Members Sharing Confidential Meeting Information with Non-Members

[Guest Justice4All]

Where specifically does RONR cover members sharing information with non-members of an organization? Whereas I feel it is common sense, apparently it is not. During a meeting to approve new members, a member sent a text during the meeting to inform a candidate he was not accepted. The sender of the text informed the body of the meeting of sending the text. 

[J. J.]

Unless the meeting is in executive session, the texting violated no rule (9:26). 

[Guest Guest]

So what is the point of a "members only" meeting, if someone can sit and share with anyone outside the meeting?

[Josh Martin]

On 1/14/2023 at 3:53 PM, Guest Guest said:

So what is the point of a "members only" meeting, if someone can sit and share with anyone outside the meeting?

If the organization wishes to hold a meeting in executive session, or even to hold all of its meetings in executive session, it is free to do so. As previously noted, the rules concerning executive session are discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 9:26. If a meeting is held in executive session, members are prohibited from sharing any information with nonmembers, except to the extent agreed to by the assembly.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/14/2023 at 4:53 PM, Guest Guest said:

So what is the point of a "members only" meeting, if someone can sit and share with anyone outside the meeting?

I'm not sure there was a point.  But a meeting that simply excludes non-members is not automatically in executive session.  Members-only is pretty much the default for meetings in RONR, but that doesn't necessarily imply that what's discussed there is confidential.  

If you want to hold a portion, or all, of a meeting in executive session, refer to RONR (12th ed.) 9:24-27.

Edited January 15, 2023 at 12:31 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

There is no automatic gag order in RONR. 

[Richard Brown]

On 1/14/2023 at 8:47 AM, Guest Justice4All said:

Where specifically does RONR cover members sharing information with non-members of an organization?

Agreeing with my colleagues, unless the meeting is in executive session or some other form of secrecy has specifically been imposed, members are free to tell anyone and everyone what transpired at a meeting.

However, if the membership feels that it was inappropriate for a member to do so, that member could be censured or possibly subject to disciplinary action on the basis that his conduct was unbecoming that of a member or harmful to the organization or for some other reason.  But disclosing what transpired at a meeting which was not in executive session violates no rule in RONR.

[Phil D]

On 1/14/2023 at 4:53 PM, Guest Guest said:

So what is the point of a "members only" meeting, if someone can sit and share with anyone outside the meeting?

To allow members deliberate and vote without interference from non-members. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Best concise answer yet.

[Justice4All]

On 1/14/2023 at 9:46 PM, Phil D said:

To allow members deliberate and vote without interference from non-members. 

Couldn't it then be argued that actively texting with a non-member about the deliberations of the vote is interference?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

No.  There is no possible world where sending a text letting someone know the results of an election for which they were a candidate and would eventually find out and actively letting the rest of the body know that such a text was sent is interference.   It might be a violation of a standing rule not to have one's phone out during a meeting or not to text during a meeting.  I have no idea if such a standing rule exists in the body you are speaking of, but it would not be terribly unusual if there was one.

I honestly fail to see what has upset you so much about this.  It seems some details are missing.

Edited January 15, 2023 at 05:41 AM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/15/2023 at 12:36 AM, Justice4All said:

Couldn't it then be argued that actively texting with a non-member about the deliberations of the vote is interference?

No, it could not--not seriously.

The non-member isn't even present.  Any disturbance is due to the member who is present.  In any case, to determine what the point of any meeting is, you'd need to ask whoever called the meeting.

[Justice4All]

On 1/14/2023 at 11:39 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

No.  There is no possible world where sending a text letting someone know the results of an election for which they were a candidate and would eventually find out and actively letting the rest of the body know that such a text was sent is interference.   It might be a violation of a standing rule not to have one's phone out during a meeting or not to text during a meeting.  I have no idea if such a standing rule exists in the body you are speaking of, but it would not be terribly unusual if there was one.

I honestly fail to see what has upset you so much about this.  It seems some details are missing.

Not "upset" but rather curious about Bylaws or interpretation therein. "I will never make known to anyone - not authorized to receive it - any of the work of this order." 

[Phil D]

I think it's news to everyone here that your bylaws prohibit sharing "any of the work of this order" to a person not authorized to receive it. 

[Richard Brown]

On 1/15/2023 at 7:31 AM, Justice4All said:

I will never make known to anyone - not authorized to receive it - any of the work of this order." 

Is that an actual quote from your bylaws? Even if it is, it doesn’t say what information non-members who are not present are authorized to receive. It is a pretty basic premise that people are  entitled to tell other people anything they want to unless it violates some rule. You have not quoted a rule that says it is not permissible to share the results of an election with a nonmember or to share anything else with a nonmember 

if you want a rule that says no member shall ever tell any non-member what transpired in a meeting, you should adopt such a provision in your bylaws that says so clearly and unambiguously.

Edited to add: you asked specifically what rule in RONR prohibits a member from sharing information with a non-member. The answer is that there is no such rule in RONR.

Edited January 15, 2023 at 01:50 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 8:31 AM, Justice4All said:

Not "upset" but rather curious about Bylaws or interpretation therein. "I will never make known to anyone - not authorized to receive it - any of the work of this order." 

I will note that some societies operate in executive session for all meetings; this is known as a "lodge system. (9:24)."  An executive session is a meeting or part of a meeting where only members, necessary staff, and invited guests may attend and the proceedings may not be discussed with non members unless released.

If you meet within a lodge system, however, that would have to be specified in your rules or bylaws.  Further, they assembly may authorize the member to send the text. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/15/2023 at 8:31 AM, Justice4All said:

Not "upset" but rather curious about Bylaws or interpretation therein. "I will never make known to anyone - not authorized to receive it - any of the work of this order." 

Where did that come from all of a sudden?

 

[Phil D]

Your bylaws contain the rule, hopefully they also contain the disciplinary process. We are not really going to be the authority on how your organization’s bylaws get interpreted. 

It would seem to me that a candidate for membership to the Freemasons or whatever secret society you are part of is inherently authorized to receive information about the status of his candidature. 

Query whether you are in violation of the same rule by describing something that happened during a members only meeting of your secret society. Are we authorized to receive this information?

 

[Richard Brown]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:56 AM, Phil D said:

Your bylaws contain the rule

Actually, we don't know this for a fact.   The OP threw out that line after a dozen or so posts, and despite several comments asking if that provision is actually in the bylaws, he has never acknowledged that it is.

I do agree, however, that the prospective new member is entitled to know and will in fact will almost certainly be told at some point whether his application for membership was approved.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/14/2023 at 11:36 PM, Justice4All said:

Couldn't it then be argued that actively texting with a non-member about the deliberations of the vote is interference?

No, I don't think so.

On 1/15/2023 at 7:31 AM, Justice4All said:

Not "upset" but rather curious about Bylaws or interpretation therein. "I will never make known to anyone - not authorized to receive it - any of the work of this order." 

If the organization has its own rules concerning this matter, those rules will take precedence over RONR. The organization is also free to adopt its own rules on this matter if it wishes.

It is somewhat unusual to word rules in the first person. I think it is also unclear whether the rule described here would apply to the particular circumstances described in the original post, since generally I would assume that a person is authorized to know the fact that he has not been admitted as a member. Conceivably, however, an organization could adopt rules prescribing that such information is shared only in a specified manner.

On 1/15/2023 at 11:24 AM, Richard Brown said:

I do agree, however, that the prospective new member is entitled to know and will in fact will almost certainly be told at some point whether his application for membership was approved.

Well, I rather doubt the intent is to keep the denial of the application secret from the prospective member indefinitely. It does not seem unreasonable for an organization to wish for such information to be communicated in a specified manner, but it would be preferable to adopt clear rules on this matter if that is what is desired, so that all members are clear on this point.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:34 AM, Phil D said:

I think it's news to everyone here that your bylaws prohibit sharing "any of the work of this order" to a person not authorized to receive it. 

Yeah that was not included in the OP that this was some kind of secret society.  And it seems that this thread itself is in violation of the secrecy of the order if one is going to take this to extremes.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:24 AM, Richard Brown said:

Actually, we don't know this for a fact.   The OP threw out that line after a dozen or so posts, and despite several comments asking if that provision is actually in the bylaws, he has never acknowledged that it is.

I do agree, however, that the prospective new member is entitled to know and will in fact will almost certainly be told at some point whether his application for membership was approved.

Correct, he originally seemed to think it was in RONR and then said it was just common sense, a sentiment I certainly disagree with.  

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/15/2023 at 12:59 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Correct, he originally seemed to think it was in RONR and then said it was just common sense, a sentiment I certainly disagree with.  

Yes, that an odd sequence of propositions:

It's in RONR?  No.

It's common sense?  No.

It's in the bylaws.  Oh, really?