Executive Session-Disclosure of cause

[Tomm]

If a member is disciplined during executive session I understand that the cause, possible crime or accusations are to be kept in secret. That secrecy, as I understand it, protects the accused from ridicule, embarrassment and any other possible repercussions, but if the accused person is willing to allow the charges to be known, can those reasons be made public?  

[Joshua Katz]

Secret information from an executive session belongs to the body, not to the individual. The individual is free to make this willingness known to the body, and the body can decide to release it.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/8/2021 at 2:58 PM, Tomm said:

If a member is disciplined during executive session I understand that the cause, possible crime or accusations are to be kept in secret.

I would go further than that and note that everything that happens in executive session is secret.

In the particular case of discipline, RONR goes even further in this requirement. In the ordinary case, the assembly may (in its discretion) choose to disclose some or all of what occurred in executive session.

For disciplinary matters, however, the assembly may only disclose the fact that the person was removed from office or expelled from membership (but nothing else), and even that fact may be disclosed only to the extent necessary required to protect the society or other organizations. These additional limitations apply only to what information is disclosed outside of the society. To the extent that discipline is entrusted to a smaller group (such as the board), the rules for disclosing the information inside the society (such as to the general membership) are the same as for executive session generally.

Disclosing additional information regarding disciplinary matters outside of the society, in my view, is permitted only upon mutual agreement of the society and the accused.

See RONR (12th ed.) 9:26-27, 63:35.

On 9/8/2021 at 2:58 PM, Tomm said:

That secrecy, as I understand it, protects the accused from ridicule, embarrassment and any other possible repercussions, but if the accused person is willing to allow the charges to be known, can those reasons be made public?  

While I think it is correct that the additional protections of secrecy imposed upon disciplinary matters are intended for the protection of the accused, the protections of secrecy imposed upon executive session generally are intended for the protection of the assembly (and the society). As a result, the protections of secrecy for a trial protect the society and the accused, and may be lifted only upon the mutual agreement of both parties.

Therefore, as a parliamentary matter, the accused may not unilaterally disclose this information. If the individual in question remains a member and/or officer of the society, doing so would be grounds for further disciplinary action. In the event the individual in question is no longer a member or officer of the society, the society will have no parliamentary recourse against the individual, and in such a case the individual is more in need of the advice of an attorney rather than a parliamentarian.

Edited September 8, 2021 at 10:29 PM by Josh Martin