Executive Session Minutes & Parliamentarian abilities

[ProlificSwan]

I recently filled in as the parliamentarian for the student senate at the university I attend. We went into executive session, and it brought up a few questions:

 

Regarding minutes for executive sessions, if a member of the assembly decides later or during the executive session that they want the minutes from the executive session to be released to the public, is this something that could be brought to a vote (with a 2/3 majority)? If the executive session is on the agenda for a specific item, does a vote need to be called to end the executive session when the discussion on that item is completed or does it automatically end?

 

Now as parliamentarian I realize my role is to advise the chair, however, especially in a relatively small (20 people) assembly, should I speak up when a senator violates a rule if the chair does not catch it? For example, a senator has not been given the floor by the chair, but begins speaking anyway, or a senator goes on a tangent outside the scope of the discussion (like talking about the bylaw that dictates something needs to be voted on instead of discussing the item being voted on).

 

We are relatively relaxed with the rules, but we try to be as professional as possible, and I feel like resolving some of these points would allows meetings to flow more smoothly.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

Now as parliamentarian I realize my role is to advise the chair,

however, especially in a relatively small (20 people) assembly,

should I speak up when a senator violates a rule if the chair does not catch it?

 

For example,

a senator has not been given the floor by the chair,

but begins speaking anyway,

or a senator goes on a tangent outside the scope of the discussion

(like talking about the bylaw that dictates something needs to be voted on instead of discussing the item being voted on).

 

 

 

You probably know that I and others will respond, "It depends."

 

Minor infractions which do not happen often ought not be your (collective) concern.

 

For example:

* If a speaker speaks out of turn, once, in meeting to 2-3 hours, that is not worth the interruption.

* If speaking out of turn is a common act by many speakers, then it becomes of high importance to halt as many instances as you (really, your chair) can, for the sake of keeping meeting time to less than 200% or 300% above what would have been the normal length of the meeting, had strict adherence to the rules been enforced.

 

Another example.

 

* If the number of minutes spent on irrelevant debate is a modest amount of time,

then it is probably not worth the interruption.

* If the number of minutes spent on irrelevant debate is chewing up cumulative time which impacts the length of the meeting significantly,

then you must nip it in the bud as often as you can.

 

A cautionary note:

What you don't want to do is to put the rules above the sincere people who are truly trying to get real business accomplished.

There is always a temptation to latch onto each and every violation of Robert's Rules of Order and get instant, strict enforcement of the rules.

But if you were to do that, that by itself would interfere with the meeting's purpose. -- You will no longer have free and flowing deliberation -- of anything.

 

In closing, a rule of thumb.

 

As you see a violation,

do pass it along to the ear of the chair, inconspicuously.

Or write it down as a note and pass it to the chair.

 

The chair's responsibility to is to judge the violation as "not worth enforcing" versus "worth shutting the practice down A.S.A.P., lest the practice become epidemic."

 

Personal note:

I have often observed that it is of high psychological value to allow an angry member rant and rave for 3-5 minutes, and to just vent the steam built up in his pipes, just so he walks away from the meeting, "I said my piece, and at least I got it out of my system."

Some peole just "want ot be heard."

If they are good people, then give them the courtesy of 3 minutes to do exactly that.

They will behave themseles better in one hour's time better if they vent for 3 minutes now.

It may not "germane." It may not be "logical."

But if they are communicating, "I don't like X, but I don't have an answer to X," that by itself has a modest value to the organization, if not at that moment, then perhaps in the future.

He just might be saying what others are thinking, but dare not utter aloud.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

Regarding minutes for executive sessions,

 

Q.1.) if a member of the assembly decides later or during the executive session that they want the minutes from the executive session to be released to the public,

is this something that could be brought to a vote (with a 2/3 majority)?

 

Q.2.) If the executive session is on the agenda for a specific item,

does a vote need to be called to end the executive session when the discussion on that item is completed

or does it automatically end?

A1.) Not a 2/3 vote, since you are not Amending Something Previously Adopted, and not Suspending the Rules.

 

A majority vote ought to be the vote threshold to order a document from Point A (or from Party A.) to Point B (or to Party B.)

 

Example:

Adopting a motion,

"That the text of minutes of MM/DD/YY, page 3, lines 10 to 15, be put into a press release, and sent to [list of publisher resources],"

would take a majority vote to adopt.

 

A2.) In an ideal world, the chair takes care of this via unanimous consent.

(E.g., "That completes item #11. Executive session is ended. We are back on regular session. The next item is item #12 . . .".)

If the chair forgets to do this, then, yes, you will have have to resort to a formal motion, just for clarity sake, and for the minutes' sake.

[Gary Novosielski]

The 2/3 may come from the rule that the assembly can order the (subordinate) board to have its minutes read by a 2/3 vote.   But to lift the secrecy of its own minutes, the assembly would only need a majority.

 

 

(Note that the phrase "2/3 majority" is an oxymoron.)

[Edgar Guest]

(Note that the phrase "2/3 majority" is an oxymoron.)

 

No, it's not.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Personal note:

I have often observed that it is of high psychological value to allow an angry member rant and rave for 3-5 minutes, and to just vent the steam built up in his pipes, just so he walks away from the meeting, "I said my piece, and at least I got it out of my system."

Some peole just "want ot be heard."

If they are good people, then give them the courtesy of 3 minutes to do exactly that.

They will behave themseles better in one hour's time better if they vent for 3 minutes now.

It may not "germane." It may not be "logical."

But if they are communicating, "I don't like X, but I don't have an answer to X," that by itself has a modest value to the organization, if not at that moment, then perhaps in the future.

He just might be saying what others are thinking, but dare not utter aloud.

 

But this is the Robert's Rules of Order discussion forum, not the Psychology Today discussion forum.

[Richard Brown]

But this is the Robert's Rules of Order discussion forum, not the Psychology Today discussion forum.

True, but even RONR and General Robert in Parliamentary Law opine that strict adherence to the rules can sometimes do more harm than good. . . .

[Josh Martin]

Regarding minutes for executive sessions, if a member of the assembly decides later or during the executive session that they want the minutes from the executive session to be released to the public, is this something that could be brought to a vote (with a 2/3 majority)?

Such a motion is generally in order and requires only a majority vote for adoption, not a 2/3 vote. (This assumes that the subject of the executive session was not disciplinary in nature.)

If the executive session is on the agenda for a specific item, does a vote need to be called to end the executive session when the discussion on that item is completed or does it automatically end?

If I understand the facts correctly and the agenda specifies that the executive session is only for the particular agenda item, it seems to me that it would automatically end after that item is disposed of, unless the assembly votes to do otherwise.

Now as parliamentarian I realize my role is to advise the chair, however, especially in a relatively small (20 people) assembly, should I speak up when a senator violates a rule if the chair does not catch it? For example, a senator has not been given the floor by the chair, but begins speaking anyway, or a senator goes on a tangent outside the scope of the discussion (like talking about the bylaw that dictates something needs to be voted on instead of discussing the item being voted on).

As Mr. Goldsworthy notes, this is a somewhat complicated question. In some cases, I will immediately inform the chair of an error. In others, I might wait until the end of the meeting and inform the chair of things to watch out for next time. It's a judgment call. In any event, when you "speak up" you should do so by quietly informing the chair of the error.

[Shmuel Gerber]

True, but even RONR and General Robert in Parliamentary Law opine that strict adherence to the rules can sometimes do more harm than good. . . .

 

Allowing "an angry member rant and rave for 3-5 minutes" is of zero value from a parliamentary perspective. A chair who fails to put a stop to such antics is simply not enforcing the rules, strictly or otherwise, and is thereby being derelict in performing an essential function of presiding, whether or not any psychological benefits are gained.

[ProlificSwan]

This has been very elightening, and I thank you all for your comments. My thinking on the 2/3 vote being needed to release confidential minutes was caused by the misconception that by doing so, we would in effect be amending a motion previously adopted (the motion to go into executive session). The situation in our last senate session was that the president decided to reveal confidential information to senate at the consent of the chair during an executive session in order to make a later vote run more smoothly. Some of the senators were of the opinion that the confidential information should be made public, thus begging the aforementioned question.

 

Regarding parliamentarian interruptions, the combination of prudence and discretion makes a lot of sense. I'll advise the chair discretely and let him decide on violations in the future.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . thus begging the aforementioned question.

 

Well, not exactly.

[Dan Honemann]

This has been very elightening, and I thank you all for your comments. My thinking on the 2/3 vote being needed to release confidential minutes was caused by the misconception that by doing so, we would in effect be amending a motion previously adopted (the motion to go into executive session).

 

I'm not at all convinced that your thinking with respect to the vote required for an assembly to lift the secrecy of action which it has taken while in executive session (RONR, 11th ed., p. 96, ll. 13-14) is in error. It seems to me that this may well require the same vote as is needed to rescind or amend anything else which has previously been agreed to by the adoption of a main motion, although there is no specific statement in RONR concerning the matter. Such a vote is, of course, required for the membership's assembly to require that the minutes of its board be produced and read, but this is a somewhat different question.

 

Regarding parliamentarian interruptions, the combination of prudence and discretion makes a lot of sense. I'll advise the chair discretely and let him decide on violations in the future.

 

In this connection, I suggest that you read very carefully what is said concerning the parliamentarian in RONR, 11th ed., pages 465-67, and particularly what is said concerning the duties of the parliamentarian on pages 466-67.

[George Mervosh]

I'm not at all convinced that your thinking with respect to the vote required for an assembly to lift the secrecy of action which it has taken while in executive session (RONR, 11th ed., p. 96, ll. 13-14) is in error. It seems to me that this may well require the same vote as is needed to rescind or amend anything else which has previously been agreed to by the adoption of a main motion, although there is no specific statement in RONR concerning the matter. Such a vote is, of course, required for the membership's assembly to require that the minutes of its board be produced and read, but this is a somewhat different question.

 

Neither am I, now, but what a wonderful question to talk about someday in the Advanced Forum. 

[Dan Honemann]

Neither am I, now, but what a wonderful question to talk about someday in the Advanced Forum. 

 

Well, don't be bashful.

[George Mervosh]

Well, don't be bashful.

 

You know better.