Dan Honemann Posted December 19, 2014 at 01:00 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 01:00 PM How exactly did the obligations of honor get released? As a matter of parliamentary law, the obligations of honor referred to on page 96 are released by the adoption of a motion to do so. This thread is about the vote required for the adoption of such a motion. No need to get all preachy about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 19, 2014 at 02:07 PM Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 02:07 PM Perhaps Mr. Mt. can start his own thread about whatever his concerns are, using his own facts, as we advise all posters to do instead of jumping in on something not related. Mr. Honemann answered the question and Mr. Tesser's followup with the somewhat tangential question about entering and leaving executive session certainly fit in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted December 19, 2014 at 07:42 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 07:42 PM Perhaps Mr. Mt. can start his own thread about whatever his concerns are, using his own facts, as we advise all posters to do instead of jumping in on something not related. Again, my apologies. I thought this was an (advanced) discussion forum, not merely a Q&A. The question was answered (without any controversy) in the second post. The discussion, which I think was interesting, continued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 19, 2014 at 07:45 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 at 07:45 PM Again, my apologies. I thought this was an (advanced) discussion forum, not merely a Q&A. The question was answered (without any controversy) in the second post. The discussion, which I think was interesting, continued. Well, there are limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted December 20, 2014 at 10:34 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 at 10:34 AM Having read and reread all this, and ruminated at length, as a slow and ponderous thinker, of dour and lugubrious mien, particularly about the implications of whether there is, or ought to be, "a virtual guarantee that these expressions are, and will be kept, confidential," and that, as it is said, preachiness is its own reward, with an infinity of soul-searching, I seriously considered that the comma should be placed after "will be," not after "kept." But for better or worse; with malice toward none, with charity for all, I'm leaving it where it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted December 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM Again, my apologies. I thought this was an (advanced) discussion forum, not merely a Q&A. The question was answered (without any controversy) in the second post. The discussion, which I think was interesting, continued. I too thought it was interesting. At least you didn't get called preachy, so you're ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted December 21, 2014 at 05:57 PM Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 at 05:57 PM I think there's an important distinction here. When George says in his initial post that "the board...wants to lift the secrecy and inform the membership", I take that to mean inform the membership of the decisions made and/or the action taken while in executive session. I don't see how that should equate to :"confidential comments might someday be disclosed". Certainly if minutes are kept in the proper form, those confidential comments should not have been recorded at all. And if you consider this in connection with the issue raised about the membership of the board having completely changed, then the only reliable source for what action was taken in some past executive session will be those minutes, so no record of who said what should exist. I agree. Further, as far as I can tell, RONR does not directly address the notion of lifting the secrecy of what was said at an executive session. The exact quote is this:"The minutes, or record of proceedings, of an executive session must be read and acted upon only in executive session, unless that which would be reported in the minutes—that is, the action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate—was not secret, or secrecy has been lifted by the assembly."The book doesn't says exactly what secrecy has been lifted, but for purposes of approving minutes in open session, it would be enough for secrecy regarding the action taken to have been lifted.Note: In this reply, I'm not opining on whether an assembly can or should entirely lift the secrecy of an executive session, but rather that such action is not necessarily what is mentioned in the text of RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 21, 2014 at 07:19 PM Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 at 07:19 PM I agree. Further, as far as I can tell, RONR does not directly address the notion of lifting the secrecy of what was said at an executive session. The exact quote is this:"The minutes, or record of proceedings, of an executive session must be read and acted upon only in executive session, unless that which would be reported in the minutes—that is, the action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate—was not secret, or secrecy has been lifted by the assembly."The book doesn't says exactly what secrecy has been lifted, but for purposes of approving minutes in open session, it would be enough for secrecy regarding the action taken to have been lifted.Note: In this reply, I'm not opining on whether an assembly can or should entirely lift the secrecy of an executive session, but rather that such action is not necessarily what is mentioned in the text of RONR. Well, yes, I suppose a motion could be made to lift only part of the secrecy imposed, but in order to know whether or not this is the case we would have to have the exact wording of the motion that was made and adopted. However, I don't think this has any bearing on the vote needed to adopt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted December 22, 2014 at 03:52 AM Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 at 03:52 AM Well, yes, I suppose a motion could be made to lift only part of the secrecy imposed, but in order to know whether or not this is the case we would have to have the exact wording of the motion that was made and adopted. However, I don't think this has any bearing on the vote needed to adopt. Or if a motion is even required. In a deleted post, I argued that some (if not most) decisions will become 'public knowledge' at some point. For example, the decision of the Board to sue another organization (or individual) should probably be made in Executive Session. However, once the case gets to court, it becomes public knowledge. As such, Executive Session would cover what was discussed about the motion, but not that the motion was made or passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 22, 2014 at 09:07 AM Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 at 09:07 AM ... Oh Edness. You were doing so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 22, 2014 at 09:50 AM Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 at 09:50 AM OK, Sir Ed, lookit. Suppose we all accept as a given that the Sun rises in the east. At least on your home planet. Leave it for now, it's a starting hypothesis. Now, in a meeting, during Executive Session, someone says that the Sun rises in the east. Yup, just says it. Not like say in Ptolemy's court when it might have been controversial. Like, suppose when suppose another member says something stupid (hard to imagine, I know; but remember, not all of us are in Toronto, or look like red buses), so a guy exasperatedly (presumably, getting the floor -- let's avoid side issues) rebuts it (rebuts the something stupid, not the damn Canadian red bus, dammit -- focus please!) and adds that it's as apodictic (yeah, I like that one, and the year is almost over) as that the Sun rises in the east. Then we go on with the discussion. Presumably, perhaps providentially, sensibly (shut up about your damn red bus!). Now get this, Edlichkeit (as we often say in Yiddish). Everyone on Earth, or I'll mention neighboring planets also since we're including Ed, is allowed to say that the Sun rises in the east. (Except maybe in North Korea, but that's maybe another issue, or another comic book, or another movie. Sometimes I forget who I'm writing for. Please, Spielberg, stop phoning at 2 in the morning. The real people live on the East Coast, y'know?) But. Get this here. Pay close attention. Nobody who was present during that executive session is allowed to divulge that it was said, during that executive session, that the sun rises in the east. Get it? Everybody in the Universe is allowed to say that the Sun rises in the east. Even on Ed's home planet. Wherever the heck Canada is. But we who were present during that executive session are NOT allowed to mention that somebody said so during the executive session. Not even us Canads! Ahhh! My hair hurts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM Or if a motion is even required. In a deleted post, I argued that some (if not most) decisions will become 'public knowledge' at some point. For example, the decision of the Board to sue another organization (or individual) should probably be made in Executive Session. However, once the case gets to court, it becomes public knowledge. As such, Executive Session would cover what was discussed about the motion, but not that the motion was made or passed. No argument needed. See post #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Arnold Posted July 13, 2015 at 07:41 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 at 07:41 PM If only actions taken in executive session are put in the minutes, then any discussion would not be written down and no secrecy would be held valid as to discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 13, 2015 at 07:47 PM Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 at 07:47 PM If only actions taken in executive session are put in the minutes, then any discussion would not be written down and no secrecy would be held valid as to discussion? That's not correct. The entire proceedings are secret unless the secrecy is lifted. If you care to explore this further you should start a new thread here http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?app=forums&module=post§ion=post&do=new_post&f=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 13, 2015 at 07:54 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 at 07:54 PM If you care to explore this further you should start a new thread here http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?app=forums&module=post§ion=post&do=new_post&f=4Agreed. Though it was good to be reminded of the contributions of Mr. Tesser. And Nancy N. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smb Posted July 14, 2015 at 06:36 PM Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 at 06:36 PM I just want to note for the record, that the almost correct answer is not in post #2; it is in post #19. (Both by Mssr. Hohnemann, so I give him full credit.) "The obligation not to divulge anything that occurred in executive session is something having continuing force and effect which was made or created as the result of the adoption of the motion to go into executive session, thus falling clearly within the language found on page 305, lines 28-31." But I would take the analysis a bit further. The authority of the assembly to lift the veil of secrecy is solely as to the content of the minutes of the executive session. Which, as we are all aware, should report what was done, not what was said. The rule protecting the secrecy of what any individual member may have said in debate, with the understanding that his or her comments would not be disclosed, is essentially a rule "protecting a minority of a particular size" that protects the rights of each individual member and would therefore require unanimous consent to lift. [p. 261 l. 15-17] This citation is for a motion to suspend the rules since the motion to amend something previously adopted would technically be out of order -- since it is impossible to undo the guarantee of confidentiality given to those who remained in the room and chose to speak because of that guarantee. [p. 308 l.. 20-24]. The key to the analysis is to parse RONR p. 96 l. 6-14 which indicates that the authority of the assembly to lift the veil of secrecy applies only to the confidentiality of the executive session minutes, not the secrecy of what was said during the meeting. "A member of a society can be punished under disciplinary procedure if he violates the secrecy of an executive session. [Period!] .... The minutes...must be read and acted upon only in executive session, unless that which would be reported in the minutes ....was not secret, or secrecy [of the actions taken during executive session] has been lifted by the assembly." (My emphasis and [comments]) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smb Posted July 14, 2015 at 06:38 PM Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 at 06:38 PM Oops. Sorry for the larger type in my earlier response. I did not mean to shout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 14, 2015 at 07:05 PM Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 at 07:05 PM Oops. Sorry for the larger type in my earlier response. I did not mean to shout. You could edit your post to change the font and size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 14, 2015 at 10:40 PM Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 at 10:40 PM But I would take the analysis a bit further. The authority of the assembly to lift the veil of secrecy is solely as to the content of the minutes of the executive session. Which, as we are all aware, should report what was done, not what was said. The rule protecting the secrecy of what any individual member may have said in debate, with the understanding that his or her comments would not be disclosed, is essentially a rule "protecting a minority of a particular size" that protects the rights of each individual member and would therefore require unanimous consent to lift. [p. 261 l. 15-17] This citation is for a motion to suspend the rules since the motion to amend something previously adopted would technically be out of order -- since it is impossible to undo the guarantee of confidentiality given to those who remained in the room and chose to speak because of that guarantee. [p. 308 l.. 20-24].I disagree entirely. There is no "guarantee" to individual members that their comments shall remain secret. The purpose of executive session is not to protect the individual members, but to protect the assembly as a whole. The assembly's ability to lift secrecy is not limited "solely as to the content of the minutes of the executive session."(The rules for disciplinary proceedings conducted in executive session are somewhat different, and in those cases the assembly is indeed restricted in what it can reveal, but I don't believe there are any restrictions in other cases.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.