Executive session not specified in by-laws

[Guest Norman Wilson]

My organization has written into their by-laws that Robert's Rules of Order will be followed in conducting meetings.

 

Recently the voting members of our group convened an executive session. But our by-laws do not state that business can be conducted in executive session. The by-laws say nothing, yes or no, about executive sessions.

 

There is language throughout our by-laws specifying levels, rights and participation of members, with the highest members given voting rights and the rest of the people given rights to participate in various ways but not voting rights.

 

It seems to me that going into executive session is an effort to curtail participation. There is no legitimate reason for going into executive session such as private or legal issues, which I could understand. It is more likely this is just an effort to exclude people who are otherwise specifically allowed to participate in meetings, but not vote, because of their ideas.

 

Further, this organization is a public organization sanctioned by state government.

 

Can an executive session be convened if not spelled out in by-laws?

Can exclusion be justified in any way with Robert's Rules of Order?

What section in Roberts Rules of Order could one turn to to counter this maneuver?

What is the best way to view relationship between RRO and by-laws?

Do by-laws usually specify the use and terms of executive sessions, when the group includes voting and non-voting members?

 

Thanks for your insight.

[Guest Edgar]

It seems to me that going into executive session is an effort to curtail participation.

 

Not necessarily.

 

Non-members (of the body that is meeting) can be excluded without going into executive session. Conversely, non-members (of the body that is meeting) can be admitted into executive session.

 

Executive session is all about the confidentiality of the proceedings, not (necessarily) about who can be present.

 

Further, the assembly (the members present) can decide to meet in executive session without any "legitimate reason" at all.

 

Finally, RONR does not define "non-voting members" so you're on your own in that regard. Some here, including me, would argue that if the only right that's removed is the right to vote then the right to attend remains, whether the meeting is held in executive session or not.

 

And, as always, your organization may very well be subject to rules and/or laws which supersede RONR.

[Guest Norman Wilson]

Thanks. Can you point me to more info about your remark: "Some here, including me, would argue that if the only right that's removed is the right to vote then the right to attend remains, whether the meeting is held in executive session or not."

 

Thanks especially for the distinction you draw about confidentiality: "Executive session is all about the confidentiality of the proceedings, not (necessarily) about who can be present." But how and why could a body go into executive session to presumably discuss cardinal questions (not discipline) and exclude members? I guess my question is when is confidentiality justified and when is it not?

 

 

[Guest Edgar]

But how and why could a body go into executive session to presumably discuss cardinal questions (not discipline) and exclude members?

Members can't be excluded, whether the meeting is held in executive session or not.

 

I guess my question is when is confidentiality justified and when is it not?

 

RONR requires no "justification" for meeting in executive session (and, in fact, many boards meet exclusively in executive session).

 

Your rules may vary.

[Guest Norman Wilson]

Let me clarify. The body in question is composed of members who represent a broader body. Per by-laws persons from the larger body are allowed to participate in the proceedings of the representative body but are not allowed to vote. It is the non-voting persons from the larger body who are being excluded from an executive session. Again, the by-laws specify that the represented people are permitted to participate in the representing body. Executive session is being used to exclude persons from the body being represented.

 

 

[George Mervosh]

If they are entitled to attend all meetings under the society's rules, a motion to enter into executive session could not exclude them.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 95, l. 35 to p. 96, l. 5

[Guest Norman Wilson]

Yes, that is what I think. Executive session cannot exclude persons permitted by by-laws to attend and participate, even if not entitled to vote.

 

An illustrative example would be if the US House of Representatives had by-laws that permitted constituents to attend the House and participate but not vote. Per such by-laws (which don't exist) they could not be excluded.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, that is what I think. Executive session cannot exclude persons permitted by by-laws to attend and participate, even if not entitled to vote.

 

I concur with the previous responses. I would note, however, that you might want to amend the rule in your bylaws to provide for some exceptions, since you seem to acknowledge that there are some occasions where it would be appropriate for the assembly to enter executive session.

[Guest Norman Wilson]

I am someone who was excluded from this body that is supposed to represent me. I have contrary ideas to some of the leaders of this body that represents me. They went into executive session and excluded non voters. I want to respond to this situation in a knowledgeable way. 

 

It seems to me that since I can't vote that is enough to limit my input. Exclusion seems heavy handed and aimed at the ideas. 

 

The leaders of this body seem to think that executive session is a way to eliminate influence of people who don't agree with them. 

 

Also, it is a way to make proceedings confidential from people, like myself, who are entitled to at least hear and witness the proceedings without the right to vote on them.

[Josh Martin]

I am someone who was excluded from this body that is supposed to represent me. I have contrary ideas to some of the leaders of this body that represents me. They went into executive session and excluded non voters. I want to respond to this situation in a knowledgeable way. 

 

It seems to me that since I can't vote that is enough to limit my input. Exclusion seems heavy handed and aimed at the ideas. 

 

The leaders of this body seem to think that executive session is a way to eliminate influence of people who don't agree with them. 

 

Also, it is a way to make proceedings confidential from people, like myself, who are entitled to at least hear and witness the proceedings without the right to vote on them.

 

Does this "broader body" ever have meetings? Does it elect the members of the representative body? If so, take a look at FAQ #20. The simplest solution to this problem is to replace people who won't follow the rules with people who will.

[Guest Norman Wilson]

Sections of the broader body elect the smaller body in a somewhat representative way. It is not perfect because there are more powerful or organized sections.

 

Yes, many would like to have better elected representatives. The catch 22 is that since the current elected representatives are now excluding people they have the upper hand in setting the stage for further discussion and that makes it harder to displace them from within.  Also, there is considerable apathy due to the cliquish nature of the elected leaders. This move to exclude may indicate they are hardening, but it also calls into question their methods and purpose. The executive session was a shock and it mad them seem weak actually.

 

I will study FAQ #20.

 

Thanks.