Guest Christine Posted April 8, 2011 at 06:02 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 06:02 PM Is it correct that non-Board members are not allowed to participate in Executive Sessions unless invited by the Board? and can Executive Sessions be held by a segment of the Board ie) an Executive Committee instead of including the full Board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 8, 2011 at 06:06 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 06:06 PM Is it correct that non-Board members are not allowed to participate in Executive Sessions unless invited by the Board? and can Executive Sessions be held by a segment of the Board ie) an Executive Committee instead of including the full Board?Only members of the executive board are entitled to attend meetings of the executive board. And, only members of the executive committee are entitled to attend meetings of the executive committee. In other words, non-members of the body that is meeting have no right to attend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted April 8, 2011 at 06:08 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 06:08 PM Any group can go into Executive Session - most Boards and Executive Committees automatically are in Executive Session unless the By-laws state otherwise or there is a statute to the contrary. A simple motion to "enter into Executive Session" would normally be sufficient.No non-member has a right to attend a meeting of a group that he/she does not belong to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sangamonese Posted April 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM No non-member has a right to attend a meeting of a group that he/she does not belong to.not the way I readRONR pg 93first paragraphthey may not have a right but they may be invited to attend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 8, 2011 at 11:48 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 at 11:48 PM No non-member has a right to attend a meeting of a group that he/she does not belong to.not the way I read RONR pg 93 first paragraphthey may not have a right but they may be invited to attend.That's hardly a disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:02 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:02 AM Is it correct that non-Board members are not allowed to participate in Executive Sessions unless invited by the Board? and can Executive Sessions be held by a segment of the Board ie) an Executive Committee instead of including the full Board?It is correct that they are not allowed to participate, or even attend, unless invited. Executive session may be invoked in any sort of assembly: executive committee, executive board, even the membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:06 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:06 AM Is it correct that non-Board members are not allowed to participate in Executive Sessions unless invited by the Board? and can Executive Sessions be held by a segment of the Board ie) an Executive Committee instead of including the full Board?Non-members (of the body that is meeting) may be invited to attend meetings held in executive session and non-members (of the body that is meeting) may be excluded from meetings that aren't held in executive session.In other words, executive session is not about who can attend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:09 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:09 AM Is it correct that non-Board members are not allowed to participate in Executive Sessions.....And just to be clear (I hope), they can attend if invited, but that doesn't mean they can do anything but sit and be quiet. They can speak in debate only if allowed, either by unanimous consent or a 2/3 vote to Suspend the Rules. And they can never vote. The question that has been bandied about here before, and I'm not sure how it resolved, is whether they can make motions or second motions. Perhaps someone will be able to point to that thread for further illumination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:16 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:16 AM The question that has been bandied about here before, and I'm not sure how it resolved, is whether they can make motions or second motions.Oddly enough, I can see how the rules could be suspended to permit a non-member to make a motion (perhaps as a courtesy?) but not to second a motion as seconding serves to indicate (to the chair) that at least one (other?) voting member thinks the motion is worthy of consideration.The fact that a non-member thinks it's worthy of consideration seems pretty immaterial, if not downright dilatory, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:23 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:23 AM Oddly enough, I can see how the rules could be suspended to permit a non-member to make a motion (perhaps as a courtesy?) but not to second a motion as seconding serves to indicate (to the chair) that at least one (other?) voting member thinks the motion is worthy of consideration.The fact that a non-member thinks it's worthy of consideration seems pretty immaterial, if not downright dilatory, to me.I'd be a little concerned about allowing a non-member the "power" to bring business before the assembly. In the first lines of the sections on making motions and seconding, RONR starts with "To make a main motion, a member..." and "After a motion has been seconded, another member...", respectively.Now, as for secondary motions..... hmmm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 9, 2011 at 01:31 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 01:31 AM The question that has been bandied about here before, and I'm not sure how it resolved, is whether they can make motions or second motions. Perhaps someone will be able to point to that thread for further illumination.The rules may be suspended, by a 2/3 vote, to permit non-members to make motions or to second motions. Since it is much easier, however, for a non-member to just have a friend in the assembly make or second the motion instead, there is very rarely any reason to do so. On some occasions, however, it may be desirable to have a prominent non-member make a motion for ceremonial reasons. I'm having a hard trouble imagining an assembly going through the trouble of suspending the rules to let a non-member second a motion, but I suspect that would likely be for ceremonial reasons as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 9, 2011 at 01:34 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 01:34 AM The rules may be suspended, by a 2/3 vote, to permit non-members to make motions or to second motions.I'll take your word for it, but I'd like to see the 11th refer to this more explicitly as it takes the trouble to in the page 255 footnote regarding non-members speaking in debate. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 9, 2011 at 01:43 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 01:43 AM I'll take your word for it, but I'd like to see the 11th refer to this more explicitly as it takes the trouble to in the page 255 footnote regarding non-members speaking in debate. Just saying.It is much more common for an assembly to suspend the rules to let a non-member speak in debate. I suspect the authorship team got a lot of questions about that, and so they clarified it in the 10th edition. I can't imagine there have been many questions about suspending the rules to let non-members make or second motions, since this would very rarely serve a useful purpose, so I don't believe such an addition would accomplish anything except to satisfy the curiosity of parliamentarians. There are much more important areas of attention for the 11th edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 9, 2011 at 01:48 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 01:48 AM I don't believe such an addition would accomplish anything except to satisfy the curiosity of parliamentarians. You say this as if it's a bad thing. There are much more important areas of attention for the 11th edition.Well, with the simple insertion of five little words ("make and second motions and") in that footnote, the job is done. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 9, 2011 at 02:04 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 02:04 AM You say this as if it's a bad thing. It's not bad, but it's not the main purpose of RONR, either.Well, with the simple insertion of five little words ("make and second motions and") in that footnote, the job is done. Just saying.Well, you feel free to lobby the authorship team for that clarification for the 12th edition. I suspect the text of the 11th edition is pretty much decided at this point, and I doubt that one made the cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:01 PM Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 at 12:01 PM Well, you feel free to lobby the authorship team for that clarification for the 12th edition. I suspect the text of the 11th edition is pretty much decided at this point, and I doubt that one made the cut.Didn't even come close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted April 12, 2011 at 11:10 PM Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 at 11:10 PM not the way I readRONR pg 93first paragraphthey may not have a right but they may be invited to attend.The right to attend is different from receiving an invitation. The right to attend means that no invitation has to be sent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.