committee meetings/open or closed

[Guest celia]

I am the chair of a committee. Here is how our Bylaws states it's rules for those appointed to a committee:

The board may appoint from there number or from such other persons as they may see fit, one or more(as hoc) committees and at any time may appoint additional members.

It makes no mention of wether others uninvited can sit in.

This is all it says. Do we have to allow any one that has not been appointed to the committee to attend? Can we refuse to let them attend?

We are an ad hoc committee in that we will in time complete our task and then disban.

There has been some disagreement among our board members as to wether our meetings are open to the public. I think that is wrong. What do you think or know? Please help me out here.

I am asking specifically about the committee meetings refered to above.

[Robert B Fish]

"... board or committee meetings are customarily held in executive session. In the latter case, members of the organization who are not members of the board or committee, and sometimes nonmembers, may be invited to attend, perhaps to give a report, but they are not entitled to attend." [page 93, emphasis in original]

Even if you do not customarily meet in executive session, the motion to go into executive session requires only a majority vote.

-Bob

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I am the chair of a committee.

Here is how our Bylaws states it's rules for those appointed to a committee:

The board may appoint from there number or from such other persons as they may see fit, one or more(as hoc) committees and at any time may appoint additional members.

It makes no mention of whether others uninvited can sit in.

This is all it says.

Do we have to allow any one that has not been appointed to the committee to attend?

Can we refuse to let them attend?

We are an ad hoc committee in that we will in time complete our task and then disband.

There has been some disagreement among our board members as to wether our meetings are open to the public.

That typing is a bit garbled.

The board may appoint from there number or from such other persons as they may see fit, one or more (as hoc) committees and at any time may appoint additional members.

... should probably read ...

The board may appoint from

their

number or from such other persons as they may see fit, one or more (

ad

hoc) committees and at any time may appoint additional members.

Q1. Do we have to allow any one that has not been appointed to the committee to attend?

Q2. Can we refuse to let them attend?

A1. No. Committees are to meet in secret, i.e., MEMBERS ONLY (of the body which is meeting).

A2. Yes. Committees do have the power to expel non-committee-members from their meeting room. Committees have the right to see that their deliberations are secure from non-members' eyes/ears.

[Rev Ed]

Although, at least from my experience, a Committee is more likely than a Board to invite non-Committee members to attend to provide information, provide advise, etc. in order for the Committee to make a report.

[Tim Wynn]

... should probably read ...

The board may appoint from

their

number or from such other persons as they may see fit, one or more (

ad

hoc) committees and at any time may appoint additional members.

... or even better...

The board can appoint committees to work under its supervision or according to its specific instructions.

... and, if that's the intent, best yet, STRIKE the whole sentence. RONR already has this rule. See p. 468, l. 3-6.

[Gary Novosielski]

"... board or committee meetings are customarily held in executive session. In the latter case, members of the organization who are not members of the board or committee, and sometimes nonmembers, may be invited to attend, perhaps to give a report, but they are not entitled to attend." [page 93, emphasis in original]

Even if you do not customarily meet in executive session, the motion to go into executive session requires only a majority vote.

-Bob

Are we saying that if the meeting is not held in executive session that someone other than members would be entitled to attend? That's not my understanding.

[hmtcastle]

Are we saying that if the meeting is not held in executive session that someone other than members would be entitled to attend? That's not my understanding.

The notion that executive session is primarily about who can attend and not primarily about confidentiality is a widespread misconception.

[Josh Martin]

Are we saying that if the meeting is not held in executive session that someone other than members would be entitled to attend? That's not my understanding.

The citation will make more sense if the first sentence is read in its entirety, as the former case is referring to a "public session." See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 92, line 34 - pg. 93, line 3.

[Gary Novosielski]

The citation will make more sense if it is read in conjunction with the previous sentence, as the former case is referring to a "public session." See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 92, line 34 - pg. 93, line 3.

Right. Executive session deals with confidentiality. It has no bearing on who may or may not attend. Committee meetings are members only except by invitation.

[Josh Martin]

Right. Executive session deals with confidentiality. It has no bearing on who may or may not attend. Committee meetings are members only except by invitation.

While it is true that in any assembly, barring any rule or law to the contrary, only members have the right to attend, I believe it is misleading to suggest that executive session has "no bearing" on who may attend.

The general rule when an assembly is not in executive session is that non-members are permitted until they are removed, by motion or rule, or by order of the chair in case of disorder. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 625, lines 19-26; pg. 628, lines 23-35) In executive session, the general rule is that non-members are not permitted unless invited by motion or rule of the assembly. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 93, lines 10-12) Additionally, while it is certainly true that an assembly could order all non-members (except invitees and essential staff) to be removed without entering executive session, the two purposes are often combined. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 625, lines 26-28)

I believe Mr. Mountcastle's comment, suggesting that executive session is primarily about confidentiality and not primarily about who may attend, is the more accurate statement.

[hmtcastle]

I believe it is misleading to suggest that executive session has "no bearing" on who may attend.

I agree, and a recent discussion suggested what I think might be a useful rule of thumb: in a meeting not being held in executive session, non-members must be excluded or else they can stay. In a meeting held in executive session, non-members must be invited or else they have to leave.

[Josh Martin]

I agree, and a recent discussion suggested what I think might be a useful rule of thumb: in a meeting not being held in executive session, non-members must be excluded or else they can stay. In a meeting held in executive session, non-members must be invited or else they have to leave.

Yes, I think that is an accurate summary of the rules on the subject.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, I think that is an accurate summary of the rules on the subject.

So we're saying that in a private society, whose regular meetings are normally not held in executive session, RONR grants the general public off the street the right, absent a rule to the contrary, to enter the meeting, take seats, and presuming no breach of order, not leave unless and until a motion is adopted to exclude them?

Really?

[Josh Martin]

So we're saying that in a private society, whose regular meetings are normally not held in executive session, RONR grants the general public off the street the right, absent a rule to the contrary, to enter the meeting, take seats, and presuming no breach of order, not leave unless and until a motion is adopted to exclude them?

Really?

No, I am not saying that RONR grants any "rights" to non-members, nor do I think it is accurate to describe it as a "right" when it can be revoked by majority vote.

What I am saying is that nothing in RONR prohibits a non-member from entering the meeting hall if the assembly is not in executive session, provided there is no rule or motion to the contrary. The chair has the authority to remove a non-member in cases of disorder, but it otherwise requires a majority vote to remove non-members.

[hmtcastle]

So we're saying that in a private society, whose regular meetings are normally not held in executive session, RONR grants the general public off the street the right, absent a rule to the contrary, to enter the meeting, take seats, and presuming no breach of order, not leave unless and until a motion is adopted to exclude them?

I suspect in most real-world situations, the public on the street has no idea that a meeting is taking place on the second floor of the building they're walking past, nor, if they were aware of it, would they'd walk in. On the other hand, the meetings of many "private" societies are advertised in the newspapers and guests are, if only implicitly, welcome to attend. And nothing in RONR says they can't.

I'm thinking specifically of our local historical society and chamber of commerce, but I suspect it would be the same for the local model railroading club.

[Tim Wynn]

... I suspect it would be the same for the local model railroading club.

Mark me down as a perpetually absent nonmember on that one.

[Guest celia]

Right. Executive session deals with confidentiality. It has no bearing on who may or may not attend. Committee meetings are members only except by invitation.

Can you please give me a reference in Robert's Rules to support that committee meetings are members only except by invitation?

[Josh Martin]

Can you please give me a reference in Robert's Rules to support that committee meetings are members only except by invitation?

Well, if you followed the subsequent discussion, you'd see that it's a little more complex than that.

If the committee is meeting in executive session, then the meeting is essentially "members only except by invitation." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 93, lines 8-12) If the committee is not meeting in executive session, the committee still has the power to remove non-members for any reason, and the chair may remove non-members on his own if they are disorderly. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 625, lines 19-26)

While the mechanics differ a bit, the bottom line is that the committee decides whether to meet in executive session and which non-members (if any) shall be allowed in its meetings, assuming there is no rule or order from the parent assembly to the contrary.

[David A Foulkes]

And if it's applicable, (p. 483 l. 35-36) - "During actual deliberations of the committee, only committee members have the right to be present." This comes at the end of a section discussing "when a committee is to make substantive recommendations or decisions on an important matter."

[Josh Martin]

And if it's applicable, (p. 483 l. 35-36) - "During actual deliberations of the committee, only committee members have the right to be present."

It is applicable. Good work. That helps back up my last sentence.

[Joseph0641]

The answer to the question is variable depending on the State laws governing meetings and the willingness of the board and its ad hoc committees to be transparent. Usually government type meetings, councils and their ad hoc committee meetings, are conducted under very specific rules not to be construed as guidelines. Violation of these rule are usually subject to fines and/or imprisonment. These types of meetings may not be excluded from the public view or public participation. The exception is when such a government group votes to go into an Executive Session for legal advice and/or discussion of acquistions and personel issues. Usually the rules for Executive Sessions and very specific and strictly defined. In my experience the only government groups not subject to the rules are state governments and Congress.

Non-government groups are guided by their bylaws. What seems to be a guideline for these meetings is guided to the extent these groups are funded by government rules dictated by the guidance attached to the flow of this funding.It is adviseable to review these rules. Violation is usually subject to a repayment of part/all of the received funding.

Should none of the above apply, then meetings are open to the extent the group desires transparency. Whether or not outside participants are allowed to attend, a good guideline is to never conduct any meeting in a manner that if it appeared on the six o'clock news or the front page of your local newspaper you or your group would not be embarassed.

[hmtcastle]

a good guideline is to never conduct any meeting in a manner that if it appeared on the six o'clock news or the front page of your local newspaper you or your group would not be embarassed.

I think there might be one too many negatives in that sentence.

[Gary Novosielski]

a good guideline is to never conduct any meeting in a manner that if it appeared on the six o'clock news or the front page of your local newspaper you or your group would not be embarassed.

Yeah, I think you meant "always" instead of never.

[Josh Martin]

The answer to the question is variable depending on the State laws governing meetings

If you would have stopped there, this would have been a very good response.

It is very true that some organizations (typically public bodies) are often subject to "Open Meeting Laws" or "Sunshine Laws," but the specifics of such laws are beyond the scope of this forum. If this is a concern, the original poster should consult a lawyer.

I was also okay with "Non-government groups are guided by their Bylaws," so long as you strike "non-government" and insert "all," and strike "guided" and insert "governed."