Annual meeting attendees exceed fire code allowance for room - what can we do?

[Guest Brian]

Thanks for looking at my post!

For the past several years, our Annual meetings have been held in a room that can hold 100 people (fitting all comfortably). As a surprise development this year, two rival groups are battling for a seat on the board and many more members than normal appear scheduled to attend.

We could have up to 150 to the meeting, which exceeds the fire code for the room reserved. We do not have the ability to reserve another room at the hotel on short notice.

Is there anything that can be done to adjourn the meeting for another date/time?

Thanks,

Brian

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks for looking at my post!

For the past several years, our Annual meetings have been held in a room that can hold 100 people (fitting all comfortably). As a surprise development this year, two rival groups are battling for a seat on the board and many more members than normal appear scheduled to attend.

We could have up to 150 to the meeting, which exceeds the fire code for the room reserved. We do not have the ability to reserve another room at the hotel on short notice.

Is there anything that can be done to adjourn the meeting for another date/time?

Yes, once you are at the meeting, you can move to Fix the Time To Which To Adjourn which says that when this meeting adjourns, it will resume at a different date/time (and possibly a different place as well).

Then adjourn the meeting on account of the safety violation.

[Rob Elsman]

Thanks for looking at my post!

For the past several years, our Annual meetings have been held in a room that can hold 100 people (fitting all comfortably). As a surprise development this year, two rival groups are battling for a seat on the board and many more members than normal appear scheduled to attend.

We could have up to 150 to the meeting, which exceeds the fire code for the room reserved. We do not have the ability to reserve another room at the hotel on short notice.

Is there anything that can be done to adjourn the meeting for another date/time?

Thanks,

Brian

Thank you for asking this very interesting, yet very practical, question.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, once you are at the meeting, you can move to Fix the Time To Which To Adjourn which says that when this meeting adjourns, it will resume at a different date/time (and possibly a different place as well).

Then adjourn the meeting on account of the safety violation.

Well, what about those who couldn't get into the meeting hall and would have voted "no" on such a motion? Don't they have every bit as much right to attend the meeting as those who actually got in?

[Guest Brian]

Well, what about those who couldn't get into the meeting hall and would have voted "no" on such a motion? Don't they have every bit as much right to attend the meeting as those who actually got in?

Thank you both for your thoughts.

This is the logistical problem that we are having. Since both groups are likely to "mobilize" as many members as possible, and we can only fit a certain number in the room at one time, the possibility exists that the motion to adjourn will be passed/failed by a greater proportion of one group, seeking that advantage. Is there a way for us to adjourn the meeting to a larger room on another date without having to hold a majority vote?

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you both for your thoughts.

This is the logistical problem that we are having. Since both groups are likely to "mobilize" as many members as possible, and we can only fit a certain number in the room at one time, the possibility exists that the motion to adjourn will be passed/failed by a greater proportion of one group, seeking that advantage. Is there a way for us to adjourn the meeting to a larger room on another date without having to hold a majority vote?

You win the Most Interesting Question of the Day Award, hands down. I am not smart enough to give you the correct answer, but I am concerned that any action taken by the assembly in the meeting might be invalid if there were enough members excluded from attending to have affected the result. I am also concerned that the individual members' right to attend meetings is breached with respect to those who are excluded.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, what about those who couldn't get into the meeting hall and would have voted "no" on such a motion? Don't they have every bit as much right to attend the meeting as those who actually got in?

If they couldn't get in there's no violation. I had presumed that they had gotten in, creating an unsafe condition which required adjournment.

[Chris Harrison]

Thank you both for your thoughts.

This is the logistical problem that we are having. Since both groups are likely to "mobilize" as many members as possible, and we can only fit a certain number in the room at one time, the possibility exists that the motion to adjourn will be passed/failed by a greater proportion of one group, seeking that advantage. Is there a way for us to adjourn the meeting to a larger room on another date without having to hold a majority vote?

That is a good question. I would say that a motion would need to be adopted to create an Adjourned meeting and then to Adjourn. However, (though this is stretching it right to or beyond the breaking point) there is a rule on RONR pp. 84-85 that says if the Chair believes that due to fire, riot, or some other immediate emergency it is dangerous to take a vote on whether to Adjourn he can unilaterally Adjourn a meeting and specify the time and place for an Adjourned meeting or upon the call of the Chair. But trying to invoke that rule in this case would not fall within the letter (but maybe it would fall within the spirit) of the rule.

[Guest Brian]

If they couldn't get in there's no violation. I had presumed that they had gotten in, creating an unsafe condition which required adjournment.

The room can legally hold only 100 people, but physically it can probably hold 120 - 130. We have reason to believe that at least 150 members will attend this meeting, and if both "rival groups" are effective in rousing interest, we could have closer to 200 attend. Does the RONR permit the adjourning of a meeting without a vote on the grounds of safety or violation of fire codes?

On the other hand, if we strictly count out the entrants to the room and cap it at 100 (with 50 or more members waiting outside), is there a way in RONR to adjourn the meeting without a vote on the grounds that not all "present" members are structurally permitted to vote?

[Rob Elsman]

The room can legally hold only 100 people, but physically it can probably hold 120 - 130. We have reason to believe that at least 150 members will attend this meeting, and if both "rival groups" are effective in rousing interest, we could have closer to 200 attend. Does the RONR permit the adjourning of a meeting without a vote on the grounds of safety or violation of fire codes?

On the other hand, if we strictly count out the entrants to the room and cap it at 100 (with 50 or more members waiting outside), is there a way in RONR to adjourn the meeting without a vote on the grounds that not all "present" members are structurally permitted to vote?

I think you had better count on the hotel manager coming up to the organizer and telling him that he doesn't want to be cited for having more than 100 persons in the room.

[Gary Novosielski]

That is a good question. I would say that a motion would need to be adopted to create an Adjourned meeting and then to Adjourn. However, (though this is stretching it right to or beyond the breaking point) there is a rule on RONR pp. 84-85 that says if the Chair believes that due to fire, riot, or some other immediate emergency it is dangerous to take a vote on whether to Adjourn he can unilaterally Adjourn a meeting and specify the time and place for an Adjourned meeting or upon the call of the Chair. But trying to invoke that rule in this case would not fall within the letter (but maybe it would fall within the spirit) of the rule.

I don't see a problem with the chair invoking that rule if he is informed that the meeting is in violation of the fire code. It is, after all, a fire safety regulation. I do not think that the actual presence of flames is required.

[David A Foulkes]

There may be more than a touch of idealism in this idea.

Outside the door, have a small "committee" (not a real committee of course) equally representing both sides of these rival groups greeting members at the door and taking their names, etc. They would explain the problem (fire code, capacity, etc) and that to ensure everyone gets fair representation in debate and voting, an adjourned meeting will need to be set up, and they will be notified. Inside the door, have another small group equally representing both factions yet not enough for a quorum. With luck, they will agree to an adjourned meeting, probably at the call of the chair, and perhaps even agree to feverishly work together to find a big enough room as quickly as possible.

[Tim Wynn]

I am not smart enough to give you the correct answer...

Give me a break!

[Josh Martin]

Does the RONR permit the adjourning of a meeting without a vote on the grounds of safety or violation of fire codes?

No. Well, it does permit adjourning the meeting without a vote on the grounds of safety, but only if the members are in immediate danger, such as if there was a fire or a riot. I don't think this situation quite satisfies this requirement.

On the other hand, if we strictly count out the entrants to the room and cap it at 100 (with 50 or more members waiting outside), is there a way in RONR to adjourn the meeting without a vote on the grounds that not all "present" members are structurally permitted to vote?

No.

I think the most reasonable method of handling this situation is, provided there is adequate space in the hallway and other locations near the room, to consider all of these members as "present" at the meeting, even those who are not physically in the meeting room. I think the RONR definition of "one room or area" is flexible enough for such an arrangement, particularly given the unusual circumstances. The chairman can appoint tellers for the purposes of counting a rising vote on the question of adjourning the meeting to another time and place, so that the votes of the members who are outside of the meeting room may be counted. The chair should explain to the members that since members may not be disenfranchised of the right to attend the meeting, they will have to continue with this awkward arrangement unless the assembly agrees to adjourn the meeting to another time and place. Given these options, I suspect the assembly will agree.

I like Mr. Foulkes' idea as well, although that requires a bit more cooperation on the part of the assembly. I suppose you'll have to judge how much the assembly believes in fairness to determine which strategy will be more effective.

[David A Foulkes]

I think the most reasonable method of handling this situation is, provided there is adequate space in the hallway and other locations near the room, to consider all of these members as "present" at the meeting, even those who are not physically in the meeting room. I think the RONR definition of "one room or area" is flexible enough for such an arrangement, particularly given the unusual circumstances.

From J.J.'s post in the Advanced Parliamentarians forum regarding Mr. Zundel seeking "relief" in the middle of a vote:

Is it understood that the presence of a quorum means presence in the actual meeting space?

Yes. The concept of quorum and of a member being present is tied to the rule that, unless the assembly's Bylaws permit otherwise, a deliberative assembly meets "in a single room or area." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 1, line 12)

??????????????

[Tim Wynn]

??????????????

I imagine Josh is assuming the requirement for simultaneous aural communication is being met in the "fire-hazard" scenario, but not in the "walk-to-the-bathroom" scenario from J.J.'s question in the Advanced Discussion. See p. 1.

Josh's opinions appear sound in both cases.

[David A Foulkes]

I imagine Josh is assuming the requirement for simultaneous aural communication is being met in the "fire-hazard" scenario, but not in the "walk-to-the-bathroom" scenario from J.J.'s question in the Advanced Discussion. See p. 1.

Josh's opinions appear sound in both cases.

Well, we will of course look forward to Josh's response, but until then.... I'd question how members in the "hallway or other locations near the room" would be able to obtain the chair's attention in order to get the floor, and how the chair would be able to "recognize" the members, and who should be recognized first in the case of multiple members yelling out "MR. CHAIRMAN IT'S BILL/EDDIE/GUS/FRANKIE FROM _____ MAY I HAVE THE FLOOR?" I just think there could be more trouble then they're already expecting.

As for how critical the simultaneous aural communication is during a roll call vote when you don't really get to say anything until it's your turn to vote, well... I suppose you might be interested in how Mr. Gorn voted, which you wouldn't hear while ... well, while there was "noise" in the little room.

[Tim Wynn]

Well, we will of course look forward to Josh's response, but until then.... I'd question how members in the "hallway or other locations near the room" would be able to obtain the chair's attention in order to get the floor, and how the chair would be able to "recognize" the members, and who should be recognized first in the case of multiple members yelling out "MR. CHAIRMAN IT'S BILL/EDDIE/GUS/FRANKIE FROM _____ MAY I HAVE THE FLOOR?" I just think there could be more trouble then they're already expecting.

Think outside the box/room. Some assemblies fill stadiums. See p. 371.

As for how critical the simultaneous aural communication is during a roll call vote when you don't really get to say anything until it's your turn to vote, well... I suppose you might be interested in how Mr. Gorn voted, which you wouldn't hear while ... well, while there was "noise" in the little room.

All this pertains to the parameters of the "equivalent conditions of opportunity" (p. 1), which define whether or not a member is present; the importance to a roll call vote is irrelevant.

[David A Foulkes]

Let's take a side-step to quorum busting, just for a minute. As I've understood it, if enough members exit the meeting hall so as to drop the attendance below the required quorum, then the meeting becomes inquorate. They may only be standing right outside the door, but they are no longer "at the meeting", thus the quorum bust.

So you're saying that, in some manner (and of course now not relevant to the quorum issue), it's okay to have 50 members standing outside the door in the hallway or other location? These people ARE at the meeting?

So, if a quorum-busting group steps outside the meeting hall, but leaves the door open so that in fact they could still hear the goings-on at the meeting inside, and if they desired they could yell loud enough and be heard, and thus simultaneous aural communication is still possible, that the quorum would not be busted?

[hmtcastle]

So, if a quorum-busting group steps outside the meeting hall, but leaves the door open so that in fact they could still hear the goings-on at the meeting inside, and if they desired they could yell loud enough and be heard, and thus simultaneous aural communication is still possible, that the quorum would not be busted?

The quorum-busting group would do well to leave the building, cross the street, and start heading down the block. In Wisconsin, they leave the state.

At some point common sense should prevail.

[Tim Wynn]

Let's take a side-step to quorum busting, just for a minute. As I've understood it, if enough members exit the meeting hall so as to drop the attendance below the required quorum, then the meeting becomes inquorate. They may only be standing right outside the door, but they are no longer "at the meeting", thus the quorum bust.

So you're saying that, in some manner (and of course now not relevant to the quorum issue), it's okay to have 50 members standing outside the door in the hallway or other location? These people ARE at the meeting?

So, if a quorum-busting group steps outside the meeting hall, but leaves the door open so that in fact they could still hear the goings-on at the meeting inside, and if they desired they could yell loud enough and be heard, and thus simultaneous aural communication is still possible, that the quorum would not be busted?

No, Josh's idea is to create a meeting "area" that goes beyond the single room. This requires special considerations and preparations to ensure all members can participate. If the meeting area IS in a single room, members must be in that room to be present. RONR doesn't specifically limit the meeting area to a single room, though that is generally the best for most assemblies. Let's not nit pick. If a society wants to meet outside at a park, I'm comfortable with that room-free arrangement. See p. 79, l. 17-21 and line 1 of p, 80.

[Josh Martin]

Well, we will of course look forward to Josh's response, but until then.... I'd question how members in the "hallway or other locations near the room" would be able to obtain the chair's attention in order to get the floor, and how the chair would be able to "recognize" the members, and who should be recognized first in the case of multiple members yelling out "MR. CHAIRMAN IT'S BILL/EDDIE/GUS/FRANKIE FROM _____ MAY I HAVE THE FLOOR?" I just think there could be more trouble then they're already expecting.

I think there is a substantial difference between defining the meeting area as larger than a single room so that all members can participate and pretending that a member who leaves the already-defined meeting room to go to the bathroom is still "present."

As for the practical problems involved with this, it's only intended to be a temporary solution until the assembly moves to a larger meeting hall. If the assembly is foolish enough to decide to continue to meet under these circumstances, they'll have to deal with the logistical challenges, but I don't think they are insurmountable. I don't see why posting a few members outside to act as "runners" is too much more complicated then using microphones placed at strategic intervals in large conventions.

If the assembly isn't willing to cooperate with your "committee" proposal, do you have a better idea?

Let's take a side-step to quorum busting, just for a minute. As I've understood it, if enough members exit the meeting hall so as to drop the attendance below the required quorum, then the meeting becomes inquorate. They may only be standing right outside the door, but they are no longer "at the meeting", thus the quorum bust.

Precisely.

So you're saying that, in some manner (and of course now not relevant to the quorum issue), it's okay to have 50 members standing outside the door in the hallway or other location? These people ARE at the meeting?

Again, I think there is a substantial difference between the assembly intentionally choosing to use a larger meeting area for the purpose of letting all members participate and members leaving an already defined meeting area.

So, if a quorum-busting group steps outside the meeting hall, but leaves the door open so that in fact they could still hear the goings-on at the meeting inside, and if they desired they could yell loud enough and be heard, and thus simultaneous aural communication is still possible, that the quorum would not be busted?

If a group is going to use quorum-busting as a tactic I'm not sure it's wise to remain within shouting distance, for a variety of practical and parliamentary reasons.

I think this is a case, as it often is in parliamentary procedure, of applying common sense rather than a hard and fast rule. If the assembly uses mechanisms to allow the members outside the room to participate, I see no reason why they should not be considered to be present. On the other hand, I suspect a member who leaves the meeting to go to the bathroom has no means (or any intention) of participating in the meeting.

By the same principle, I suspect that an assembly could quite reasonably consider a quorum-busting group standing outside the door and shouting to still be present. After all, if the assembly were to adopt a motion under such circumstances, whose rights would be violated? The members are clearly still able to participate.