Calling a Special Meeting in Executive Session

[Ray B]

Is there any prohibition express or implied barring the calling of a special meeting in executive session when a majority agrees at the time the meeting is called?  It has been asserted that executive session can only be declared after an approved motion, and is prohibited at the time of calling the meeting.

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/4/2023 at 9:47 PM, Ray B said:

Is there any prohibition express or implied barring the calling of a special meeting in executive session when a majority agrees at the time the meeting is called?  It has been asserted that executive session can only be declared after an approved motion, and is prohibited at the time of calling the meeting.

 "A meeting enters into executive session only when required by rule or established custom, or upon the adoption of a motion to do so. A motion to go into (or out of) executive session is a question of privilege (19), and is adopted by a majority vote."  RONR, 12th ed., 9:24

[Ray B]

Thanks for the response. 

Referring to RONR, 12th ed., 2:14, 2:25 it seems that the best way to address the situation might be be to adopt a special rule of order that a special meeting may be called in executive session, since a customary practice has not been established one way or the other in this case?

[J. J.]

On 6/8/2023 at 12:20 AM, Ray B said:

Thanks for the response. 

Referring to RONR, 12th ed., 2:14, 2:25 it seems that the best way to address the situation might be be to adopt a special rule of order that a special meeting may be called in executive session, since a customary practice has not been established one way or the other in this case?

Or, you could call the meeting to order and immediately move to go into executive session. 

[Josh Martin]

On 6/8/2023 at 12:20 AM, Ray B said:

Referring to RONR, 12th ed., 2:14, 2:25 it seems that the best way to address the situation might be be to adopt a special rule of order that a special meeting may be called in executive session, since a customary practice has not been established one way or the other in this case?

I don't quite know why it's so onerous to simply adopt a motion to enter executive session, but if the organization wishes to adopt a special rule of order providing that the call of a special meeting may include a provision that the meeting shall be in executive session, the organization is free to do so.

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/8/2023 at 4:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

I don't quite know why it's so onerous to simply adopt a motion to enter executive session, but if the organization wishes to adopt a special rule of order providing that the call of a special meeting may include a provision that the meeting shall be in executive session, the organization is free to do so.

Such a rule would seem to vest some extraordinary power in whoever it is who can call a special meeting.  I think it would be nice if such a rule provided that it could be suspended by a majority vote.

[Atul Kapur]

Of course, such suspension would have to be moved and voted on in the executive session meeting that was called, would it not?

Which would make it, effectively, the same as 9:24's motion to go out of executive session, correct?

Or did I miss the joke?

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/8/2023 at 7:56 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Of course, such suspension would have to be moved and voted on in the executive session meeting that was called, would it not?

Which would make it, effectively, the same as 9:24's motion to go out of executive session, correct?

Or did I miss the joke?

I think you're right on both counts, and if you have missed a joke, so have I.

[Atul Kapur]

Even if the rule didn't provide for its own suspension by a majority vote, it seemed to me that the exact same result could be reached by, in the special meeting, making a motion to go out of executive session as a question of privilege; such a motion would still only require a majority vote. (This motion would be debatable, as opposed to suspend the rules, so there is one difference, but the outcome is the same.)

Or are you reading @Josh Martin's special rule to say something else?

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/8/2023 at 9:41 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Even if the rule didn't provide for its own suspension by a majority vote, it seemed to me that the exact same result could be reached by, in the special meeting, making a motion to go out of executive session as a question of privilege; such a motion would still only require a majority vote. (This motion would be debatable, as opposed to suspend the rules, so there is one difference, but the outcome is the same.)

Or are you reading @Josh Martin's special rule to say something else?

The rule being suggested isn't just a rule saying that special meetings called for certain purposes (or some such thing), shall be held in executive session. It is, as Mr. Martin says, a rule vesting in the person or persons (often just the president) calling a special meeting the power to decree that it will be held in executive session. I think that it would take something more than just a majority vote to overcome such a power.

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't think any of the answers so far have addressed a potential problem that will exist, even if some method is found to ensure that the meeting is in executive session from the moment it is called to order.

The call must specifically describe the business to be conducted in the special meeting, which may conflict with the need for secrecy. I know of no method to issue a call for a meeting so that the call itself is secret.

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/8/2023 at 10:20 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't think any of the answers so far have addressed a potential problem that will exist, even if some method is found to ensure that the meeting is in executive session from the moment it is called to order.

The call must specifically describe the business to be conducted in the special meeting, which may conflict with the need for secrecy. I know of no method to issue a call for a meeting so that the call itself is secret.

No matter what information the call provides, the meeting can still be held in executive session.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/8/2023 at 10:20 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

The call must specifically describe the business to be conducted in the special meeting, which may conflict with the need for secrecy. I know of no method to issue a call for a meeting so that the call itself is secret.

Matters discussed during an executive session are not secret from the members of the body that is meeting. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/4/2023 at 9:47 PM, Ray B said:

Is there any prohibition express or implied barring the calling of a special meeting in executive session when a majority agrees at the time the meeting is called?  It has been asserted that executive session can only be declared after an approved motion, and is prohibited at the time of calling the meeting.

It's not clear to me how the special meeting is being called. Is the assembly itself at one meeting deciding to call a special meeting? Or are you trying to get a majority to agree outside of a meeting (e.g. by email) that a special meeting called by some other persons (e.g. the president or a number of members requesting it) will be held in executive session? 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/8/2023 at 10:46 AM, Dan Honemann said:

No matter what information the call provides, the meeting can still be held in executive session.

Oh, no argument there. 

What I mean is that there may occur situations where it would be desirable to keep secret even the description of the business that was to be considered during the meeting.  And since a call is not something issued in a meeting, much less in executive session, the description in the call is information that can't be shielded under the protections of executive session.  Or so it seems to me.