Meeting Location

[Guest Audrey]

Due to flooding, the location of our meeting tomorrow night needs to be moved.  There is a 10-day posting requirement for meetings.  Is it possible to open the meeting at the original location and make a motion to move the rest of the meeting?  I cannot find a rule on-point for this scenario. 

[George Mervosh]

On 12/27/2022 at 3:23 PM, Guest Audrey said:

Due to flooding, the location of our meeting tomorrow night needs to be moved.  There is a 10-day posting requirement for meetings.  Is it possible to open the meeting at the original location and make a motion to move the rest of the meeting?  I cannot find a rule on-point for this scenario. 

Yes.  The motion to Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn would be used.  The motion should specify where and when the meeting will reconvene and is adopted by a majority vote.  See RONR (12th ed.), §22.

[Gary Novosielski]

And it should be noted that you don't need a quorum to show up at the original location.  A motion to adjourn to a different time and place is in order even without a quorum.  So you could notify the membership that the change will be done, and just have most of them show up at the new location, sending two people to the original location to make a quick motion.

[Guest Audrey]

Thank you both so much! I really appreciate it. 

[Rob Elsman]

On 12/27/2022 at 6:09 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

So you could notify the membership that the change will be done, and just have most of them show up at the new location, sending two people to the original location to make a quick motion.

What if the motion were rejected? 😉

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/28/2022 at 11:38 AM, Rob Elsman said:

What if the motion were rejected? 😉

Don't send those people ever again.

[puzzling]

On 12/28/2022 at 4:38 PM, Rob Elsman said:

What if the motion were rejected? 😉

they will get very wet (the location being flooded)

Was wondering what if the bylaws prescribe the meeting place? do you need a 2/3 (or unanimous vote)?

 

On 12/28/2022 at 12:09 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

And it should be noted that you don't need a quorum to show up at the original location.  A motion to adjourn to a different time and place is in order even without a quorum.  So you could notify the membership that the change will be done, and just have most of them show up at the new location, sending two people to the original location to make a quick motion.

Why 2 people? can not one member do it? (and send the other members to the new location (much nicer and dryer)

[JohnR]

I tend to agree. "Less than a quorum" includes quantity one.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/28/2022 at 3:55 PM, puzzling said:

Was wondering what if the bylaws prescribe the meeting place? do you need a 2/3 (or unanimous vote)?

I don't think so. In my view, if the bylaws prescribe a particular meeting place (which is not advisable), this rule has been complied with if the meeting is called to order at that location. The assembly remains free to adjourn to meet at a different place. I believe a majority vote would be sufficient, as usual.

On 12/28/2022 at 3:55 PM, puzzling said:

Why 2 people? can not one member do it? (and send the other members to the new location (much nicer and dryer)

Yes, one member could do it.

[Bruce Lages]

On 12/28/2022 at 4:55 PM, puzzling said:

Why 2 people? can not one member do it? (and send the other members to the new location (much nicer and dryer)

Look at it this way - sending two people at least shows a modicum of respect for the rule that Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn requires a second.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:54 AM, Bruce Lages said:

Look at it this way - sending two people at least shows a modicum of respect for the rule that Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn requires a second.

I don't find this persuasive. The requirement for a second is for the chair's guidance, and I think the chair can certainly overlook the requirement for a second in the event the chair is the only member present and does not object.

Edited December 29, 2022 at 05:24 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

I agree that one member CAN do it, but it is better to have at least two members.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/28/2022 at 4:55 PM, puzzling said:

Why 2 people? can not one member do it? (and send the other members to the new location (much nicer and dryer)

Yes, you could get away with only one person, but I would still send two.  For one thing, the motion requires a second, and for another, a deliberative assembly requires a minimum of two officers, one to preside and one to record.  While these could conceivably be the same person, it is likely that in any given society, the president and the secretary are two different people, both with assigned duties that are not to be put aside lightly.

[J. J.]

On 12/29/2022 at 12:23 PM, Josh Martin said:

I don't find this persuasive. The requirement for a second is for the chair's guidance, and I think the chair can certainly overlook the requirement for a second in the event the chair is the only member present and does not object.

I agree that one person could do it, and I have been the one on several occasions. 

[Joshua Katz]

Query: whose rights are being protected by requiring one or two people to go to a flooded location to make the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:34 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Query: whose rights are being protected by requiring one or two people to go to a flooded location to make the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn?

I suppose the rights of those who might show up (on time) to the flooded location, unaware that the meeting was to be moved.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:34 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Query: whose rights are being protected by requiring one or two people to go to a flooded location to make the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn?

I concur with Mr. Novosielski that this protects "the rights of those who might show up (on time) to the flooded location, unaware that the meeting was to be moved." While the important thing as a parliamentary matter is the member making the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, the important thing as a practical matter is for that member to inform any other persons who show up of the new location and, before leaving, to post notices on the entrance(s) informing members of the new meeting location. So I do think that (in addition to being required) there is a practical benefit to having at least one person show up.

I'm less clear on what benefit there is to sending two people, at least from a parliamentary perspective. There may well be some practical benefit to this.

On 12/29/2022 at 5:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, you could get away with only one person, but I would still send two.  For one thing, the motion requires a second, and for another, a deliberative assembly requires a minimum of two officers, one to preside and one to record.  While these could conceivably be the same person, it is likely that in any given society, the president and the secretary are two different people, both with assigned duties that are not to be put aside lightly.

I am in agreement that it is generally desirable to have the roles of presiding officer and secretary be served by different people, but in the specific circumstances described here, I'm not sure it's necessary. I think one member is perfectly capable of writing down the times the very brief meeting is called to order and adjourned, and then based on that information, can write the very brief minutes for the meeting.

But that argument is at least more persuasive than the argument that "the motion requires a second," which I do not find persuasive at all. For starters, there's RONR (12th ed.) 4:13. But even that likely overstates the degree of formality to use when only one member is present, since it would be even more efficient in such circumstances for the chair to simply use unanimous consent, which seems highly applicable to this situation.

"In cases where there seems to be no opposition in routine business or on questions of little importance, time can often be saved by the procedure of unanimous consent, or as it was formerly also called, general consent. Action in this manner is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect. Under these conditions, the method of unanimous consent can be used either to adopt a motion without the steps of stating the question and putting the motion to a formal vote, or it can be used to take action without even the formality of a motion." RONR (12th ed.) 4:58

If I were the member who was attending a meeting in the circumstances described, I would proceed as follows. The following example assumes I am neither the regular presiding officer nor the regular secretary - the details can be modified as needed. I would pause much less than I normally would, since I would be quite certain that the member present has no intention of objecting.

"The meeting will be in order. Neither the regular presiding officer nor the regular secretary are present. Without objection, Josh Martin is elected as Chair and as Secretary. The chair notes that a quorum is not present. Without objection, the meeting is adjourned to meet at (location) at (time)."

I don't imagine this would change much in the event two members were present. The only difference is that one of us would be declared elected as Chair and one as Secretary, which I imagine we'd work out between us ahead of time.

Edited December 30, 2022 at 12:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/30/2022 at 7:32 AM, Josh Martin said:

I'm less clear on what benefit there is to sending two people

It's flooded. You should always swim with a buddy.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/30/2022 at 7:32 AM, Josh Martin said:

So I do think that (in addition to being required) there is a practical benefit to having at least one person show up.

I'm less clear on what benefit there is to sending two people, at least from a parliamentary perspective. There may well be some practical benefit to this.

Then which person should show up? 

If the bylaws provide that the president shall preside over all meetings, then shouldn't it be the president who calls the meeting to order at the original site?  This would seem to be the case from a parliamentary perspective.  Although it may be argued that it is more practical for the president to go directly to the second site, it's a case of convenience vs. the rules. 

Unless the president is unable to attend at all, by reason of illness or misadventure, why would someone else (e.g., the VP, chair the first meeting?  I suppose some other member could be appointed, but I'm not clear how this could be done outside the context of a meeting.

A similar case could be made that the secretary should also be present at the first meeting, depending on what the bylaws say about the duties of that office.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/30/2022 at 10:35 AM, Atul Kapur said:

It's flooded. You should always swim with a buddy.

I did say there may well be some practical benefit.

(Although it's somewhat unclear to me exactly how bad the flooding is, and therefore I'm not certain whether any swimming is involved.)

On 12/30/2022 at 11:01 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Then which person should show up? 

I don't think it makes a difference from a parliamentary perspective. As a practical matter, I think the officers and any others working together on this matter should coordinate and find a volunteer. Factors to consider in this matter might include which person will be least inconvenienced by having to stop by the original meeting location first. Perhaps someone lives close by, or the first meeting location is on the way to the second, or someone has a vehicle which is well-suited to the hazardous conditions, or whatever.

On 12/30/2022 at 11:01 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

If the bylaws provide that the president shall preside over all meetings, then shouldn't it be the president who calls the meeting to order at the original site?

If the President is present, yes.

On 12/30/2022 at 11:01 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Unless the president is unable to attend at all, by reason of illness or misadventure, why would someone else (e.g., the VP, chair the first meeting?  I suppose some other member could be appointed, but I'm not clear how this could be done outside the context of a meeting.

But whoever is appointed will ultimately be appointed inside the context of a meeting.

On 12/30/2022 at 11:01 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

A similar case could be made that the secretary should also be present at the first meeting, depending on what the bylaws say about the duties of that office.

I am in general agreement that both the President and the Secretary are expected to show up to meetings. But the situation we have here is unusual, in that the scheduled meeting location is not in a state which is fit for the assembly to meet. As such, it is anticipated that the first meeting will be a brief pro forma meeting which will very quickly be adjourned. In these particular circumstances, it seems to me the important thing is that the President and other officers arrange for someone to attend and conduct the pro forma meeting. So long as this is accomplished, I do not think there is any dereliction of duty for the President and Secretary to go straight to the second meeting.

Edited December 31, 2022 at 04:45 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:34 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Query: whose rights are being protected by requiring one or two people to go to a flooded location to make the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn?

I agree with Mr. Novosielski and Mr. Martin.  This protects the rights of the others what could show up. 

I would refer to this description of another weather event, though the text of RONR has added some clarification since then:  https://www.academia.edu/42254288/RONR_versus_Blizzards

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/30/2022 at 1:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

But whoever is appointed will ultimately be appointed inside the context of a meeting.

But it would be necessary to appoint this president pro uno tempore in advance of the actual first meeting, if they are to know to show up.

 

On 12/30/2022 at 1:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

In these particular circumstances, it seems to me the important thing is that the President and other officers arrange for someone to attend and conduct the pro forma meeting.

I don't disagree with the idea that this makes sense from a logistical point of view.  I'm just having difficulty finding support for it between the covers of RONR.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/31/2022 at 2:42 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

But it would be necessary to appoint this president pro uno tempore in advance of the actual first meeting, if they are to know to show up.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

While it is correct that "The regular presiding officer, knowing that he will be absent from a future meeting, cannot in advance authorize another member to preside in his place" (RONR (12th ed.) 47:11), I do not see anything which prevents arranging a person who is able and willing to serve as Chairman Pro Tempore in advance of a meeting. Indeed, it seems advisable to do so. Ultimately, however, it will be up to the assembly to elect a Chairman Pro Tempore at the meeting who may (or may not) be the same person.

On 12/31/2022 at 2:42 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't disagree with the idea that this makes sense from a logistical point of view.  I'm just having difficulty finding support for it between the covers of RONR.

Certainly I am not aware of anything in RONR which explicitly supports the position I have presented. But I am also not aware of anything which contradicts it.

Edited December 31, 2022 at 04:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/31/2022 at 11:43 AM, Josh Martin said:

Certainly I am not aware of anything in RONR which explicitly supports the position I have presented. But I am also not aware of anything which contradicts it.

Well, I think that...

On 12/31/2022 at 11:43 AM, Josh Martin said:

"The regular presiding officer, knowing that he will be absent from a future meeting, cannot in advance authorize another member to preside in his place" (RONR (12th ed.) 47:11)

...comes mighty close.  Still, I don't think any of it is a bad idea, and I see nothing that would prevent ratifying such an action later, since the assembly could certainly have authorized it in advance, had it been sufficiently clairvoyant.

[Richard Brown]

Since RONR explicitly says that any member may call the meeting to order in the absence of the president, vice president, and secretary, I see nothing at all wrong with the chair asking a member if he is willing to be that "any member" to go to the originally scheduled location and call the meeting to order and to proceed to adjourn the meeting to the new meeting place.  RONR (12th ed.) 47:11(3)

Edited to add:  To dot the 'i's" and cross the 't's", I suppose that after calling the meeting to order, the member should elect himself chair pro tem.

Edited December 31, 2022 at 06:24 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph