Closed Session

[Guest Renee]

Are non-voting members allowed to stay during closed session deliberations?

[Rob Elsman]

Are non-voting members allowed to stay during closed session deliberations?

An honorary member having the right to attend meetings and speak in debate would enjoy the same rights in executive session. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 447.

[Tim Wynn]

Are non-voting members allowed to stay during closed session deliberations?

Members have a right to attend, but when RONR speaks of members, it means those with full rights. If your organization has a class of membership with limited rights, it's up to your organization to decide which rights are associated with it.

[Gary Novosielski]

Are non-voting members allowed to stay during closed session deliberations?

No more nor less than during open session. Executive session deals with confidentiality, not with who attends.

[David A Foulkes]

Are non-voting members allowed to stay during closed session deliberations?

There's a citation out there somewhere that would likely refer to such non-members as "invited guests." The implication I've always taken from it as they would need to be asked to stay in advance of the executive session, as opposed to be asking to leave after it began. But I read a lot into the chosen word, so caveat reader.

[Tim Wynn]

No more nor less than during open session. Executive session deals with confidentiality, not with who attends.

Check again.

[hmtcastle]

so caveat reader.

Though "caveat lector" would, I think, be a nicer touch.

[David A Foulkes]

Though "caveat lector" would, I think, be a nicer touch.

Thanks. I dropped Latin in favor of remedial dodge ball.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Are non-voting members allowed to stay during closed session deliberations?

The Book will be of no help here, since there are no sub-classes of members defined in Robert's Rules of Order. — A member, per the book, of one class, a fully-empowered member.

There are no "non-voting members" mentioned in the 700+ pages of RONR, since that would be a contradiction in terms as the word is used throughout RONR.

As soon as you cripple one class of membership, then you run the risk of having to draw your own distinctions as to what OTHER ancillary rights are crippled, simultaneously/necessarily tied to the crippled right.

For example, a class of members who cannot vote ____:

(a.) will not count toward the quorum (if one's bylaws fail to define "quorum")

(b.) cannot move the motion To Reconsider, since abstainers cannot move To Resconsider, but only those who VOTED on the prevailing side. (See RONR for an exception regarding committees.)

Thus, the above #a and #b are examples of two rights or privileges which are simultaneously lost or crippled when the power to vote is forbidden to a class of membership.

Thus, the Finger Of Responsibility stretches and curves back to YOU. — When you (collectively) took away the right to attend vote of this class of members, did you simultaneously take away the right to attend executive session?

[hmtcastle]

No more nor less than during open session. Executive session deals with confidentiality, not with who attends.

Check again.

Non-members may be excluded from so-called "open" meetings and non-members may be invited to attend an executive session. The latter is all about confidentiality, not who can attend. The fact that most assemblies use "executive session" as a means of excluding non-members is ancillary to its meaning.

[Tim Wynn]

There's a citation out there somewhere that would likely refer to such non-members as "invited guests." The implication I've always taken from it as they would need to be asked to stay in advance of the executive session, as opposed to be asking to leave after it began. But I read a lot into the chosen word, so caveat reader.

We don't know their status. They may have the right to attend. They were called members, "non-voting" aside.

[Josh Martin]

There's a citation out there somewhere that would likely refer to such non-members as "invited guests." The implication I've always taken from it as they would need to be asked to stay in advance of the executive session, as opposed to be asking to leave after it began. But I read a lot into the chosen word, so caveat reader.

Yes, but these are non-voting members, not non-members.

As others have noted, this is a question of Bylaws interpretation the organization will have to decide for itself. There are some Principles of Interpretation in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573. I would pay particular attention to POI #6 and #8 for interpreting this question.

[David A Foulkes]

We don't know their status. They may have the right to attend. They were called members, "non-voting" aside.

Gulp - gotta get to my optometrist.

[Tim Wynn]

Non-members may be excluded from so-called "open" meetings and non-members may be invited to attend an executive session. The latter is all about confidentiality, not who can attend. The fact that most assemblies use "executive session" as a means of excluding non-members is ancillary to its meaning.

P. 93, l. 10-12 speaks of those who are allowed to remain and those who are excluded. That's attendance, even though its purpose is secrecy.

[hmtcastle]

P. 93, l. 10-12 speaks of those who are allowed to remain and those who are excluded. That's attendance, even though its purpose is secrecy.

Those lines state that non-members ("special invitees") may be permitted to remain in the room. That's essentially no different than the rule for a meeting that's not held in executive session.

[Tim Wynn]

Those lines state that non-members ("special invitees") may be permitted to remain in the room. That's essentially no different than the rule for a meeting that's not held in executive session.

Are you suggesting that, with these lines, RONR is attempting to clearly state that, in regards to remaining in the hall, there is no difference in a meeting (or part thereof) held in executive session and one not?

Also, "special invitee" strikes me as notably different than anyone who wanders into the hall.

I imagine the nonessential staff member who gets kicked out would see a difference.

[hmtcastle]

Are you suggesting that, with these lines, RONR is attempting to clearly state that, in regards to remaining in the hall, there is no difference in a meeting (or part thereof) held in executive session and one not?

I'm suggesting that there's no practical difference.

Clearly, many people think that a meeting held in executive session automatically excludes all non-members, thus RONR indicates that it does not (though I suppose you could say that they're excluded by default). This is not to suggest that an announcement that the meeting is going into executive session is not an effective tool by which to clear the room of non-members. And, in fact, the assembly may not be aware of its right to permit non-members (or, if you prefer, special invitees) to remain.

Conversely, many people think members of an organization (who are not members of the board) have a right to attend board meetings, thus RONR makes it clear that they do not (and I suppose you could say they're excluded by default also). But, once again, whether the meeting is held in executive session or not, they may remain if permitted (invited?) to do so.

Or, to put it another way, in a meeting (or portion thereof) not held in executive session, non-members remain by default (no one told them to leave), while in a meeting held in executive session, non-members are excluded by default (no one told them they could stay).

I think the practical result is the same (and I suspect we're mostly on the same page here).

I might also note that the term "executive session" is not especially helpful (and, in fact, RONR notes its somewhat archaic origin).

[Tim Wynn]

(and I suspect we're mostly on the same page here).

Yep.