ADA Accommodations and Roberts Rules?

[Guest Anonymous]

Currently, the Roberts Rules do not allow for virtual meetings. How do you handle it if individuals can only attend virtually due to ADA accommodations?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/20/2024 at 1:05 PM, Guest Anonymous said:

Currently, the Roberts Rules do not allow for virtual meetings. How do you handle it if individuals can only attend virtually due to ADA accommodations?

You consult a lawyer to confirm exactly what the law requires.  If the ADA actually does contain rules of parliamentary procedure that require allowing virtual attendance of meetings of societies like yours (which seems unlikely) then you need to allow it.  And of course if you want to allow it in any case, you amend your bylaws to permit virtual attendance and provide for the rule changes that are needed as a consequence.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/20/2024 at 12:05 PM, Guest Anonymous said:

Currently, the Roberts Rules do not allow for virtual meetings. How do you handle it if individuals can only attend virtually due to ADA accommodations?

Questions concerning the ADA should be addressed to an attorney.

In any event, if the organization wishes to adopt rules in its bylaws authorizing electronic or hybrid meetings, it is free to amend its bylaws to authorize such meetings. It would be highly advisable to also adopt rules on a number of subjects to support holding such meetings.

See RONR (12th ed.) 9:30-36 and Appendix: Sample Rules for Electronic Meetings for more information.

Edited September 20, 2024 at 05:54 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Anonymous]

On 9/20/2024 at 12:17 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

You consult a lawyer to confirm exactly what the law requires.  If the ADA actually does contain rules of parliamentary procedure that require allowing virtual attendance of meetings of societies like yours (which seems unlikely) then you need to allow it.  And of course if you want to allow it in any case, you amend your bylaws to permit virtual attendance and provide for the rule changes that are needed as a consequence.

Serious question: Why are people who like Robert's Rules so anti-Internet? You are on an online forum. Maybe we should amend rules so that you have to mail a letter to everyone in the world to ask a question instead of using the Internet because the Internet is too modern. Are you aware that ADA means "Americans with Disabilities Act?" So a group of healthy people should get to vote on whether someone with a disability should be able to attend virtually?

 

What's the problem of just allowing people to attend online if they want to? Who is that going to hurt? You shouldn't have to amend bylaws to be a decent human being.

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/20/2024 at 1:05 PM, Guest Anonymous said:

Currently, the Roberts Rules do not allow for virtual meetings. How do you handle it if individuals can only attend virtually due to ADA accommodations?

This is an incorrect statement.  Nothing in Robert's Rules of Order prohibits the holding of virtual meetings.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Nothing in Robert's Rules of Order prohibits the holding of virtual meetings.

In the absence of bylaws provisions allowing it? 

On 9/20/2024 at 11:42 PM, Guest Anonymous said:

What's the problem of just allowing people to attend online if they want to? Who is that going to hurt? You shouldn't have to amend bylaws to be a decent human being.

While I don't agree with the tone of Guest Anonymous' rant, and especially the implication that requiring a bylaws provision to authorize virtual meetings makes one not "a decent human being," I think he or she has a good overall point. I would much rather the default rule be that virtual meetings are allowed unless prohibited by an applicable law or the bylaws.

[Richard Brown]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:45 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

While I don't agree with the tone of Guest Anonymous' rant, and especially the implication that requiring a bylaws provision to authorize virtual meetings makes one not "a decent human being," I think he or she has a good overall point. I would much rather the default rule be that virtual meetings are allowed unless prohibited by an applicable law or the bylaws.

I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Merritt. Due to advances in technology and the lessons learned with the Covid pandemic, I believe the better default rule would be to permit virtual meetings unless prohibited by applicable law or the bylaws. 

it also seems pretty clear to me that RONR does prohibit virtual meetings unless they are permitted in the bylaws or by applicable law. What am I missing?
 

[Richard Brown]

On 9/20/2024 at 11:42 PM, Guest Anonymous said:

Serious question: Why are people who like Robert's Rules so anti-Internet?

We are not. We understand the many problems associated with electronic meetings and voting by email. We deal with them regularly on this forum and by  serving as professional parliamentarians in real life.  Organizations that want to have virtual (electronic) meetings or to vote by email need to develop rules for conducting business in that manner or it can get very chaotic.

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/21/2024 at 2:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Nothing in Robert's Rules of Order prohibits the holding of virtual meetings.

 

On 9/21/2024 at 8:45 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

In the absence of bylaws provisions allowing it? 

Yes, it is certainly true that RONR, 12th ed., in 9:30, says that:

"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 in 8:2(1), a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present."

Since organizations are free to adopt such bylaw provisions as they wish, RONR is certainly not prohibiting organizations from holding such meetings.  I suppose it should also be noted that any applicable laws conflicting with what is said in RONR will supersede what RONR says in this regard. 

On 9/21/2024 at 8:45 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

I would much rather the default rule be that virtual meetings are allowed unless prohibited by an applicable law or the bylaws.

I think that a careful reading of what is said in 9:30-36 and on pages 635-49 of the 12th edition of RONR makes it rather plain why RONR insists that such meetings must be authorized by the bylaws (or mandated by applicable law). 

The truth of the matter is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conduct meetings electronically which will operate "under conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communications among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area", particularly those which have a large number of members participating.  Furthermore, the myriad of additional rules that are required for the orderly conduct of such meetings will vary substantially depending upon the individual needs of the various organizations wishing to conduct such meetings, and the means by which they intend to do so.  They will not be easy to formulate.

In short, RONR rightfully urges caution in arriving at a decision to conduct such meetings, and thus requires bylaw approval to do so.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that a number of business entities (Amazon, Goldman Sachs, United Parcel Service, etc.) are now requiring their employees to return to the office full time.  The reasons for this return to normal are not exactly the same those we are concerned with here, but they do bear some degree of semblance. 

   

 

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:44 AM, Dan Honemann said:

The truth of the matter is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conduct meetings electronically which will operate "under conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communications among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area", particularly those which have a large number of members participating.

First, I will say that I personally prefer in-person meetings, but for reasons having nothing to do with the ease or difficulty of conducting the meeting virtually. But having participated in numerous virtual meetings of various sizes, I believe that the perceived difficulty of crafting appropriate rules is overblown. For those who don't want to start from scratch, there are online sources for rules that can be adapted to fit a particular organization, including from the appendices to the RONR 12th edition.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:42 AM, Guest Anonymous said:

Serious question: Why are people who like Robert's Rules so anti-Internet? You are on an online forum. Maybe we should amend rules so that you have to mail a letter to everyone in the world to ask a question instead of using the Internet because the Internet is too modern. Are you aware that ADA means "Americans with Disabilities Act?" So a group of healthy people should get to vote on whether someone with a disability should be able to attend virtually?

Are you aware that the Americans With Disabilities Act is a law passed by a group of (mostly) healthy people who voted on whether it should become law?  We in this forum are not the ones who decided what is or is not contained in the Act.  If it does not protect people with disabilities to the extent you think it should, you should address your ire to Congress. 

In my response I mentioned two courses of action open to you: one if you wanted to comply with the ADA to the minimum requirement, and another if you wished to take a more expansive view of the accommodations you wish to afford to members. I left the choice up to you, so I'm surprised you ignored the second option. 

Both options remain open to you, and RONR will not stand in your way in either case.  And if you cannot get a bylaws amendment passed by your membership, then you need to take it up with them.

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Guest anonymous]

The problem is they refuse to vote on it and take Robert's Rules as it is written. The least people could do is add an addendum to Robert's Rules saying there are exceptions to in-person meetings and that there is no harm in letting a few individuals attend virtually, provided they have documented reasons to do so.

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

Personally, I do not agree with RONR 13th edition suddenly requiring organizations to allow a few individuals to attend meetings virtually provided they have documented reasons to do so. That will leave organizations scrambling to figure out how to do so, and how to define documented reasons, and will lead to fights over what counts as a reason, etc., etc., etc. I would leave it up to organizations. It sounds like the issue is with your organization refusing to vote.

[Guest anonymous]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:26 AM, Richard Brown said:

I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Merritt. Due to advances in technology and the lessons learned with the Covid pandemic, I believe the better default rule would be to permit virtual meetings unless prohibited by applicable law or the bylaws. 

it also seems pretty clear to me that RONR does prohibit virtual meetings unless they are permitted in the bylaws or by applicable law. What am I missing?
 

I completely agree! Especially because technology has vastly improved and many places permit virtual meetings as the default/norm, so Robert's Rules should be updated!

[Guest anonymous]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:45 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

In the absence of bylaws provisions allowing it? 

While I don't agree with the tone of Guest Anonymous' rant, and especially the implication that requiring a bylaws provision to authorize virtual meetings makes one not "a decent human being," I think he or she has a good overall point. I would much rather the default rule be that virtual meetings are allowed unless prohibited by an applicable law or the bylaws.

Exactly. Change the provisions so virtual meetings are allowed

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/21/2024 at 5:33 PM, Guest anonymous said:

Exactly. Change the provisions so virtual meetings are allowed

I say again, virtual meetings are not disallowed.  Any organization that wishes to conduct such meetings is free to do so.  We are convinced, however, that they should think and plan carefully before they do so.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/21/2024 at 5:25 PM, Guest anonymous said:

The problem is they refuse to vote on it and take Robert's Rules as it is written. The least people could do is add an addendum to Robert's Rules saying there are exceptions to in-person meetings and that there is no harm in letting a few individuals attend virtually, provided they have documented reasons to do so.

 

 

I'm not sure who "they" are.  If it's your membership, then they're free to do what they like. If you want to change how they operate, you'll need to get a majority (or in this case I guess two-thirds) to agree with you.  There are addenda in RONR with suggested rules for electronic meetings.  If your organization feels that there is no harm (and I don't disagree) then all they have to do is adopt some of those rules.

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:20 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm not sure who "they" are.  If it's your membership, then they're free to do what they like. If you want to change how they operate, you'll need to get a majority (or in this case I guess two-thirds) to agree with you.  There are addenda in RONR with suggested rules for electronic meetings.  If your organization feels that there is no harm (and I don't disagree) then all they have to do is adopt some of those rules.

Well, as has been previously noted, they will first need to amend their bylaws to authorize meetings to be held electronically, since it appears that they do not contain such authorization at the present time. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:48 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, as has been previously noted, they will first need to amend their bylaws to authorize meetings to be held electronically, since it appears that they do not contain such authorization at the present time. 

Yes, they will, in fact I was among those who previously noted it, back here.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 9/21/2024 at 4:30 PM, Guest anonymous said:

Robert's Rules should be updated!

Although I am among those who think that virtual meetings should be allowed by default, I also agree that it is not as simple as "let's have this meeting virtually." There need to be appropriate rules in place to facilitate it. They don't always need to be overly complicated, but you do need to have them.

I also point out that even if the default were that virtual meetings are allowed, an organization would be as free to adopt bylaws disallowing them as they now are to adopt bylaws allowing them. Unless, of course, there is an applicable statute requeuing that they be allowed. And if that were the case, it wouldn't matter whether RONR or the bylaws allow them; the statute would prevail.

Bottom line is that while I generally share your preference for allowing virtual meetings, I also understand why RONR takes the approach that it does. I just don't fully agree with the authors' reasons.

I wish you the best in trying to get your groups to change its bylaws. But again, if they refuse, don't blame RONR for it. It may be that the 13th edition will take a different stance (although I'm not holding my breath), but in the meantime, none of your ideas about what the rule should be will change what the rule is.

 

[Richard Brown]

Guest anonymous, your membership has the power to change the rule. They are the ones you should be trying to persuade to change the rule by adopting a bylaw amendment that permits electronic (or virtual) meetings and/or participating virtually in in-person meetings, commonly referred to as hybrid meetings where members can participate in person and virtually.

[Guest Anonymous]

Hear me out: I'm not saying the meeting should be 100% virtual, or 100% in-person. There are individual circumstances where an individual may only be able to attend virtually, while the rest of the group is in-person.

 

It would be helpful if Robert's Rules provided an addendum to the rules stating something similar to, "Even if an organizations bylaws do not currently allow for virtual meetings, individual circumstances of organization members might vary. If a person needs to meet virtually, this is allowed."

 

If someone wants to make a suggestion for future additions of Robert's Rules, is there someone to contact?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/22/2024 at 4:37 PM, Guest Anonymous said:

 

If someone wants to make a suggestion for future additions of Robert's Rules, is there someone to contact?

You have accomplished that already.  For one thing, you will find Mr. Honemann's name on the cover of RONR.

But I think the language you suggested is too imprecise to be useful.  It is already clear that individual circumstances may vary, and that is why organizations are free to adopt their own bylaws and special rules of order.  And in doing so they engage in a process of deciding the conditions under which a particular rule is altered, or its application suspended.  

These conditions need to be more clearly defined than "If a person needs to."  And that is why the language will vary among various organizations, and why it would not be wise to cut a massive loophole into RONR itself.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 9/22/2024 at 3:37 PM, Guest Anonymous said:

If someone wants to make a suggestion for future additions of Robert's Rules, is there someone to contact?

This forum itself is one of the sources of ideas for new editions. Maybe even the primary source, though I can't say that for sure.