Lifting confidentiality of executive session

[Scott Brasch]

Can the chair lift the ban of secrecy of executive session on a topic discussed or does it take 2/3 majority vote of BOD to do this?

[Chris Harrison]

It takes a majority vote.

[Rob Elsman]

It takes a majority vote.

If I understand the original poster's question correctly, I think an ordinary main motion to lift the secrecy on part of the proceedings of a meeting held in executive session is an improper main motion under the rule of RONR (11th ed.), p. 111, l. 23, through p. 112, l. 7. Instead, I think this kind of main motion is really a partial rescission of the previously-adopted main motion by which the assembly went into executive session, so the motion is really a particular instance of a motion to Rescind, RONR (11th ed.), p. 111, second footnote; §35, p. 305ff, subject to the vote requirement of Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7, p. 306, ll. 24-31.

[J. J.]

If I understand the original poster's question correctly, I think an ordinary main motion to lift the secrecy on part of the proceedings of a meeting held in executive session is an improper main motion under the rule of RONR (11th ed.), p. 111, l. 23, through p. 112, l. 7. Instead, I think this kind of main motion is really a partial rescission of the previously-adopted main motion by which the assembly went into executive session, so the motion is really a particular instance of a motion to Rescind, RONR (11th ed.), p. 111, second footnote; §35, p. 305ff, subject to the vote requirement of Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7, p. 306, ll. 24-31.

The [usually assumed] motion "that the assembly go into executive session" is fully carried out once the assembly goes into executive session. Therefor there is nothing to rescind (p. 308, ll. 20-21).

A motion to exit executive session or to release the information from an executive session requires a majority vote.

See also,Question of Privilege: Re-opening the Windows , National Parliamentarian, Third Quarter, 2002. Mr. Tesser, a member here, is credited with inspiring the article.

[Rob Elsman]

The [usually assumed] motion "that the assembly go into executive session" is fully carried out once the assembly goes into executive session. Therefor there is nothing to rescind (p. 308, ll. 20-21).

A motion to exit executive session or to release the information from an executive session requires a majority vote.

See also,Question of Privilege: Re-opening the Windows , National Parliamentarian, Third Quarter, 2002. Mr. Tesser, a member here, is credited with inspiring the article.

I disagree.

The principle involved is discussed in RONR (11th ed.), p. li, "Another important principle...". The requirement for the higher vote for a motion to Rescind is a protection against the instability that might result from slight variations in attendance from session to session.

P.S. I've had to edit this reply about a half-dozen times, which probably means I shouldn't be replying while paying attention to the World Series.

[J. J.]

The principal involved is discussed in RONR (11th ed.), p. li, "Another important principal...". The requirement for the higher vote requirement of a motion to Rescind is a protection against the instability that might result from slight variations in attendance from session to session.

That principle is applicable in regard to a motion in force. The motion to go into executive session has been fully executed once adopted and the assembly is in executive session. The assembly would need to rescind the motion to go into executive session in order to return to regular session. The secrecy is but an effect motion and is not, in itself, the motion.

It would similar to an assembly adopting a motion "to put $500 into a money market account." If adopted, and if the treasurer (presumably) has deposited the $500 into that account, the motion could not not be rescinded. The assembly could adopt the motion, "to withdraw $500 from the money market account" at a future meeting, by a majority vote without notice.

[Rob Elsman]

That principle is applicable in regard to a motion in force. The motion to go into executive session has been fully executed once adopted and the assembly is in executive session. The assembly would need to rescind the motion to go into executive session in order to return to regular session. The secrecy is but an effect motion and is not, in itself, the motion.

It would similar to an assembly adopting a motion "to put $500 into a money market account." If adopted, and if the treasurer (presumably) has deposited the $500 into that account, the motion could not not be rescinded. The assembly could adopt the motion, "to withdraw $500 from the money market account" at a future meeting, by a majority vote without notice.

If a temporary majority were able to lift the secrecy of proceedings held in executive session, members might be constrained from speaking frankly in the secret discussion for which the body went into executive session in the first place.

[J. J.]

If a temporary majority were able to lift the secrecy of proceedings held in executive session, members might be constrained from speaking frankly in the secret discussion for which the body went into executive session in the first place.

And if a temporary majority could take the the $500 out of the money money market, and be penalized for an early withdrawal, that might dissuade them from putting into the account in the first place, but the same temporary majority that put the money into the account can take it out.

Conversely, the same temporary majority that decided to conduct business in executive session can release the information.

[Sean Hunt]

Didn't we have this same debate last week?

[Tim Wynn]

Didn't we have this same debate last week?

Almost. That discussion was about if Executive Session lasts forever, until rescinded, which Rob claimed it did. I claimed it only lasted for the meeting, and Rob called me confused. That's how I remember it.

[Scott Brasch]

So if I understand correctly it will require a 2/3 majority vote to lift the secrecy of an executive session; correct?

[Trina]

So if I understand correctly it will require a 2/3 majority vote to lift the secrecy of an executive session; correct?

That is a rough summary of Mr. Elsman's opinion (a two-thirds vote is adequate to rescind something previously adopted). You will see that the other posters have taken a different position. 'Majority vote' -- the term used in several posts above -- simply means more than half.

.

[Tim Wynn]

So if I understand correctly it will require a 2/3 majority vote to lift the secrecy of an executive session; correct?

The parliamentary minds of this forum are split. While all believe a 2/3 vote will do it, some think a majority would be enough.

[Guest Edgar]

A motion to exit executive session or to release the information from an executive session requires a majority vote.

Those two actions seem far from being equivalent. One occurs in "real time" while the other affects something, shall we say, previously adopted.

[Guest Guest]

I hope Messrs Honemann, Balch or Gerber weigh in on this question.

[J. J.]

Those two actions seem far from being equivalent. One occurs in "real time" while the other affects something, shall we say, previously adopted.

Well, you can make the same argument about the motion to deposit the funds. That fact that a majority ordered the treasurer to deposit the $500 in the bank at one meeting would not prevent a future meeting from removing that $500. Once the first motion is carried out, the $500 is in the bank; that is the effect of the previously adopted motion, but the action ordered by the motion is fully carried out. It is not possible to "undo" that action by rescission (p. 308, ll. 19-20). The assembly could not "undeposit" the funds, though it could withdraw .

The effect of a motion to go into executive session may (and probably will) continue beyond the adoption of the motion, but the action of going into executive session is completely carried out once the assembly goes into executive session. It is not possible to "undo" that action by rescission (p. 308, ll. 19-20). To rescind the action, the assembly would have to "ungo" into executive session.

I would note that the clause regarding rescission notes that, except for R/ASPA, the clause is that "...no main motion is in order that conflicts with a motion previous adopted at any time and still in force.( p. 111, ll. 24-26, emphasis added)." Neither the motion to "go into executive session" or "to deposit $500 ..." is still in force, though the results of these motions might still exist.

[Tim Wynn]

The parliamentary minds of this forum are split. While all believe a 2/3 vote will do it, some think a majority would be enough.

We can all agree that if the whole board votes, a majority will do it.

The chair will have to make a ruling on the vote requirement, which is subject to appeal and ultimately decided by the assembly.

[Guest Edgar]

Well, you can make the same argument about the motion to deposit the funds.

With all due respect, I think that's a false analogy with respect to the confidentiality imposed on any business considered while in executive session (though I suppose it is analogous to going into and out of executive session).

[Trina]

...I would note that the clause regarding rescission notes that, except for R/ASPA, the clause is that "...no main motion is in order that conflicts with a motion previous adopted at any time and still in force.( p. 111, ll. 24-26, emphasis added)." Neither the motion to "go into executive session" or "to deposit $500 ..." is still in force, though the results of these motions might still exist.

I initially thought that the answer to the question posed in this thread was a no-brainer (majority vote, of course), but now I have doubts. Doesn't the motion to go into executive session include an unspoken obligation for the attendees not to divulge the specific matters that are about to be discussed during executive session, and isn't that obligation still in force long after the meeting ends?

[Tim Wynn]

I initially thought that the answer to the question posed in this thread was a no-brainer (majority vote, of course), but now I have doubts. Doesn't the motion to go into executive session include an unspoken obligation for the attendees not to divulge the specific matters that are about to be discussed during executive session, and isn't that obligation still in force long after the meeting ends?

While the obligation is (possibly) unspoken, it is written. While a motion to leave executive session would appear to require only a majority vote, a motion to lift the secrecy of the proceedings of a particular executive session appears to be a motion from Section 35, requiring a higher vote for its adoption.

[Tim Wynn]

I hope Messrs Honemann, Balch or Gerber weigh in on this question.

Maybe Burke or Shmuel will weigh in, but I've banned Dan from further postings, today.

[Scott Brasch]

Maybe this will help:

We discussed an item in executive session (disciplinary action). Now the party who was disciplined has done virtually the same thing. Per our Bylaws we have a standing committee to resolve some matters; a grievance committee. A grievance was filed and the committee chair has asked that the discussion in the executive session be disclosed as it is relevant to the grievance. I am the president of the organization and do not want to violate the secrecy of ES unless its done correctly or if it can be done at all.

Hope this helps.

[Dan Honemann]

Since I'm banned from further postings today, I'm unable to inform you that, in my opinion, a motion to lift the secrecy of what transpired in executive session is a question of privilege, the adoption of which will require the vote described on page 306, lines 25-31.

[J. J.]

With all due respect, I think that's a false analogy with respect to the confidentiality imposed on any business considered while in executive session (though I suppose it is analogous to going into and out of executive session).

I think it is apt. A motion "to deposit $500 in the money market account," is fully carried out when the money is deposited. The result of that motion is that the money is in the account; that result may last for a very long time. The assembly may, at any time, by majority vote, change that result, by adopting a motion to withdraw $500.

The result of going into executive session is that a cloak of secrecy covers the executive session; that result might last for a very long time. The assembly may, at any time, by majority vote, change that result, by adopting a motion to to lift the cloak of secrecy.

In both cases, I think you could construct a motion that would be "still in force."

[Scott Brasch]

A majority vote of the entire membership(assembly) or a majority vote of the assembly which is the board who were eligible to vote in the ES?

Sorry I didnt bring my 11th edition with me today.