Guest George Mervosh Posted March 31, 2010 at 12:02 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 at 12:02 PM No." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle Posted March 31, 2010 at 12:08 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 at 12:08 PM With the rare (?) exception noted on p.232, and alluded to yesterday by Mr. Lemoine, in which case the "recall" must be made "immediately" and only for the specific purpose cited." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris H Posted March 31, 2010 at 12:29 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 at 12:29 PM Another time is if the presiding officer declares the meeting adjourned when no motion was adopted to do so, no rule is in place requiring adjournment at that particular time, and if there is still further business to consider. In that case the adjournme" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Mervosh Posted March 31, 2010 at 01:03 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 at 01:03 PM I avoided the exceptions cited by my friends here because in nearly every other case there is a high risk of any subsequent re-convening being considered a special meeting, one for which obviously no notice was given. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle Posted March 31, 2010 at 01:08 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 at 01:08 PM I would have avoided the exception as well (on the "zebras/horses" theory) except that Mr. Lemoine's recent allusion stuck in my mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.