Invitation to Board meeting

[Guest Karen]

I see that Robert's Rules states that non-members may be invited to an Executive session of a board meeting, but who is allowed to extend that invitation? Is any board member, any officer, only the president, or must it be by vote?

[Gary Novosielski]

I see that Robert's Rules states that non-members may be invited to an Executive session of a board meeting, but who is allowed to extend that invitation? Is any board member, any officer, only the president, or must it be by vote?

Non-members are invited by the board itself, by a majority vote.

[Chris Harrison]

Non-members are invited by the board itself, by a majority vote.

...And that would extend to all Board meetings (not just those in Executive Session). Nonmembers have no right to attend meetings whether held in Executive Session or not.

[Gary Novosielski]

...And that would extend to all Board meetings (not just those in Executive Session). Nonmembers have no right to attend meetings whether held in Executive Session or not.

At some point, some time ago, someone (Josh?) may have found a rule that in Exec, a majority was required to invite, while in open session, a majority was required to exclude, yielding a one-vote difference between the two.

I don't recall now if that was in a situation where observers were permitted by custom, and I can't find a suitable reference in RONR, but half my index has disappeared. <grumble>

[David A Foulkes]

At some point, some time ago, someone (Josh?) may have found a rule that in Exec, a majority was required to invite, while in open session, a majority was required to exclude, yielding a one-vote difference between the two.

I don't recall now if that was in a situation where observers were permitted by custom, and I can't find a suitable reference in RONR, but half my index has disappeared. <grumble>

Page 93 ll. 8-13 says going into ES requires a majority vote and only members, invitees and necessary staff are allowed to remain in the hall. So that seems to support the "majority was required to invite" premise you cite.

Page 625 ll. 19-26 indicate non-members may be excluded at any time (as I read that, allowed in at the beginning but ejected at some point later) by the chair in cases of disorder, an adopted rule, or a motion of a Question of Privilege (Section 19), being ruled on by the Chair in some cases.

Any of that help ring a bell?

[hmtcastle]

At some point, some time ago, someone (Josh?) may have found a rule that in Exec, a majority was required to invite, while in open session, a majority was required to exclude, yielding a one-vote difference between the two.

I searched (in vain) for the topic to which I think you're referring. If I recall correctly (far from a sure thing!), Mr. Martin and I agreed that it was fair to say that in a so-called "open" meeting, non-members are permitted to attend unless they're excluded while in an executive session non-members are presumed to be excluded unless they're invited to attend.

But I think it was more a "rule of thumb" than a rule.

[Chris Harrison]

Page 93 ll. 8-13 says going into ES requires a majority vote and only members, invitees and necessary staff are allowed to remain in the hall. So that seems to support the "majority was required to invite" premise you cite.

Page 625 ll. 19-26 indicate non-members may be excluded at any time (as I read that, allowed in at the beginning but ejected at some point later) by the chair in cases of disorder, an adopted rule, or a motion of a Question of Privilege (Section 19), being ruled on by the Chair in some cases.

Any of that help ring a bell?

It doesn't ring a bell but it does make some sense. However, I am not sure that I would interpret p. 625 to mean that the default rule is that nonmembers can stay unless excluded. To me it seems to be merely noting the difference between the previous paragraph (that members can't be excluded except for disciplinary reasons) and that one which says that nonmembers can be excluded at any time.

[David A Foulkes]

It doesn't ring a bell but it does make some sense. However, I am not sure that I would interpret p. 625 to mean that the default rule is that nonmembers can stay unless excluded. To me it seems to be merely noting the difference between the previous paragraph (that members can't be excluded except for disciplinary reasons) and that one which says that nonmembers can be excluded at any time.

Well, I was only trying to ring a bell or two for you in hopes it might help you recall what Josh noted previously, and you hinted at. I do agree with your comment, nonetheless.

[Josh Martin]

Page 93 ll. 8-13 says going into ES requires a majority vote and only members, invitees and necessary staff are allowed to remain in the hall. So that seems to support the "majority was required to invite" premise you cite.

Page 625 ll. 19-26 indicate non-members may be excluded at any time (as I read that, allowed in at the beginning but ejected at some point later) by the chair in cases of disorder, an adopted rule, or a motion of a Question of Privilege (Section 19), being ruled on by the Chair in some cases.

Any of that help ring a bell?

I searched (in vain) for the topic to which I think you're referring. If I recall correctly (far from a sure thing!), Mr. Martin and I agreed that it was fair to say that in a so-called "open" meeting, non-members are permitted to attend unless they're excluded while in an executive session non-members are presumed to be excluded unless they're invited to attend.

But I think it was more a "rule of thumb" than a rule.

Mr. Foulkes has the correct page citations, and I think Mr. Mountcastle is accurate in saying that it is more of a "rule of thumb," in that the "majority to exclude/majority to invite" distinction applies unless the assembly has a rule or custom to the contrary.