Special committee meetings in executive session

[DRB]

Suppose a special committee held all its meetings in executive session and delivered its final report without ever having released any other material from executive session.  It is my understanding that since the committee no longer exists, its former members remain bound by the rules regarding meetings held in executive session.  

Can the board or society that created the committee enable the former committee members to speak freely on information learned while in executive session?  In other words, can the board or society in effect open up meetings of its previous special committee with the effect that those meetings are no longer regarded as having been held in executive session?

[Chris Harrison]

Since a body can lift the secrecy from their own meetings (RONR p. 96 ll. 13-14) I see no reason why that body couldn't lift the secrecy from a body which is subservient to them.

[Gary Novosielski]

It is not appropriate when debating recommendations presented by a committee to discuss the details of deliberations that took place in committee, even if they were not held in executive session.

[George Mervosh]

What's the effect of this motion DRB wants to make?  RONR notes " No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent."  RONR (11th ed), p. 528

 

The committee doesn't exist any longer, so I wonder how it will have any practical effect inside of a meeting?

[Josh Martin]

What's the effect of this motion DRB wants to make?  RONR notes " No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent."  RONR (11th ed), p. 528

 

The committee doesn't exist any longer, so I wonder how it will have any practical effect inside of a meeting?

 

The purpose of the motion might be to let the former committee members discuss things with people who are not former committee members outside of a meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

What's the effect of this motion DRB wants to make?  RONR notes " No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent."  RONR (11th ed), p. 528

 

The committee doesn't exist any longer, so I wonder how it will have any practical effect inside of a meeting?

I see nothing in that rule that suspends it once the committee has risen.   I would say at that point that it is still improper to make allusion to committee deliberations.  The idea is that if the committee wanted something to be considered by the parent body, they would have included it in the report.  Furthermore, the requirement for unanimous consent would suggest that this rule cannot be suspended by a 2/3 vote. 

 

I would also point out that the rule applies regardless of whether the committee met in executive session.  If it did not, members would not be bound by secrecy, and could presumably discuss these matters among themselves, but it would remain improper to allude to those deliberations in debate.

 

If the committee met in executive session, and now no longer exists, then I believe the body with the power to instruct the committee (while it still existed) would have the power to release its members from the confidentiality requirement.

[Josh Martin]

I see nothing in that rule that suspends it once the committee has risen.   I would say at that point that it is still improper to make allusion to committee deliberations.  The idea is that if the committee wanted something to be considered by the parent body, they would have included it in the report.  Furthermore, the requirement for unanimous consent would suggest that this rule cannot be suspended by a 2/3 vote.

 

I think George's point is that since there won't be any further reports or motions from the committee, there wouldn't be any occasion to make allusion to the committee's deliberations, even if the rule on pg. 528 wasn't an issue.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think George's point is that since there won't be any further reports or motions from the committee, there wouldn't be any occasion to make allusion to the committee's deliberations, even if the rule on pg. 528 wasn't an issue.

Probably not, but it wouldn't be hard to construct a scenario where it could. 

 

Suppose a recommendation from an ad hoc committee had financial implications, and the motion was subsequently referred to the finance committee for comment.  If the recommendation came back a month later substantially changed, it would be improper in the assembly to argue that, although the ad hoc committee didn't say so in its report, it had already thoroughly considered changes like those suggested by the finance committee and had rejected them.

 

I think.

[Guest DRB]

Thank you for all your responses. They answered my question. (The body that created the committee may "let the former committee members discuss things with people who are not former committee members outside of a meeting.")