Again, thank you for your input and suggestions. Initially, a motion to suspend the quorum simply because we were two members short, we wanted to see how the members present, at the special meeting, would vote on two issues to help the board to proceed with new meeting location and add another time for the general meeting to cut down on meeting times thus maybe more members would be interested to attend the meeting and then socialize. It was in no way to disregard absentees whom did not attend the special meeting given that they would support our decision. The only exception that we would not act on would be the financial aspects, which would hold everyone liable for any financial-related decision.
Another issue, from the past, the board decided to spend some money on a project, which completed before the general meeting. Even if four out of seven board members were present, they can still carry out an action. That was the rationale for comparing a decision by four board members versus to twenty-three members present. However, only the members can change the bylaws by 2/3 vote of members present with 25 members required for a quorum. There is no clause under the quorum section for the number of board members to constitute a quorum--at most, four of the seven showed up for the board meetings several times.
Last, we did not think about amending the bylaws until after several discussions given the circumstances. We knew that absent members would not object and ratify the motions adopted during the next general meeting.
The comments/views/inputs were extremely helpful for which I will share with everyone. Of course, this would not happen if this was a national organization where the numbers of membership are greater with more dollars vested. Yes, we were wrong and it is time to move on and learn from this experience. Thank you and others!!