Sharing information from meetings

[Guest Guest]

I’m certain one of our board members keeps talking about some things that happened in past Executive Session meetings.

he shares them anonymously, in online forums, with no identifying information of the people involved, or the location, or the society’s name... For the record, I have no way of actually being sure it’s him, but some situations sound very familiar.

 

Does that still count as violating Executive Session?

[Joshua Katz]

Sharing information anonymously counts as sharing information. It's unclear to me how you'd prove it, though.

[Atul Kapur]

3 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

but some situations sound very familiar.

Have a look through the old threads on this forum. You will see many examples of the same question being asked by different people because many of the same (or "very similar") situations occur many times in many places.

Apparently the advice columnists like Dear Abby or Ann Landers got many letters from people who were convinced a recent column was about them; it always was not, but was "very familiar" because human nature is common to many humans.

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Sharing information anonymously counts as sharing information. It's unclear to me how you'd prove it, though.

I would suggest that the fact that the member shares “no identifying information of the people involved, or the location, or the society’s name,” makes this a bit of a grey area, which I suppose will be resolved in the trial.

Edited August 16, 2019 at 01:36 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

16 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I would suggest that the fact that the member shares “no identifying information of the people involved, or the location, or the society’s name,” makes this a bit of a grey area, which I suppose will be resolved in the trial.

Probably - and hence the difficulty of proof. But it's still information learned in executive session. "A certain organization, unnamed, fired an employee, unnamed, position nondisclosed, for embezzling funds, amount not disclosed" still seems like something that shouldn't be repeated outside of executive session, particularly if OP is able to figure out it's his organization.

[Guest Joshua]

On 8/16/2019 at 6:36 AM, Josh Martin said:

I would suggest that the fact that the member shares “no identifying information of the people involved, or the location, or the society’s name,” makes this a bit of a grey area, which I suppose will be resolved in the trial.

Seems pretty extreme for information that’s not even confidential.

 

[Richard Brown]

38 minutes ago, Guest Joshua said:

Seems pretty extreme for information that’s not even confidential.

 

If it was said in an executive session, it most likely IS confidential, by definition.  Everything said and done in an executive session is confidential.

[Guest Joshua]

17 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

If it was said in an executive session, it most likely IS confidential, by definition.  Everything said and done in an executive session is confidential.

Unless according to other laws, it isn’t (like by-laws, state laws or other local laws).

[Richard Brown]

13 minutes ago, Guest Joshua said:

Unless according to other laws, it isn’t (like by-laws, state laws or other local laws).

That's a long shot, Joshua.  Besides, we answer questions based on the rules in RONR. As always, bylaw provisions, special rules of order and statutes supersede the rules in RONR.  Per the rules in RONR, as well as the general (or common) parliamentary law and other parliamentary authorities, what transpires in an executive session is confidential and cannot be shared with others who are not members of the group that was meeting or were not present at the meeting. At least one manual in common use goes so far as to say it is "legally considered as confidential".  Violating that rule can subject the violator to disciplinary proceedings up to and including expulsion from membership.  Whether it could subject the violator to other sanctions is a legal question and is outside the scope of this forum.

Do you know something about Guest Guest's situation that you are not telling us? 

[Guest Joshua]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Per the rules in RONR, as well as the general (or common) parliamentary law and other parliamentary authorities, what transpires in an executive session is confidential and cannot be shared with others who are not members of the group that was meeting or were not present at the meeting. 

If that were the case, wouldn’t it be true that the minutes could not be shared or discussed at other meetings? 

They always are, and almost always contain detailed information that a participant could not possibly  know unless he or she was at the meeting the minutes is reporting on. 

It’s not true that all who had the right to be at the meeting, are able to know what transpired? 

 

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

or were not present at the meeting.

Well, I disagree with this.

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

At least one manual in common use goes so far as to say it is "legally considered as confidential".

Does it cite any legal authority for that proposition?

1 hour ago, Guest Joshua said:

If that were the case, wouldn’t it be true that the minutes could not be shared or discussed at other meetings? 

 

The minutes of an executive session should be approved in executive session. It's not particularly common to discuss minutes, other than to approve them, at other meetings, but if it comes up, the contents of executive session minutes should not be discussed outside of executive session. They should be shared only with members of the body that was meeting, and only discussed with the same.

1 hour ago, Guest Joshua said:

 They always are, and almost always contain detailed information that a participant could not possibly  know unless he or she was at the meeting the minutes is reporting on. 

 

What do you mean by always? Not in any organization I'm a part of, so far as I know - except once, and that person was subject to discipline (and resigned in lieu).

1 hour ago, Guest Joshua said:

 It’s not true that all who had the right to be at the meeting, are able to know what transpired? 

 

On that point, I think Mr. Brown misspoke (mistyped). Everyone who had the right to be present also has the right to know what happened in executive session.

[Richard Brown]

30 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

On that point, I think Mr. Brown misspoke (mistyped). Everyone who had the right to be present also has the right to know what happened in executive session.

Are you sure?  Do you have a citation for that?  I do not see it in RONR.  RONR does say that non members who attend the meeting are honor bound not to divulge anything that occurred.  But nowhere (that I can find) does RONR say that non members who may have been invited to attend the meeting but chose not to attend are nonetheless entitled to find out what happened at the meeting.   RONR just does not say it.  I would prefer to err on the side of caution.  

Here is an example:  A non-member who has information on an issue to be discussed at the executive session is invited to attend to provide information.  The members who invited him to attend assume he will likely be dismissed after he provides his information.   However, he declines the invitation to attend.  It is a long, contentious meeting and the absent non-member's name is brought up several times.  He ultimately becomes a primary object of the meeting.  If he had been present at the meeting, he would almost certainly have been asked to leave before the discussion turned to him.  Are you saying that nonetheless, since he had initially been invited to attend but chose not to, he is now entitled to know everything that took place and was said at the  meeting?  I don't think so.  I'm not going to tell him.

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, Richard Brown said:

But nowhere (that I can find) does RONR say that non members who may have been invited to attend the meeting but chose not to attend are nonetheless entitled to find out what happened at the meeting.  

People who might have been invited do not have the "right" to attend. By right to attend, I mean members, and it's my position that attendees at an executive session can freely divulge to other members of the body that met what happened.

 

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Are you saying that nonetheless, since he had initially been invited to attend but chose not to, he is now entitled to know everything that took place and was said at the  meeting? 

No. We always differentiate those who are invited from those with a right to attend.

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

People who might have been invited do not have the "right" to attend. By right to attend, I mean members, and it's my position that attendees at an executive session can freely divulge to other members of the body that met what happened.

 It seems we are saying the same thing. Of course members who did not attend have the right to know. That's what I said.  I don't see what the problem is.

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

At least one manual in common use goes so far as to say it is "legally considered as confidential".

 

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Does it cite any legal authority for that proposition?

No, it does not.  The parliamentary authority I was referring to is the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 2012 edition. The complete sentence, from page 108 re executive sessions, is: "Any discussions held or actions taken are legally considered as confidential and all information must remain within the confines of the meeting unless the meeting directs otherwise".   The section on minutes of an executive session does contain an express statement that only members who attended the meeting or were authorized to attend are entitled to access to the executive session minutes.

[Joshua Katz]

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

As always, bylaw provisions, special rules of order and statutes supersede the rules in RONR.  Per the rules in RONR, as well as the general (or common) parliamentary law and other parliamentary authorities, what transpires in an executive session is confidential and cannot be shared with others who are not members of the group that was meeting or were not present at the meeting.

Perhaps I'm reading this "or" differently than it was meant to be. I read it as cannot be shared with others who are not members of the group, or who were not present - i.e. if you are either of those things (non-member or non-attendee) you don't get to know. I can see now that you meant it cannot be shared with non-members, unless they were present.

Edited August 18, 2019 at 07:44 AM by Joshua Katz

[Richard Brown]

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

I can see now that you meant it cannot be shared with non-members, unless they were present.

Yes, that is how I meant it.

[Gary Novosielski]

22 hours ago, Guest Joshua said:

Unless according to other laws, it isn’t (like by-laws, state laws or other local laws).

I'm not so sure that's the case.   

State regulations that apply to public bodies often specify that only certain matters may be discussed in executive session.  However, that does not necessarily mean that if other matters are improperly discussed, they automatically lose their confidential status.

The members who did not object to the discussion of the disallowed matters may be subject to discipline, but I would not say with any certainty that the matters discussed were automatically "declassified" without careful reading of the regulation and probably consultation with an attorney.