Closed meeting

[Guest Elizabeth]

I am a member of an advisory commission. Fifteen of us re appointed by county commissioners. We are now embroiled in controversy with state legislators.  Can we meet in closed session when our bylaws outline that the public is invited to our meetings.

[Chris Harrison]

It sounds like this situation will involve legal issues which is beyond this forum's purview.  I recommend you consult a lawyer.

[Edgar Guest]

Can we meet in closed session when our bylaws outline that the public is invited to our meetings.

 

There is no such thing in RONR-Land as a "closed session". In RONR-Land, only members (of the body that is meeting) have a right to attend. All others are guests.

 

Do your bylaws say that "the public" (i.e. guests) must be admitted or do they say that the public can be admitted?

 

As Mr. Harrison noted, your commission is very likely subject to rules which supersede those in RONR.

[Steven Britton]

Generally under RONR, the assembly is left to decide for itself whether to enter into an executive session. However, you've indicated two things that may supersede RONR. Your assembly is likely a public body, and certain sunshine laws may apply; and, your organization may have a bylaw that makes an executive session improper.

On this forum, we're not permitted to interpret your bylaws, or to provide legal analysis. As Mr. Harrison has indicated your best bet is contact an attorney.

[Edgar Guest]

Generally under RONR, the assembly is left to decide for itself whether to enter into an executive session.

 

Though non-members may be excluded from a meeting that's not held in executive session and non-members may be permitted to attend a meeting that is held in executive session.

 

Edited to add: I guess my point is that the terms "closed session" (undefined) and "executive session" (defined) are not synonymous.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Edited to add: I guess my point is that the terms "closed session" (undefined) and "executive session" (defined) are not synonymous.

*****

Executive Session.

As it is customary for the U. S. Senate to consider executive business in secret session, the expression "Executive Session" has come to be synonymous with "secret session," and is used in contrast with "open" or "public session." None but members of the society and such persons as the society invites are permitted to be present in the hall during an executive session, and members are in honor bound not to divulge what occurs, and they can be punished for violating this rule. The minutes of executive sessions should not be read in open session, except the minutes of meetings at which no business is transacted other than the reading and approval of the minutes of the preceding executive session. Matters relating to discipline should usually be attended to in executive session, and trials involving character should always be so conducted.

[Parliamentary Law, 1923, p. 369. Bold font added by poster.]

*****

 

Note that PL calls the opposite of "exective session" to be "open".

(See above, "The minutes of executive sessions should not be read in open session . . .)

I assume that since the meetings which aren't held in executive session are referred to as open, then it has come to pass popularly that the word opposite of open (namely, "closed") has been coined to describe executive session.

[Richard Brown]

I guess my point is that the terms "closed session" (undefined) and "executive session" (defined) are not synonymous.

 

 

 

Note that PL calls the opposite of "exective session" to be "open".

(See above, "The minutes of executive sessions should not be read in open session . . .)

I assume that since the meetings which aren't held in executive session are referred to as open, then it has come to pass popularly that the word opposite of open (namely, "closed") has been coined to describe executive session.

 

I agree with Mr. Goldsworthy.  I believe the term "closed session" is generally considered synonymous with "executive session".  I see it used in that context quite regularly.

[Edgar Guest]

I see it used in that context quite regularly.

 

Evidence of usage is not evidence of proper usage.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Evidence of usage is not evidence of proper usage.

“In the end, the actual usage of educated speakers and writers is the overarching criterion for correctness. But while actual ussage can trump the other factors, it isn’t the only consideration.”

[excerpt from the preface to the first edition, Garner’s Modern American Usage, third edition (2009), p. xviii]

 

If Registered Parliamentarians and Certified Parliamentarians are using the term "closed session," then who is of higher "education" to say that the term is improper?

 

[Edgar Guest]

If Registered Parliamentarians and Certified Parliamentarians are using the term "closed session," then who is of higher "education" to say that the term is improper?

 

Moi.

 

Edited to add: I'm not saying that the term "closed session" is improper. I'm saying it's being improperly used if it's used as a synonym for "executive session".

 

Consider this scenario: A board meets and prohibits all who are not members of the board from attending. Is this a closed session? Was it held in executive session? Could you answer "yes" to the first question and "not necessarily" to the second?

[Dan Honemann]

If Registered Parliamentarians and Certified Parliamentarians are using the term "closed session," then who is of higher "education" to say that the term is improper?

 

Just about anyone, I suppose.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Consider this scenario:

A board meets and prohibits all who are not members of the board from attending.

Is this a closed session?

Was it held in executive session?

Could you answer "yes" to the first question and "not necessarily" to the second?

Good distinction.

 

The chance of an organization

(a.) closing a meeting to all non members,

and yet

(b.) not imposing a secrecy on the transactions,

is possible.