Meeting venue safety

[Guest Ed Michels]

What is the requirement to hold an annual meeting in a manner accessible to all members (e.g., Zoom not effectively accessible to technophobes, those without the gear or skills) and in a safe place (e. g., that can contain a social-distancing quorum)

[Dan Honemann]

The requirement in RONR, 11th ed., is found on page 97:

"Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined on pages 81–82, a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present."

[Guest Ed Michels]

OK, understand no electronic meetings until allowed by the Bylaws. The second part of the original question: what is the requirement (in Robert's or basic fairness) to provide a safe venue? In the example, a venue large enough and equipped to hold at least a quorum at social-distancing spacing if that is the recommended procedure for that jurisdiction at the time of the meeting?

[Dan Honemann]

39 minutes ago, Guest Ed Michels said:

OK, understand no electronic meetings until allowed by the Bylaws. The second part of the original question: what is the requirement (in Robert's or basic fairness) to provide a safe venue? In the example, a venue large enough and equipped to hold at least a quorum at social-distancing spacing if that is the recommended procedure for that jurisdiction at the time of the meeting?

I'm afraid that second part of the question is not a parliamentary law question. It's something that you may want to consult with a lawyer about.

[Rob Elsman]

You may want to consult with your local public health department about complying with local health laws or regulations.

[Guest Ed Michels]

OK, understand no electronic meetings until allowed by the Bylaws. The second part of the original question: what is the requirement (in Robert's or basic fairness) to provide a safe venue? In the example, a venue large enough and equipped to hold at least a quorum at social-distancing spacing if that is the recommended procedure for that jurisdiction at the time of the meeting?

[Guest Ed Michels]

OK. Thanks for the quick replies. 

[Benjamin Geiger]

Actually, that does prompt a question: If a meeting is scheduled in a location where not all members are permitted to attend, is the meeting still considered valid?

I was interpreting the OP's question as being, in part: if due to distancing requirements the meeting is held in a room too small to hold the entirety of the membership (but large enough to hold a quorum), a faction could take advantage of that fact and arrange to occupy a majority of the seats in order to exclude an opposing faction. Would that meeting still be valid?

Alternately:

• If the meeting is held in Canada, members in the United States would be unable to attend as the border between the two countries is closed due to COVID-19.
• If the meeting is held in a place with restricted access, a faction could ensure that supporters would have access while opponents would be turned away.

Would those circumstances prevent those meetings from being considered valid?

[George Mervosh]

The right to attend a meeting is a basic right of membership and cannot be denied.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 264 and p. 251 e) and the sentence that follows.

[Joshua Katz]

I think it follows that holding a meeting where specific members cannot attend (as in the Canada example) would deny people their membership rights. But holding it in a place that rules out some members, but not any specific members, such as in a room too small to hold all members, does not. It might still not be a good idea.

In any case, though, I would think the details need to be worked out in the organization, through points of order and the like, rather than there being a bright-line rule.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think it follows that holding a meeting where specific members cannot attend (as in the Canada example) would deny people their membership rights. But holding it in a place that rules out some members, but not any specific members, such as in a room too small to hold all members, does not. It might still not be a good idea.

In any case, though, I would think the details need to be worked out in the organization, through points of order and the like, rather than there being a bright-line rule.

I think the venue would need to accommodate the members, though, in the situation, some might voluntarily choose not to attend.  

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think it follows that holding a meeting where specific members cannot attend (as in the Canada example) would deny people their membership rights. But holding it in a place that rules out some members, but not any specific members, such as in a room too small to hold all members, does not.

I disagree. Each member who cannot attend because the room is too small has had their right denied. "No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership [defined in the previous sentence and including the right to attend meetings]—. . .—except through disciplinary proceedings." (RONR 11th ed., p. 3, lines 5-9).

And, if you were about to argue that this group of "some members" aren't individually denied, I would counter that they are being denied one-by-one, or individually, as they attempt to enter the fully occupied room.

[Joshua Katz]

8 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

And, if you were about to argue that this group of "some members" aren't individually denied, I would counter that they are being denied one-by-one, or individually, as they attempt to enter the fully occupied room.

If the organization uses a room smaller than the full membership and, as a result, people cannot get in, then I agree that those who could not get in have been denied their rights. The case I had in mind is one where the organization use a room smaller than the full membership but the number who attend fit or where a complaint is made before the meeting. I think that holding the meeting where some class of members legally (or physically) cannot attend is a violation of the rules as soon as the decision is made, whereas a decision to use a small room is a violation as soon as people are turned away, but not before.

[Rob Elsman]

In many ordinary societies, regular meetings are held in meeting rooms that are adequate for an anticipated attendance that is smaller than the full number of members. In my opinion, an unexpected turnout does not exclude "any particular member", RONR (11th ed.), p.264, over the occupancy load; therefore, the actions taken by the assembly do not violate the right of individual members to attend meetings. I acknowledge that individuals may have to be turned away, but these are not members in particular.

[Atul Kapur]

"Any individual member" is also "any particular member".

You appear to be using particular to refer to a predetermined group of individual members. I disagree with that use.

[Rob Elsman]

If that were what I meant, I would have to disagree with myself.  😊

I am using the word "particular" in the ordinary, dictionary sense.  Nothing more.

[Atul Kapur]

I incorrectly focused on your use of the word "particular". Incorrectly because the use of that word on p. 264 doesn't apply to this discussion. That quote is saying that the rules cannot be Suspended to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, etc. We're not discussing Suspend the Rules here.

What I said five posts above referred to the list of basic rights of membership and that "No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership" and, holding a meeting in a room too small, individually deprives those members who arrive (one-by-one, or individually) after the room has reached its maximum occupancy. The standard here is not that you are denying a particular member the right to attend the meeting, but that you are denying an individual member that right.

Edited August 12, 2020 at 09:12 PM by Atul Kapur

[J. J.]

19 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I incorrectly focused on your use of the word "particular". Incorrectly because the use of that word on p. 264 doesn't apply to this discussion. That quote is saying that the rules cannot be Suspended to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, etc. We're not discussing Suspend the Rules here.

What I said five posts above referred to the list of basic rights of membership and that "No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership" and, holding a meeting in a room too small, individually deprives those members who arrive (one-by-one, or individually) after the room has reached its maximum occupancy. The standard here is not that you are denying a particular member the right to attend the meeting, but that you are denying an individual member that right.

I have to agree here.  Except through disciplinary action or the operation of some bylaw, neither an individual member nor a group of individual members can be deprived of their right to attend the meeting.