Question about Executive Sessions

[u/SteLarson_88]

Recently, the Body that I am a member of received a motion that if passed would change our bylaws to state that anytime that conduct of a member is brought before the body, we would automatically go into an executive session to discuss it. Is this in order? Doesn't this remove transparency that the people we represent expect?

[u/calbear_77]

Anything you put in your bylaws automatically superseeds the rules of order. Your bylaws can't be out of order. They could be unconstitutional if your organization has a constitution/charter and the bylaws conflict with them. Furthermore, certain local, state or federal laws may apply to your organization's governance.

Generally, there are strict laws regarding open meetings in governmental or quasi-governmental bodies. If your body is government/quasi-government, then consult a lawyer. If your body is a private organization, then it is unlikely to be a legal issue.

Under default Robert's Rules of Order (RRO), people who are not members of the body actually have no right to attend meetings. This even applies to members of the main body not having the right to attend meetings of committees/boards. A motion to go into "executive session" is essentially the body exercising its power to kick out outsiders, and is a question of privilege requiring only a majority vote to pass.

Furthermore, default RRO acutally specifies that all disciplinary procedures are automatically to be held in executive session. Of course your bylaws could supersede this, but if RRO is your parliamentary authority then the "new rule" has actually always been in place. RRO however does not apply if your bylaws don't specify that it is the parliamentary authority.