Appropriateness of Chair requesting motion to go to Executive Session

[Guest CMBond]

When is it appropriate for the Chair to ask someone on the board to move to go to executive session. We have called a special board meeting to discuss personnel issues & one of the members has been soliciting members of the organization not on the board to attend to try to influence action. In this instance, can the Chair ask for the motion or should he vacate the Chair in order to make the motion himself.

[J. J.]

The chair could ask for unanimous consent to go into executive session.

[David A Foulkes]

Yes, unanimous consent would be the first attempt. If this is a "small board meeting" (about a dozen or fewer members in attendance) and any member objects, the chair could make the motion himself, and it would not require a second. A majority vote adopts.

[Trina]

And you don't need to go into executive session just to throw out (um, excuse) the non-members of the board. According to RONR, non-members have no right to be there in the first place, without the permission (majority vote) of the assembly. And, similarly, going into executive session doesn't automatically force invited guests to leave -- that's really a separate issue.

[George Mervosh]

And, similarly, going into executive session doesn't automatically force invited guests to leave -- that's really a separate issue.

With the exception of specially invited guests to the executive session portion, it appears it does, or it did under the 10th p. 222. (11th is at home). Or maybe that's what you meant.

[David A Foulkes]

When is it appropriate for the Chair to ask someone on the board to move to go to executive session. We have called a special board meeting to discuss personnel issues & one of the members has been soliciting members of the organization not on the board to attend to try to influence action. In this instance, can the Chair ask for the motion or should he vacate the Chair in order to make the motion himself.

Might also be worth mentioning that per RONR, non-Board members have no rights as it pertains to Board meetings, and that includes the right to attend as well as the right to speak or vote. One member cannot unliaterally allow non-members to attend, but the Board (by unanimous consent or majority vote) can allow it. The right to speak in debate on any pending questions would require the suspension of the rules to allow it, which usually requires a 2/3 vote (or unanimous consent). And non-members are never allowed to vote.

[Trina]

With the exception of specially invited guests to the executive session portion, it appears it does, or it did under the 10th p. 222. (11th is at home). Or maybe that's what you meant.

Hmmm... the cited example (which has moved to p. 230 in the newer edition) is of an association which has invited a prominent guest speaker, and has opened the meeting to the general public (who are coming to hear an interesting talk, one presumes). Member Y, who later moves to end the open portion of the meeting also specifically moves 'that our guests be excused.' I don't think the example makes it clear what would have happened if member Y's motion had simply been 'that the open portion of this meeting be declared ended.'

Also, in CMBond's situation, the meeting is a special meeting called to deal with a sensitive matter, and the guests have apparently been invited specifically to somehow take part in (or exert influence on) the disposition of this sensitive matter. In other words, the guests seem to be 'special invitees.' It's just that they haven't (yet) been invited by the assembly; they have apparently been invited by one member of the assembly.

In any case, the only point I was trying to make is that the decision of executive session or no executive session is one decision. The decision of guests or no guests is a different decision, not automatically linked to the executive session decision.

[David A Foulkes]

Also, in CMBond's situation, the meeting is a special meeting called to deal with a sensitive matter, and the guests have apparently been invited specifically to somehow take part in (or exert influence on) the disposition of this sensitive matter. In other words, the guests seem to be 'special invitees.'

But they haven't been "specially invited" to attend the executive session (yet), and that's how I've always read that section.

[Trina]

But they haven't been "specially invited" to attend the executive session (yet), and that's how I've always read that section.

Actually, they haven't been invited (in a parliamentarily meaningful sense) to anything yet.

[David A Foulkes]

Actually, they haven't been invited (in a parliamentarily meaningful sense) to anything yet.

Well, if you're going to get all technical on me......

[Guest Edgar]

In any case, the only point I was trying to make is that the decision of executive session or no executive session is one decision. The decision of guests or no guests is a different decision, not automatically linked to the executive session decision.

I seem to recall that at some point (prior to the publication of the 11th Edition?) we came to a sort of agreement to the effect that in a so-called "open" meeting, non-members are admitted unless excluded and in an executive session, non-members are excluded unless invited. If that's the case, then when a meeting goes into executive session, I'd have to say the expulsion of non-members is indeed "automatically linked", with the exception of those, if any, specifically invited to remain.

[George Mervosh]

I seem to recall that at some point (prior to the publication of the 11th Edition?) we came to a sort of agreement to the effect that in a so-called "open" meeting, non-members are admitted unless excluded and in an executive session, non-members are excluded unless invited. If that's the case, then when a meeting goes into executive session, I'd have to say the expulsion of non-members is indeed "automatically linked", with the exception of those, if any, specifically invited to remain.

I don't know about an agreement but that's my understanding of the rule as well.