Meeting hall too small for AGM

[Edgar Guest]

Personally, I maintain that the situation is comparable to when particular members are denied the right to vote. The business conducted by the assembly is valid except for any motions where the votes of the excluded members could have affected the result.

 

You can tell a member who wasn't permitted to vote that his vote couldn't have made a difference. What do you tell a member who wasn't even permitted to attend? That he really didn't miss much? I can accept (reluctantly) that there may be no parliamentary recourse (other than some sort of disciplinary action) but I think denial of attendance is considerably more egregious than denial of a vote (that wouldn't have mattered).

[J. J.]

You can tell a member who wasn't permitted to vote that his vote couldn't have made a difference. What do you tell a member who wasn't even permitted to attend? That he really didn't miss much? I can accept (reluctantly) that there may be no parliamentary recourse (other than some sort of disciplinary action) but I think denial of attendance is considerably more egregious than denial of a vote (that wouldn't have mattered).

 

 

I think that denial of attendance is only as egregious when it includes a denial of the right to vote.  The assembly can curtail the rights of members, in general, to enter into debate or the right to make particular motions.  It cannot, except through the operation of the bylaws or disciplinary action, prohibit a member from voting. 

 

That said, I am not certain that there is any right to hear another member's debate.  It may be more related to a privilege.

[Transpower]

Except that some of the excluded members could have made amendments to the motions on the floor, which would have changed the parliamentary situation.  I think that, in retrospect, the meeting should have been immediately adjourned to a larger hall, perhaps at a nearby hotel within easy walking distance.  Or possibly some technological solution could have worked, like using Go to Meeting or PalTalk.  Large organizations often use a set number of delegates, elected by members, to attend annual conventions; such a system would have prevented the present situation.  Incidentally, all motions could have been voted on by ballot given to each member--but this still would have prevented them from speaking in debate or making amendments,etc.

[Dan Honemann]

Except that some of the excluded members could have made amendments to the motions on the floor, which would have changed the parliamentary situation.  I think that, in retrospect, the meeting should have been immediately adjourned to a larger hall, perhaps at a nearby hotel within easy walking distance.  Or possibly some technological solution could have worked, like using Go to Meeting or PalTalk.  Large organizations often use a set number of delegates, elected by members, to attend annual conventions; such a system would have prevented the present situation.  Incidentally, all motions could have been voted on by ballot given to each member--but this still would have prevented them from speaking in debate or making amendments,etc.

 

To say that "the excluded members could have made amendments to the motions on the floor, which would have changed the parliamentary situation" may be somewhat misleading. It is a bit more accurate to say that excluded members might have moved the adoption of  amendments to the motions on the floor, which, if adopted, would have changed those pending motions.

 

I suspect that the latter is what was meant.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think Josh's take is certainly correct, at a minimum.  But...

 

Consider that all business at a meeting can be declared null and void if not all members are notified of the meeting--a rule presumably enforceable even if all those members did know about the meeting by word of mouth, and some actually attended.   Compare that with the situation where all members are duly notified, but some are physically prevented from attending.  It seems to me that the second situation is at least as egregious as the former--and perhaps more.

 

I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the idea that such members could affect the business of the meeting to a greater degree than the strict vote count would suggest.  What about the motions that failed (or passed) for lack of persuasive debate, or main and subsidiary motions that were never made in the first place, because those particular members were excluded?  Isn't that why proper notice of meetings is required?  And don't those reasons apply here?

[Josh Martin]

 

Or possibly some technological solution could have worked, like using Go to Meeting or PalTalk. 

 

...if authorized by the bylaws.

 

Consider that all business at a meeting can be declared null and void if not all members are notified of the meeting--a rule presumably enforceable even if all those members did know about the meeting by word of mouth, and some actually attended.   Compare that with the situation where all members are duly notified, but some are physically prevented from attending.  It seems to me that the second situation is at least as egregious as the former--and perhaps more.

 

I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the idea that such members could affect the business of the meeting to a greater degree than the strict vote count would suggest.  What about the motions that failed (or passed) for lack of persuasive debate, or main and subsidiary motions that were never made in the first place, because those particular members were excluded?  Isn't that why proper notice of meetings is required?  And don't those reasons apply here?

 

All members must be notified of a meeting in order for the meeting to be properly called, and such a rule is indeed enforceable even if all of the members knew about the meeting by other means, and even if all of the members actually attended. This principle was helpfully clarified for us by Mr. Gerber here. In such a case, the meeting itself is invalid because it was improperly called. As a consequence, any business conducted is also invalid, since business may only be conducted at a properly called meeting.

 

If all members are notified of a meeting but some members are denied the right to attend, however, the parliamentary situation is different. The meeting itself is perfectly valid. As for the concerns about members speaking in debate and voting, I do not believe that denying a particular member the right to speak in debate or make motions would invalidate any business conducted at the meeting, notwithstanding that the member may have been able to influence the actions taken by the assembly. Therefore, the only part of this which could invalidate any business conducted would be the fact that, by being denied the right to attend, the members were denied the right to vote. As we know, this will invalidate a vote only if the number of members who were prevented from voting could have affected the result.

 

I am in completely in agreement that denying a member the right to attend a meeting is a highly egregious offense, and I concur it may be even more egregious than denying a member only of the right to vote. After all, it denies the member not only of the right to vote, but of any other rights he could have exercised at the meeting. Nonetheless, it does not seem to me that the effect on the business conducted is any different. The more egregious nature of the offense could, of course, come into play if and when the assembly considers disciplinary action against those responsible.

[Edgar Guest]

I am in completely in agreement that denying a member the right to attend a meeting is a highly egregious offense, and I concur it may be even more egregious than denying a member only of the right to vote. After all, it denies the member not only of the right to vote, but of any other rights he could have exercised at the meeting. Nonetheless, it does not seem to me that the effect on the business conducted is any different. The more egregious nature of the offense could, of course, come into play if and when the assembly considers disciplinary action against those responsible.

 

Now that we're on the same page (and, perhaps, always were), who would you consider "those responsible"? 

 

I'm inclined to think it's every member who was present and either failed to raise a point of order (re: the excluded members) or who voted to sustain the chair's (presumed) ruling that no rule was being violated.

 

Good luck getting enough votes to discipline that many people.

 

Perhaps all that can be hoped for is that, in the words of OI 2006-6, "such a denial does not happen again".

[Josh Martin]

Now that we're on the same page (and, perhaps, always were), who would you consider "those responsible"? 

 

I'm inclined to think it's every member who was present and either failed to raise a point of order (re: the excluded members) or who voted to sustain the chair's (presumed) ruling that no rule was being violated.

 

Good luck getting enough votes to discipline that many people.

 

Perhaps all that can be hoped for is that, in the words of OI 2006-6, "such a denial does not happen again".

 

Yes, I think in this particular circumstance, all that is to be hoped for is to ensure that "such a denial does not happen again."

 

In other circumstances, the situation may be quite different.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Official Interpretation 2006-6 is not the last word from the authorship team on this subject. Please refer to page 252, line 19 to page 253, line 3 in RONR, 11th ed.

[Edgar Guest]

Official Interpretation 2006-6 is not the last word from the authorship team on this subject. Please refer to page 252, line 19 to page 253, line 3 in RONR, 11th ed.

 

Bless you Mr. Gerber!

 

I may get a good night's sleep tonight.

 

And I really need to read the 11th edition and not rely on it being the same as the 10th, only bigger.