Executive Sessions

[Guest Kyra]

1. Do you have to be in a regular or special meeting to move for an executive session or can an executive session just begin by motion within the session itself?

2. What if all memebers go into executive session and take action, but fail to formally motion and move to go into the executive session at beginning of meet. What is the result?

[Robert B Fish]

1. Do you have to be in a regular or special meeting to move for an executive session or can an executive session just begin by motion within the session itself?

2. What if all memebers go into executive session and take action, but fail to formally motion and move to go into the executive session at beginning of meet. What is the result?

1. You must be in a meeting context in order to go into executive session as that requires approval of a motion (or unanimous consent). However, that could be very brief. "The meeting will come to order. If there is no objection, we will conduct the remainder of this meeting in executive session. [pause] There si no objection and we are now in executive session."

2. I'll opine that the board could pass a motion that the entire content of the meeting now in progress is covered by the same rules of secrecy as an executive session and that the executive session begins at this point. Any members who violate the rules of secrecy could be disciplined.

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

2. I'll opine that the board could pass a motion that the entire content of the meeting now in progress is covered by the same rules of secrecy as an executive session and that the executive session begins at this point.

That sounds a tad retroactive, no?

[Robert B Fish]

That sounds a tad retroactive, no?

I don't see the problem, because we're talking about prohibiting actions that have not yet happened, i.e. revealing what happened at the meeting, as opposed to retroactively making improper soemthing that was not improper when the action happened.

-Bob

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1. Do you have to be in a regular or special meeting to move for an executive session or can an executive session just begin by motion within the session itself?

Impossible.

If you already are in executive session (as you say, "within the session itself"), then it is out of order to make a motion which is already the status quo. - You never are to vote on a motion to change nothing.

2. What if all members go into executive session and take action, but fail to formally motion and move to go into the executive session at beginning of meet.

What is the result?

Impossible.

If you already are in executive session (as you say, "all members go into executive session"), then it is out of order to make a motion which is already the status quo. - You never are to vote on a motion to change nothing.

***

Perhaps you are thinking, for example, "The Secretary mailed out an announcement that the meeting of [date and time] shall be held in executive session."

That is not allowed.

You cannot pre-fix a given meeting to instantly and automatically begin in executive session via a written call-to-meeting or via a written notice.

EXCEPTION: Some organization meet 100% of the time in executive session.

But - That is because they already have in place a rule or policy so, officially adopted, well beforehand.

[Tim Wynn]

1. Do you have to be in a regular or special meeting to move for an executive session or can an executive session just begin by motion within the session itself?

2. What if all memebers go into executive session and take action, but fail to formally motion and move to go into the executive session at beginning of meet. What is the result?

Executive session is not a separate session, it is a term that describes a meeting, or any portion of a meeting, where the proceedings are secret. There's no restriction that executive session must be adopted at the beginning of the meeting. A motion to go into executive session is in order at most points throughout the meeting.

[George Mervosh]

EXCEPTION: Some organization meet 100% of the time in executive session.

But - That is because they already have in place a rule or policy so, officially adopted, well beforehand.

Or because they customarily do so without a rule or policy, as stated on p. 92.

[hmtcastle]

I don't see the problem, because we're talking about prohibiting actions that have not yet happened, i.e. revealing what happened at the meeting, as opposed to retroactively making improper something that was not improper when the action happened.

I tried to think of an example where it would be a problem but, so far, no luck.

[Tim Wynn]

I tried to think of an example where it would be a problem but, so far, no luck.

I can think of an example. You tell me if it qualifies as a problem. Imagine you've already disclosed something that has happened in the meeting. Say you send a text message that a certain motion was adopted. Now, you're suddenly honor-bound under threat of punishment not to divulge what you've already let out of the bag. That seems problematic.

Also, what if members have left. This creates a situation where someone who didn't attend the executive-session portion of the meeting is now expected to preserve the secrecy of proceedings that weren't secret. These members wouldn't even know the proceedings were later made secret. This idea seems to violate a few logical barriers -- barriers that the concept of executive session manages to comfortably inhabit.

[hmtcastle]

I can think of an example.

Yes, I think that's just the sort of scenario I was struggling to articulate when, unexpectedly, the connection between brain and keyboard was severed.

[Josh Martin]

That sounds a tad retroactive, no?

So? Nothing in RONR prohibits making a motion with retroactive effect (although there are certainly concerns of ethics and fair play). Also, based on the scenario provided, it seems to me they're really just formalizing an informal agreement so they have all their bases covered.

Or because they customarily do so without a rule or policy, as stated on p. 92.

Personally, I'd prefer something a little stronger than "custom" when dealing with something as serious as executive session.

[George Mervosh]

Personally, I'd prefer something a little stronger than "custom" when dealing with something as serious as executive session.

I've never seen RONR describe long established custom as weak in any way, but ok.