Guest Jane Posted September 3, 2012 at 07:28 PM Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 at 07:28 PM A member has questioned the confidentiality of Executive Board Meetings. Meeting Minutes are posted for all meeting which give the result of approved or disapproved motions, decisions, etc. At what point does Roberts cover the discussion in an executive meeting? Would this not hamper an open discussion of a topic during a board meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 3, 2012 at 07:50 PM Report Share Posted September 3, 2012 at 07:50 PM If your meetings are held in executive session, the discussions would be private unless the Board lifted the secrecy of them. Otherwise, no. RONR (11th ed.), pp. 95-96You might be confusing executive meetings and executive session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted September 4, 2012 at 12:49 AM Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 at 12:49 AM Also, the minutes are not meant to "cover the discussion in an executive meeting", or indeed in any meeting. They are meant to record motions, not discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 4, 2012 at 08:08 AM Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 at 08:08 AM IIRC: Somewhere in the last few days, an original poster used the term "executive meetings"; a responder (I'm pretty sure a new regular, like sMargaret or Louise or Trevor) responded, using the term; and Dan Honemann testily ("testily" is the way we traditionally courtly Southern gentlemen reveal our heroically restrained wrathfulness) asked that the term be abandoned. I have now spent about three hours searching for that thread, to double-check my memory and to cite it if indeed I recalled correctly; but with no luck. Pfui. If someone with better computer skills than mine (i.e., greater than zero) can find it and point me to it, please do; I'd be grateful. In the meantime, any who would heed my empty and so-far unsupported warning would avoid the term "executive meeting." -- Or, as an acceptable if dismaying alternative, correct me.(I didn't revive mentioning the Two Fisted Parliamentarians Club a little while ago for no reason. My burgeoning pugnacity approaches the nature of wrath, although, relievedly, asymptotically. -- I'm that kind of guy.(-- You think I might could somehow eke a citation out of this? At 4 AM? at $4.50 an hour?(-- I mention this in the expectation that George and sMargaret have handily answered Original Poster Guest_Jane's questions to her satisfaction. If not, then, Guest_Jane, please follow up. It's a relief and a pleasure to get a real Robert's Rules question on this agony column once in a while.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted September 4, 2012 at 01:40 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 at 01:40 PM http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/16569-who-can-call-a-meeting/page__p__82794__hl__executive__fromsearch__1#entry82794(the advanced search options are very handy, she said, non-pugnaciously). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 4, 2012 at 02:55 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 at 02:55 PM IIRC: Somewhere in the last few days, an original poster used the term "executive meetings"; a responder (I'm pretty sure a new regular, like sMargaret or Louise or Trevor) responded, using the term; and Dan Honemann testily ("testily" is the way we traditionally courtly Southern gentlemen reveal our heroically restrained wrathfulness) asked that the term be abandoned.Hey, Dan and I were two of the few working yesterday, and at $4.50 per hour we're allowed to slack some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.