Motion for executive session

[Guest Executive session]

A motion to go into executive session is a question of  privilege ( RONR p. 95, Ln. 28-30) .

1)  Apart from unanimous consent is a main motion required to go into executive session or is a simple request of one member sufficient . ?

 2) If by main motion  to go into executive session - does the Chair have any discretion in limiting debate on the motion so as not to tread into sensitive territory that may have some connection to those not yet excluded from the meeting ,and if not are the subsidiary motions available, such as " limit debate  " so as to limit the parameters  of  any debate on that main motion . ?

Any response appreciated that might address these questions and thank-you in advance .

D.Llama

 

[George Mervosh]

11 minutes ago, Guest Executive session said:

A motion to go into executive session is a question of  privilege ( RONR p. 95, Ln. 28-30) .

1)  Apart from unanimous consent is a main motion required to go into executive session or is a simple request of one member sufficient . ?

 2) If by main motion  to go into executive session - does the Chair have any discretion in limiting debate on the motion so as not to tread into sensitive territory that may have some connection to those not yet excluded from the meeting ,and if not are the subsidiary motions available, such as " limit debate  " so as to limit the parameters  of  any debate on that main motion . ?

Any response appreciated that might address these questions and thank-you in advance .

D.Llama

 

1) If the request/suggestion/whatever is not agreed to by unanimous consent, it is processed as an ordinary main motion.

2) No and No.  The chair can't do a thing except enforce the regular rules governing debate and limiting debate does not limit what can be said.  

[D.Llama]

In a poorly constructed  ( from even  the point of "Title ") inquiry earlier today  I questioned as to the proper procedure ( BOARD)  for going into Executive Session - if unanimous consent was not the means . Is the process by mere request or main motion - or both if  a request for same  is not agreeable  to all ?  If by main motion is it debatable and amendable ?  Mr. Mervosh was good enough to supply a response that unless by unanimous consent it would be by main motion and debatable .   And no motion to limit debate would be able to prevent a full debate on the matter so as to not enter into potentially  sensitive territory - were that the will of the debaters . And this was my read - as well- of RONR - part 19 in particular . That is - if I understood Mr. Mervosh  correctly, and I may well not have  . 

Since that time I have reviewed The Standard Code ( p 108- I think ) and that Code suggests that the motion to go into executive session ( closed meeting ) of a Board would be undebatable and not amenable . TSC is very explicit  on this .Given this I am now questioning my read of part 19 RONR . Why such a divergence- although  unquestionably this forum considers RONR and not other rules sets and therefore- what of it ,that TSC provides- as it does . I do consider that if the motion to go into executive session is  debatable there could be some persons  present ( on occasion )  who are the potential subject of the reason for the closed session and perhaps that is why TSC provides as it does  ?

In any event I would invite and be obliged  were  Mr Mervosh to respond with any comments or observations on this subject ,and I would also be obliged to hear from any other participant  that has any interest  in this topic . Thank-you . 

D.Llama

[Shmuel Gerber]

The new title was also poorly constructed, but I merged the two topics into one with a new title.

[D.Llama]

I am much obliged Mr G .

 

D.Llama 

[Shmuel Gerber]

3 hours ago, D.Llama said:

I do consider that if the motion to go into executive session is  debatable there could be some persons  present ( on occasion )  who are the potential subject of the reason for the closed session . . .

The solution in such a case is very simple. A member may raise a question of privilege for the purpose of moving that before any further debate takes place on the motion to enter into executive session, the assembly enter into executive session.

[D.Llama]

Here  indeed ( above )  be a neat and nimble reply  . But first things first - I gather Mr G. is of the same view as expressed above - that the motion  to go into executive session is indeed debatable, and so on, as Mr. Mervosh has provided .If not then a  further specific response on that point  that would be appreciated from Mr Gerber . 

But I'm not clear at all -  as to this proposition . Does it mean that when  the main  motion  is pending to go into executive session that a member ,not wanting debate , move as a matter  of privilege that before any debate  takes place on the main motion  the assembly go into (closed meeting )  -executive session ? Would that be a debatable motion if made ? And with respect  is this entering into the territory where Alice often  resides ?  

My initial thought on this is that if the motion maker does not want debate to disclose confidential data  he /she simply offers very little debate as motion maker -  other than that it is best for confidential reasons not to say more at this time -  and does not go into any particular  of confidentiality . If others present  were to do  so  in debate  that would not be the responsibility of the motion maker - but their own .Those opposed generally to the notion of debate  would  not  thereby suffer much-  of any . 

Certainly looking for other resposes - but much obliged for  those already provided or additions to those from Mr.  Mervosh or Mr G .

D.Llama

 

 

  

 

  

[D.Llama]

For anyone intereted in this subject there is an earlier consideration of  the issue of debatability of a motion for executive session-  if a search is made of "In Camera"or "Roy Goodall ". Transpower, Mr Brown and Mr Mervosh address this point and all  concur that the motion for executive session  is debatable . Mr. Brown suggest a lack of clarity perhaps in the paragraphs related to this subject . 

D.Llama 

[George Mervosh]

27 minutes ago, D.Llama said:

For anyone intereted in this subject there is an earlier consideration of  the issue of debatability of a motion for executive session-  if a search is made of "In Camera"or "Roy Goodall ". Transpower, Mr Brown and Mr Mervosh address this point and all  concur that the motion for executive session  is debatable . Mr. Brown suggest a lack of clarity perhaps in the paragraphs related to this subject . 

D.Llama 

In addition to Mr.  Honemann's reply, what about the parenthetical statement on p. 226, ll. 31-33, and in the form and example on p. 230, ll. 12-13?

You noted earlier  My initial thought on this is that if the motion maker does not want debate to disclose confidential data  he /she simply offers very little debate as motion maker -  other than that it is best for confidential reasons not to say more at this time -  and does not go into any particular  of confidentialiy  In the form and example on p. 230 the maker prefaces his question of privilege with a logical, one statement of reasoning. Once the question of privilege is admitted as a main motion, If he's afraid someone might say something he doesn't want non-members to hear he can, when assigned the floor to debate, move for the previous question. That could end it there.

I'll leave the stacking of questions of privilege to Mr. Gerber.

[D.Llama]

Yes indeed- close debate would seem a reasoned response . Over to Mr. Gerber for more - if any ,on stacking up privilege  ! . Thank-you . 

D.Llama

[Richard Brown]

I agree with the comment immediately above by Mr. Mervosh. I was also about to suggest that a member could immediately move the previous question to try to limit or stop debate on the motion to go into executive session.

As to whether RONR is umclear about  the debatability of a motion to go into executive session, it is not so much that RONR is unclear, but rather that it is somewhat difficult to find the answer.

As to what is discussed in the other thread, RONR says in one place that a motion to go into executive session is a question of privilege.  In another place it says that questions of privilege are not debatable. However, if one keeps reading, RONR does make clear that a motion to go into the executive session, once admitted as a question of privilege, is debatable. Perhaps RONR could say so a little more directly when discussing the motion to go into executive session.

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

As to what is discussed in the other thread, RONR says in one place that a motion to go into executive session is a question of privilege.  In another place it says that questions of privilege are not debatable. However, if one keeps reading, RONR does make clear that a motion to go into the executive session, once admitted as a question of privilege, is debatable. Perhaps RONR could say so a little more directly when discussing the motion to go into executive session.

RONR does, of course, say that the raising of a question of privilege is undebatable, but nowhere does it say that questions of privilege are not debatable.

[D.Llama]

Thus spake  ( at one time ) wrathful   Honemann-Zarathustra , late of the editorial team illuminati  .

D.Lama

[Shmuel Gerber]

11 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with the comment immediately above by Mr. Mervosh. I was also about to suggest that a member could immediately move the previous question to try to limit or stop debate on the motion to go into executive session.

As to whether RONR is umclear about  the debatability of a motion to go into executive session, it is not so much that RONR is unclear, but rather that it is somewhat difficult to find the answer.

As to what is discussed in the other thread, RONR says in one place that a motion to go into executive session is a question of privilege.  In another place it says that questions of privilege are not debatable. However, if one keeps reading, RONR does make clear that a motion to go into the executive session, once admitted as a question of privilege, is debatable. Perhaps RONR could say so a little more directly when discussing the motion to go into executive session.

 

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

RONR does, of course, say that the raising of a question of privilege is undebatable, but nowhere does it say that questions of privilege are not debatable.

 

3 hours ago, D.Llama said:

Thus spake  ( at one time ) wrathful   Honemann-Zarathustra , late of the editorial team illuminati  .

D.Lama

I think maybe Dan is actually being a bit too gentle in this case. I was surprised to see Mr. Brown's ruminations in the other thread, and dumbfounded that he has repeated them here. Perhaps it would be possible for RONR to more explicitly state that a motion to enter into executive session is debatable (although the example on page 230 clearly states as much), but the book could hardly go to greater pains to state again and again, practically every time the subject is treated, that a question of privilege, unless handled as a request, has all the characteristics of a main motion.

"If a pressing situation is affecting a right or privilege of the assembly or of an individual member (for example, noise, inadequate ventilation, introduction of a confidential subject in the presence of guests, etc.), a member can Raise a Question of Privilege (19), which permits him to interrupt pending business to state an urgent request or motion. If the matter is not simple enough to be taken care of informally, the chair then makes a ruling as to whether it is admitted as a question of privilege and whether it requires consideration before the pending business is resumed." (p. 67, ll. 22-32) "Questions of privilege can also be brought up while no motion is pending, and at such times they are moved just as any main motion." (p. 68, ll. 27-29)

"MAIN MOTIONS BROUGHT UP BY MEANS OF A CALL FOR THE ORDERS OF THE DAY OR BY RAISING A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Under the process by which a main motion is normally introduced … it can be moved only while no motion is pending. Certain questions may come before the assembly with the status of main motions after having interrupted other business, however, if they are brought up by means of either of the two lowest-ranking privileged motions. To Call for the Orders of the Day (18) and to Raise a Question of Privilege (19) each have privileged rank and can therefore interrupt pending business. As a result of the application of one of these devices to interrupt a pending question, … an urgent motion relating to the privileges of the assembly or of a member may be admitted as a question of privilege to be entertained immediately. But when such … [a] question of privilege has thus become pending, it is treated exactly as any other main motion." (p. 118, l. 21 to p. 119, l. 5)

"It is important to understand the distinction between the device Raise a Question of Privilege and the question of privilege itself. The point to be decided in connection with the former is whether a certain question shall be admitted for consideration with the status and priority of the latter. The "raising" of a question of privilege is governed by rules appropriate to the device's high rank in the order of precedence of motions. When a question of privilege is taken up after it has been raised and has been admitted by the chair, however, depending on the form in which it was introduced, it is handled as a request (32, 33), or it is treated as a main motion and is debatable and amendable and can have any subsidiary motion applied to it—regardless of whether it interrupted, or awaited the disposal of, the pending business. Questions of privilege can also be introduced while no motion is pending, either as requests or by being moved and seconded just as any other main motion; in that case, the device of "raising" a question of privilege does not enter in. … The eight characteristics below apply only to the device of raising a question of privilege; that is, to a member's obtaining recognition to state his urgent motion or request while business is pending, and to the chair's ruling on the question's admissibility as noted above (and described on pp. 227–28)." (p. 225, ll. 8-35)

"If the motion made as a question of privilege is seconded, and if the chair admits it as such and decides that it should be entertained immediately, he states the question on it and proceeds as with any other main motion." (p. 228, ll. 16-19)

"The privileged motions are all undebatable because, if they were debatable, their high privilege would allow them to interfere with business. The right of debate is thus incompatible with high privilege. With reference to the two lowest-ranking privileged motions, it is, of course, the "calling" for the orders of the day (18) or the "raising" of a question of privilege (19) that is undebatable. When the order of the day or the question of privilege involved in such a case becomes the pending main motion, it is debatable." (p. 398, ll. 9-17)

"67. Question of Privilege, to Raise while regular introduction as main motion is not in order (19) … Debatable: No." (tinted pages 22-23)

"68. Question of privilege in the form of a main motion, whether introduced when an ordinary main motion is in order or admitted by raising a question of privilege (10, 19) … Debatable: Yes." (tinted pages 24-25)