different factual situation.

It is as far as RONR is concerned.

If you interpret the bylaws as requiring a vote of two-thirds of the members, as I did in my response, it becomes clear why a quorum of two-thirds of the members is required, but I appear to be in the minority as to the proper interpretation of the bylaws in this respect.

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.