Open vs. Closed Meetings

[Guest DaisyCarrington]

Dear Friends, We have started a new local PTA, which falls under the umbrella of the National PTA, the Florida PTA and the County PTA. We have adopted Robert's Rules. The local unit is a Florida organization, but not covered by Florida Sunshine Laws since we are a private organization. I would like to have the option of having open Board Meetings. I have been advised by the County that we cannot. From what I have read in Robert's Rules, we can. Nothing prevents us from deciding if we want open or closed meetings. Can the County, State and National tradition of closed meetings dictate that we have closed meetings? Thank you! --Daisy

[Chris Harrison]

You would need to look at the bylaws of the County, State, and National organizations to see if they impose any requirement that subordinate chapters meet in closed session.  An uncodified custom/tradition probably wouldn't be binding on you but a codified rule very well might be.

[jstackpo]

Or, perhaps better, ask the County PTA person to show you the rule forbidding open Board meetings.

 

One can waste a lot of time looking for something that isn't there  --  better it be the County PTA person than you.

[Gary c Tesser]

Or, perhaps better, ask the County PTA person to show you the rule forbidding open Board meetings.

 

One can waste a lot of time looking for something that isn't there  --  better it be the County PTA person than you.

 

But -- tangentially -- it can't hurt, in general, for one of you in your local group (by "you" and "your local group," I'm addressing Ms Carrington, not Dr Stackpole.  I would say "in addition to" Dr Stackpole, not "not"  Dr Stackpole, if I thought the suggestion might likely do him some good; but he probably already agrees with this opinion, or at least is aware of it) to get familiar with what the "higher-level" bylaws say about how you run your group.

 

(By "local group" I mean the members of the new Florida PTA, not the member galaxies of our local group in our galactic neighborhood.  I mention this because new PTA members can get neighborhoods confused, because they sometimes look alike.  There are stars in both of them.  Also I notice by googling that "local group" is another term that Microsoft (spit spit) now owns -- anyone remember when "word" was not something you had to pay Microsoft a nickel every time you say it, according to recent and future Supreme Court decisions? -- but I take no notice of this, as I am of the opinion that Microsoft doesn't need any more of our money.)

 

[Edited to add essential parenthetical clarification]

[Dan Honemann]

But -- tangentially -- it can't hurt, in general, for one of you in your local group (by "you" and "your local group," I'm addressing Ms Carrington, not Dr Stackpole.  I would say "in addition to" Dr Stackpole, not "not"  Dr Stackpole, if I thought the suggestion might likely do him some good; but he probably already agrees with this opinion, or at least is aware of it) to get familiar with what the "higher-level" bylaws say about how you run your group.

 

(By "local group" I mean the members of the new Florida PTA, not the member galaxies of our local group in our galactic neighborhood.  I mention this because new PTA members can get neighborhoods confused, because they sometimes look alike.  There are stars in both of them.  Also I notice by googling that "local group" is another term that Microsoft (spit spit) now owns -- anyone remember when "word" was not something you had to pay Microsoft a nickel every time you say it, according to recent and future Supreme Court decisions? -- but I take no notice of this, as I am of the opinion that Microsoft doesn't need any more of our money.)

 

[Edited to add

]

 

Taking out all of the "essential parenthetical clarification" what's left is "But -- tangentially -- it can't hurt, in general, for one of you in your local group to get familiar with what the "higher-level" bylaws say about how you run your group."

 

Agreed, although more than just one would be better. 

[Guest Edgar]

 I have been advised by the County that we cannot. From what I have read in Robert's Rules, we can. 

 

Firstly, RONR is low man on the parliamentary totem pole so your governing documents supersede it.

 

You might be able to find what you need online.

 

Click here for the Florida PTA.

 

Click here for one Florida county's PTA Council where, among other things, you'll learn that "the PTA encourages closed Executive Board meetings. The Board meeting is for the business of the board members only. Guests may be invited to PTA board or committee meetings to bring special information, but they do not participate as voting members of the group. Generally, they leave the meeting after providing the information."

 

Note that this is entirely consistent with RONR.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you all! I've read the National, state and local documents and nothing in them prevents us from having open meetings. But as cited above, the PTA encourages closed meetings, stating that the PTA is a private organization. Our PTA executive committee is leaning toward open meetings since we are supposed to be a parent teacher group and want to encourage participation, not exclusion. We also want transparency. The PTA's motto is "not your momma's PTA". That's for sure! It's not the old days where a bunch of parents and teachers sat in a circle and tried to do what is best for the kids!

This is what the county cited as support for closed meetings:

Robert's Rules of Order (my version is the 11th Ed) sets out as follows:

Page 96, Public Session:

A deliberative assembly...is normally entitled to determine whether nonmembers may attend or be excluded from its meetings (i.e., board meeting closed to all non-board members);

Page 644, Dealing with Offenses in a Meeting:

Principles Governing Discipline at Meetings. A society (PTA) has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings and to control the hall.....

From this, I conclude that we may determine if Board meetings are open or closed.

That being said, anyone have advice on open vs. closed Board meetings?

[Josh Martin]

Thank you all! I've read the National, state and local documents and nothing in them prevents us from having open meetings. But as cited above, the PTA encourages closed meetings, stating that the PTA is a private organization. Our PTA executive committee is leaning toward open meetings since we are supposed to be a parent teacher group and want to encourage participation, not exclusion. We also want transparency. The PTA's motto is "not your momma's PTA". That's for sure! It's not the old days where a bunch of parents and teachers sat in a circle and tried to do what is best for the kids!

This is what the county cited as support for closed meetings:

Robert's Rules of Order (my version is the 11th Ed) sets out as follows:

Page 96, Public Session:

A deliberative assembly...is normally entitled to determine whether nonmembers may attend or be excluded from its meetings (i.e., board meeting closed to all non-board members);

Page 644, Dealing with Offenses in a Meeting:

Principles Governing Discipline at Meetings. A society (PTA) has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings and to control the hall.....

From this, I conclude that we may determine if Board meetings are open or closed.

That being said, anyone have advice on open vs. closed Board meetings?

 

Yes, it is entirely correct that, so far as RONR is concerned, it is up to the assembly to determine whether non-members may be present. That is what both of those citations say. RONR does not require or even encourage that certain types of assemblies meet in executive session. Some boards do hold all of their meetings in executive session, and others hold most of their meetings in open session and enter executive session only when they need to discuss particularly sensitive topics. Either is acceptable, and I don't personally have a preference. I've seen either method work quite well. It really depends on the society.

 

So if your board wants to generally meet in open session and your parent organization(s) "encourage" you to meet in closed session but are unable to find anything in their rules which actually require you to do so, I'd say you can tell them "Thanks, but no thanks" for the advice.

[Guest Nancy N.]

...  the PTA encourages closed meetings, stating that the PTA is a private organization. Our PTA executive committee is leaning toward open meetings since we are supposed to be a parent teacher group and want to encourage participation, not exclusion. We also want transparency. The PTA's motto is "not your momma's PTA". That's for sure! It's not the old days where a bunch of parents and teachers sat in a circle and tried to do what is best for the kids!

... That being said, anyone have advice on open vs. closed Board meetings?

 

This is beyond the parliamentary issues, but a moment's indulgence for my curiosity, if you please.  It seems to me that Ms. Carrington's new local PTA, understanding that they are supposed to be a parent teacher group and want to encourage participation, not exclusion, and wanting transparency, and probably, in summary, also everything else that contributes to doing what is best for the kids!, is not in substance or in principle any different from what I, out of perhaps innocence, ignorance, and  naivete (or pick one), would expect to be no different from what any, for that matter all, other PTA's are and want to be.  Ms. Carrington, what's different about them from yours?

 

Particularly:  why do you figure that the rest of them, with, presumably, the same goals, find that it serves those goals best to conduct their meetings in closed session?  

 

(This question might be my reply to Ms. Carrington's closing question of Post 7.  And its answer might be what she wants to know.  Assuming that the Guest_Guest of Post 7 is Original Poster Ms. Carrington herself.  Maybe I should have played it safe and opened this parenthetical remark dealing, impersonally, with that question at the end of Post 7 qua a question, rather than, in the event that Guest_Guest is a person in her, or perhaps his, own right, and a remarkable prodigious producer of text here on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum at all levels of parliamentary proficiency and all hours of the day or night, presume to conflate him, or her, with someone else, i.e. O.P Carrington; not that, as far as I can tell, any sensible, respectable person could conceivably rationally take any offense at being taken, or conflated with, Ms. Carrington, given that pretty much all that we, here on the Internet, albeit here on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum, know of her is that is that she, like -- or as -- the increasingly auspicious Guest_Guest, is concerned with what's best for the kids.)

 

Y'know what I mean?  It's about the kids.

 

In short:  Ms. Carrington, first, I understand why you think your PTA should conduct its meetings openly -- but I have to ask: why, do you figure all these other PTA people think that it's best to conduct PTA meetings in executive session? I say this assuming that the fundamental conditions are really the same; so that all those others all along should have been conducting their meetings not in executive session, because your reasoning should hold for them, too; I think that, for your group to conduct its meetings in open session, is to hold that, implicitly, your group's fundamental conditions are different from theirs.  Not so?

[Guest Daisy Carrington]

We are not different form other PTAs. We fall under the umbrella of National, State and County PTAs. We are required to charge fees for membership. We differ from PTOs which are their own entity, setting bylaws and rules as they like. When I asked the County PTA president if we were required to have closed meetings this was her first response which prompted a long email conversation that ended with her saying the meetings are closed, but with me and another board member concluding that we can determine open or closed as you have all said above.

Read the county's "canned" response that seems to work to prevent most local PTAs from opening their meetings.

****************

The short answer is: Yes, board meetings are closed meetings. Neither Robert’s Rules of Order nor PTA recognizes ‘open board’ meetings. Board meetings should be scheduled on a recurring basis so everyone can plan accordingly. Most units have a set day of the month and time every month on which they meet. (Like you all were discussing last night.) The first Tuesday of the month at 6:30 for example.

A Board Meeting is the business of the Board members only. Guests may be invited to PTA Board or Committee meetings to bring special information, but they do not participate as voting members of the group. Generally, they leave the meeting after providing the information. And their attendance must be approved by the President. They typically speak first at the beginning of the meeting.

A ‘courtesy seat’ may be granted by general consent or by vote of the Executive Board members to special guests, such as past presidents, or representatives of other organizations or agencies, giving them permission to attend that particular meeting only. Those granted a courtesy seat may speak with permission of the chair (President); however, they do not have the privilege of making motions, debating or voting.

Don’t lose the privacy needed by Board members to speak freely when nitty-gritty details or confidential matters must be discussed by inviting those who are not members of the Board to attend meetings. If an individual is interested enough in the proceedings to attend a committee meeting of which he or she is not a member, shouldn’t the Board consider appointing that individual to a chairmanship that would enable him or her to be actively involved?

[Gary c Tesser]

... Read the county's "canned" response that seems to work to prevent most local PTAs from opening their meetings.

**************** ...

 

 

I take it that Ms Carrington can see the logical flaws in this as well as anybody.  We can get Mr Martin to go through it, flawed-logical-sentence by true-but-misleading sentence, but he'll probably want $4.50 an hour or something.

 

I will concede this:

 

["]... Don’t lose the privacy needed by Board members to speak freely when nitty-gritty details or confidential matters must be discussed by inviting those who are not members of the Board to attend meetings. ["]

 

This is eminently sensible advice.  But it is easily achieved by any PTA, PTA board, or any other assembly, going into executive session when, and for whatever reason, it sees fit -- thereby politely excusing whichever non-members it chooses, and binding whichever non-members, like the members themselves, to keep confidential whatever happens during executive session -- and then going back into open session whenever, and for whatever reason, it wishes.

 

[Edited to correct grammar.  Somebody ought to.]

[Gary Novosielski]

PTA bylaws are mandated to a certain extent by the hierarchy of county/state/national levels of the organization.  There are certain provisions that your bylaws MUST contain in order for your local chapter to be recognized as a PTA.  There are other provisions that you are free to adopt for your particular needs.  Your group is governed by your bylaws, which you should read carefully. 

 

If there are particular rules of order that you must adopt, either explicity or by reference to some higher level rule book, then you have to obey them.  If not, then you don't.  But only your group can research and determine that.

 

In any case, their idea about closed board meetings seems like good advice to me.

[Gary c Tesser]

...  In any case, their idea about closed board meetings seems like good advice to me.

 

Ms Carrington, it may seem like egregious flip-flopping; and for that matter might really just plain be egregious flip-flopping; but I advise you that if Gary Novosielski thinks something is a good idea, it's a good idea.  Even if it's hard to spell.

[Guest Daisy Carrington]

Thanks, Gary. I've done all the research and complied, and participated in the writing (filling in the blanks) of our bylaws. I know them well.

Why do you advise that closed PTA board meetings are a good idea? I have been asking others for input on the why and haven't received any response (from other sources).

We expect to have executive sessions when needed, and only have 3 general membership meetings a year.

[jstackpo]

If you start hearing mumbled (mumble, mumble, grumble, grumble) complaints that "that clique" is running everything, then you are having too many closed meetings.

 

Of course, "that clique" is usually the 10% of the members who actually want to do something about the schools, &c. and actually bestir themselves.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks, Gary. I've done all the research and complied, and participated in the writing (filling in the blanks) of our bylaws. I know them well.

Why do you advise that closed PTA board meetings are a good idea? I have been asking others for input on the why and haven't received any response (from other sources).

We expect to have executive sessions when needed, and only have 3 general membership meetings a year.

Well I think the logic that was given in the canned response (FAQ?) you quoted is good advice to start with. Also, when board meetings are attended by non-members (of the board) it is often the case that everyone in attendance knows better than the board how everything should be done. Invariably these are people who are too busy to actually be on the board and way to busy to actually work in on implementing all of the wonderful things that should be done, or worse yet should have been done.

Under your rules, you're still free to invite others to the board meeting when needed, but you'll get more done if you don't have fifty people looking over your shoulder.

If you want more transparency, there's an easy way to do it: Have more general membership meetings. Every month isn't excessive, but you might do better with every other month. Presumably <fingers crossed> more frequent meetings will mean shorter meetings, but you never know.</fingers crossed>. That way, the membership will actually be allowed to speak, discuss, interact, and even make decisions--not sit there like a lump and watch the board doing it all wrong.

[Guest Edgar]

Why do you advise that closed PTA board meetings are a good idea? I have been asking others for input on the why and haven't received any response (from other sources).

 

It's not an "either/or" situation. You could, for example, have closed "business meetings" on the first Tuesday of the month and open meetings on the third Tuesday of the month.

 

Edited to add: And pretty much what Mr. Novosielski said in his latest post.

[Josh Martin]

And their attendance must be approved by the President.

 

The attendance of any non-members must be approved by the board. The President doesn't have the authority to do this on his own unless your rules so provide.

 

A ‘courtesy seat’ may be granted by general consent or by vote of the Executive Board members to special guests, such as past presidents, or representatives of other organizations or agencies, giving them permission to attend that particular meeting only. Those granted a courtesy seat may speak with permission of the chair (President); however, they do not have the privilege of making motions, debating or voting.

 

It requires the permission of the board to let a non-member speak in debate. The President doesn't have the authority to do this on his own unless your rules so provide.

 

Don’t lose the privacy needed by Board members to speak freely when nitty-gritty details or confidential matters must be discussed by inviting those who are not members of the Board to attend meetings.

 

The board loses no such privacy. Even if the board chooses to generally hold open meetings, it is free to enter executive session in a particular case if it wishes.

[Gary c Tesser]

Now looks like me and Daisy owe Josh about $2.25 each.

[Guest Daisy Carrington]

Keep the advice coming. I'm reading all your posts and digesting them. Thank you, everyone. With your help, and the three books from the library, I'm quickly becoming a newbie to you but a good resource in Robert's Rules to my circle of friends and associates.

Went to two open Board meetings recently and found myself in the position that Gary N. described, but I was the bad guy. I watched the chairman shoot down a member's attempt to amend a motion. Neither the member, nor the chairman, knew that the member had the option of formally requesting that the motion be amended. Does an amendment require a majority or 2/3 vote? I also listened to a Board discuss firing an employee and all the reasons why, right there during an open Board meeting. Clearly a discussion for an executive session. Another time, I cringed when a chairman said, "I have a motion on the table, can I have a second? All those in favor aye, opposed nay. So moved." Trust me, didn't say a word as I didn't want to be a pain. They were getting stuff done.

[Josh Martin]

Does an amendment require a majority or 2/3 vote?

 

A majority vote.

 

Another time, I cringed when a chairman said, "I have a motion on the table, can I have a second? All those in favor aye, opposed nay. So moved." Trust me, didn't say a word as I didn't want to be a pain. They were getting stuff done.

 

Well, the way they were getting stuff done is likely to lead to problems, but if I understand correctly that you are not a member of the board in question, you were right to remain silent.

[Guest Daisy Carrington]

Thanks! Re: majority vote.

Well, the way they were getting stuff done is likely to lead to problems, but if I understand correctly that you are not a member of the board in question, you were right to remain silent.