Off The Record

[Guest Vern Trowbridge]

Does Robert's Rules provide for the President, or anyone, to announce during the course of a meeting that the next discussion item will be "off the record"?

[Guest Nancy N.]

By a majority vote, the assembly can go into executive session, during which the proceedings are kept secret.

[Weldon Merritt]

By a majority vote, the assembly can go into executive session, during which the proceedings are kept secret.

But even then, minutes should be kept and the actions taken (but not the discussion) recorded. Of course, actions, and not discussions, also is (with rare excepotions) all that should be recorded in the minutes of an open session. The main difference is that what took place in an executive seesion is supposed to remain confidential unless the secrecy is lifted, and the minututes must be approved in executive session and kept confidential as well.

[Gary Novosielski]

Does Robert's Rules provide for the President, or anyone, to announce during the course of a meeting that the next discussion item will be "off the record"?

No.

He is probably thinking of going into Executive Session which requires secrecy, but minutes (also secret) are still kept, so it is still "on the record".

[jstackpo]

Guest_Vern: Please clarify what you mean by "the record".

As such "the record" is not defined in RONR other than as the minutes and other administrative documents: RONR p. [459-460 / the heck with double page referencing]*.

[Tim Wynn]

Does Robert's Rules provide for the President, or anyone, to announce during the course of a meeting that the next discussion item will be "off the record"?

"Off the record" has no parliamentary significance. This platitude will have to be defined, before a valid answer can be given.

[Guest Vern Trowbridge]

"Off the record" was defined as:

No recording devices on (our meetings are usually recorded in full for the person who writes the minutes)

No notes or minutes to be taken

[Sean Hunt]

It's worth noting that minutes are a record of what was done, not of what was said. Your minutes should not include summaries of the discussion, only of enough information to let people understand what decisions were made at the meeting.

[Tim Wynn]

"Off the record" was defined as:

No recording devices on (our meetings are usually recorded in full for the person who writes the minutes)

No notes or minutes to be taken

It would not be appropriate to exclude from the minutes a main motion that was considered and not withdrawn.

However, this sounds as if it could be more like idle chatter than actual business, in which case it doesn't belong in the minutes or the meeting.

[g40]

From the context given, I would suggest adjourning the meeting - then the members can chat about whatever they want.

Alternately, if the "off the record" request involved a discussion only, then such discussions would not (or should not) be recorded in the minutes.

[Trina]

"Off the record" was defined as:

No recording devices on (our meetings are usually recorded in full for the person who writes the minutes)

No notes or minutes to be taken

Was this discussion item actually about business to be conducted by the assembly? Or was it something that everyone there would agree (pretty much by common sense) shouldn't be in the minutes? The use of a recording device might make people feel more self-conscious about the latter.

As a secretary myself, I've sometimes had someone turn to me and say, informally, "this shouldn't be in the minutes, of course" -- and what follows is, indeed, usually something that shouldn't be in the minutes, even though I'm still sitting there and taking notes (personal information about a member who is ill, critical comments overheard at a recent club function, stuff like that). Occasionally business may grow out of such a discussion, and that business (motions, decisions) shouldn't be 'off the record.'

[Guest Vern Trowbridge]

The particular item the president wanted to discuss "off the record" was to reprimand a board member for sending an email to each board member. The email simply stated that the board had ben negligent in carrying out its responsibilities: i.e. the board had failed to maintain a common element that subsequently caused damage to private property. No motions were made during the "off the record" part of the meeting. It appears that the president did not want the minutes to reflect that a board memeber had sent an email to all board members admitting that the board was negligent.

[Trina]

The particular item the president wanted to discuss "off the record" was to reprimand a board member for sending an email to each board member. The email simply stated that the board had ben negligent in carrying out its responsibilities: i.e. the board had failed to maintain a common element that subsequently caused damage to private property. No motions were made during the "off the record" part of the meeting. It appears that the president did not want the minutes to reflect that a board memeber had sent an email to all board members admitting that the board was negligent.

A 'reprimand' suggests a formal action approved by the body, and should be in the minutes. If it was desired to keep the discussion and action more private, the proper thing to do would be to go into executive session (going into executive session is a decision of the assembly, not of the chair alone). Minutes should still be kept, it's just that the participants have an obligation to maintain secrecy (see RONR 11th ed. pp. 95-96). Even if you mean something more informal when you say 'reprimand' -- i.e. people airing their feelings and scolding the 'offending' member, going into executive session would have been a way to do that privately. Griping without a motion on the floor is not, of course, the proper formal way to approach this, but it might be what a more informal assembly does prior to framing a motion. If the executive session ended up taking no formal action, the minutes would be very brief.

[Gary Novosielski]

The particular item the president wanted to discuss "off the record" was to reprimand a board member for sending an email to each board member. The email simply stated that the board had ben negligent in carrying out its responsibilities: i.e. the board had failed to maintain a common element that subsequently caused damage to private property. No motions were made during the "off the record" part of the meeting. It appears that the president did not want the minutes to reflect that a board memeber had sent an email to all board members admitting that the board was negligent.

Well, the President (acting alone) has no power to reprimand a member for actions taken outside of a board meeting. But since the action was not, for lack of a better term, recorded "on the record" , there is probably little that needs doing.

However it might well be within the power of the board as a whole to discipline the member who sent the e-mails, in that they they could concievably damage the board by compromising the position of the board in a potential lawsuit.

Discussing pending or potential litigation is certainly a typical example of the sort of reason that might induce boards to conduct business in closed (executive) session. Obviously, a frank discussion of the board's liability, or lack thereof, or of any possible settlement offers or responses to counteroffers, or strategies on how to proceed in court or in negotiations, are all matters that they would be crazy to discuss in public.

The chair should educate himself on the proper use of Executive Session, and should leave the decision on who should be reprimanded and when to the board as a whole. Perhaps a more neutral word to describe the chair's action might be to "instruct" the board on its duties to protect the organization from incurring liability. But it is not mine to know if that's an appropriate characterization.