Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Meeting hall too small for AGM


Guest Titus

Recommended Posts

Our Society has over 20,000 members. Every one of them has the right to attend our General Meetings. Only a few do; we have never had more than a thousand members turn up at a meeting, and normally we only get 100 or so members to show up.

 

Nonetheless, we had a problem at a recent General Meeting in which some members had to be turned away because the meeting room (which holds 400 people) was too small to accommodate the crowds. Is the meeting invalid? Can you provide a citation to Robert's Rules of Order?

 

Quorum is 250 (except for certain classes of housekeeping business, where quorum is 20).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Nonetheless, we had a problem at a recent General Meeting in which some members had to be turned away because the meeting room (which holds 400 people) was too small to accommodate the crowds. Is the meeting invalid?

 

Maybe? Not necessarily?

 

What probably should have happened is a member (inside the meeting room) should have raised a point of order to the effect that some members were being improperly excluded from the meeting. The chair would rule on the point of order (let's hope he'd sustain it), at which point the meeting could be adjourned to a larger venue at another time.

 

I can't imagine anyone's really to blame if more than five hundred members show up when only about a hundred usually do. And I can help but wonder why.

 

But it's an interesting question so stay tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... the book doesn't deal with (over)crowding, but it is the right of every member to attend meetings - p. 3.

 

Since members were denied their rights, It would surely seem to me that any decisions reached at the meeting  --  particularly any that were decided by close votes  --  would be invalid  --  or "null and void" as RONR puts it, p.251 (e)  --  and could be declared to be so by raising a pint of order at a later meeting. 

 

The meeting itself was valid, but the decisions made in the meeting...  probably not.  But someone will have to raise a point of order next meeting, or any later meeting, to get those decisions nullified.

 

Why the big crowd?  Something controversial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How large the quorum is doesn't matter, if members are denied their right to participate in the meeting, that is a very bad thing. I don't think the meeting itself is invalid, since it was properly called, etc. But any vote that excluded members from the process would be null and void. What should have been done is for a more suitable location to be found and the meeting adjourned to meet at that location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Dr. Stackpole and Messrs Mountcastle and Fish agree with it.  What did they say that specifically concerns you?

My guess is the part when any vote would be null and void "only if there is a possibility that member A's [the excluded members'] vote might have affected the result."  If only a few members weren't allowed in the room and all of the votes were overwhelmingly one-sided then none of the results could have been affected by their exclusion.  On the other hand, if 500 members showed up and only 400 were allowed in then the exclusion of those 100 members (and their votes) probably will render almost everything done null and void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is the part when any vote would be null and void "only if there is a possibility that member A's [the excluded members'] vote might have affected the result."  If only a few members weren't allowed in the room and all of the votes were overwhelmingly one-sided then none of the results could have been affected by their exclusion.  On the other hand, if 500 members showed up and only 400 were allowed in then the exclusion of those 100 members (and their votes) probably will render almost everything done null and void.

 

Ok, yes, I see.  Thanks.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is the part when any vote would be null and void "only if there is a possibility that member A's [the excluded members'] vote might have affected the result."

Although the original question was whether the meeting, not any particular vote, would be invalid. And I think I would argue that if only one member is denied access, the meeting is out of order (regardless of how lopsided any of the votes might be).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the original question was whether the meeting, not any particular vote, would be invalid. And I think I would argue that if only one member is denied access, the meeting is out of order (regardless of how lopsided any of the votes might be).

 

But nothing in RONR says that, under the circumstances described, the meeting is invalid and all actions taken at the meeting are null and void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But nothing in RONR says that, under the circumstances described, the meeting is invalid and all actions taken at the meeting are null and void.

 

Perhaps it should? Certainly something is amiss (i.e. out of order). Since the excluded member can't raise a point of order does his exclusion constitute a continuing breach? Or is he just out of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it should? Certainly something is amiss (i.e. out of order). Since the excluded member can't raise a point of order does his exclusion constitute a continuing breach? Or is he just out of luck.

 

No, I don't think it should; and yes, a point of order regarding his exclusion may be raised at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 . . . yes, a point of order regarding his exclusion may be raised at any time.

 

Well, that's something. Assuming the point of order is ruled well taken (or, at least, supported on appeal), what recourse remedy does he have? Is it limited to disciplinary action? If so, against whom? The president? Only?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's something. Assuming the point of order is ruled well taken (or, at least, supported on appeal), what recourse remedy does he have? Is it limited to disciplinary action? If so, against whom? The president? Only?

 

What part of Official Interpretation 2006-6 don't you understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of Official Interpretation 2006-6 don't you understand?

 

Ouch. I like to think that, now, there's no part. Time will tell.

 

"The member wrongly denied the right to vote is entitled to a ruling to that effect, if only to attempt to ensure such a denial does not happen again. In some circumstances, the ruling may be the basis for some remedial action, such as the commencement of disciplinary proceedings if there is an allegation that others willfully obstructed the member attempting to vote."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the member wishes to debate the motion but cannot do so? Does that violate his or her basic rights enough to result in a continuing breach?

 

I think it's been established (post #13) that his mere exclusion constitutes a continuing breach, regardless of whether he would have participated at the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's been established (post #13) that his mere exclusion constitutes a continuing breach, regardless of whether he would have participated at the meeting.

But, has it been established that his mere exclusion renders any votes taken null and void absent a showing that his vote could have affected the outcome?

 

I agree that the meeting itself was a legitimate meeting.  To me, the only question is what, if any, actions taken at the meeting are null and void?  Is every vote void, or only those votes wherein the votes of the excluded members could have affected the results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any action taken while the basic right of the member to attend was violated is null and void.

Sean, are you saying that if only one member out of 400 was denied entry by order of the fire marshal because of over-crowding that everything done in the meeting is null and void, even if the votes were unanimous or near unanimous and his vote could not have affected the result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sean, are you saying that if only one member out of 400 was denied entry by order of the fire marshal because of over-crowding that everything done in the meeting is null and void, even if the votes were unanimous or near unanimous and his vote could not have affected the result?

 

Well, let's not assume facts that were not included in the original post. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...