Can trustees have a meeting whereby minutes are not kept then go into executive session?

[Guest Dan Shields]

Traditionally in my organization the Trustees have a meeting prior to the BOD meeting. I am the Sgt. of Arms and attended this meeting. A certain trustee did not want me in the meeting so he called for a motion to go into executive session. It was seconded and I was asked to leave. This trustee meeting does not keep minutes nor is it recorded so how can it go into executive session. Please advise with some RR

[Guest Edgar]

Minutes are to be kept for all meetings, whether held in executive session or not.

But do you really have both a Board of Trustees and a Board of Directors?

[jstackpo]

What is the relationship between the "Trustees" and the BOD? Do the bylaws define the two groups? How? Do the trustees have any authority do do something? Anything?

You will have to look at your bylaws and see what is going on. W can't interpret or work with bylaws here -- we deal with RONR, which is quite enough, thank you.

Whatever the Trustees do, I hope they all have good memories of what they might have decided in their minuteless meeting.

Not taking minutes (foolish though that is) does not preclude confidential (Executive Session) meetings.

[Guest Dan Shields]

Minutes are to be kept for all meetings, whether held in executive session or not.

But do you really have both a Board of Trustees and a Board of Directors?

Yes there are 17 trustees 3 Sgt. at Arms a President 1st vp 2nd vp 3rd vp recording sec. and financial sec which is the full BOD

[George Mervosh]

Maybe we can take parts from two earlier posts to sum this up, since the facts are fuzzy.

Minutes are to be kept for all meetings, whether held in executive session or not.

Not taking minutes (foolish though that is) does not preclude confidential (Executive Session) meetings.

[sMargaret]

Also, presumably the Trustees didn't actually need to go into Executive Session to remove someone who was not a trustee from attending a meeting of trustees...

[Trina]

Looking over the series of posts so far... maybe I'm missing something, but has anything been said suggesting that the Trustees are a separately defined body, authorized to hold meetings (in the parliamentary sense) by the organization's bylaws?

Yes there are 17 trustees 3 Sgt. at Arms a President 1st vp 2nd vp 3rd vp recording sec. and financial sec which is the full BOD

This, by itself, does not say that the trustees can hold their own independent meetings. Just saying that there are 17 trustees doesn't define a deliberative assembly within the organization. Look at it this way -- you apparently have 3 sergeants at arms -- do you therefore believe that the three of you could conduct a sergeant-at-arms meeting, and make decisions on behalf of the organization?

[Guest Edgar]

. . . maybe I'm missing something, but has anything been said suggesting that the Trustees are a separately defined body, authorized to hold meetings (in the parliamentary sense) by the organization's bylaws?

Well, Mr. Shields did answer "Yes" to my question, "But do you really have both a Board of Trustees and a Board of Directors?" though I still share Trina's doubt.

[George Mervosh]

But didn't Mr. Mt. and JDS answer the two questions asked?

[David A Foulkes]

Traditionally ....

Traditionally? Do the bylaws actually define a distinct body named the Board of Trustees, with further definitions of its powers and duties, meeting schedule, quorum, election schedule, and perhaps more? Or are these Trustees merely other officials that are in fact part of the "full" BOD?

[Trina]

But didn't Mr. Mt. and JDS answer the two questions asked?

But determining whether there actually is a distinct body composed of the trustees is a prerequisite to answering the poster's question "can trustees have a meeting whereby... blah blah blah?"