JANUARY 2003

by George Eynon, Chairman-Elect

Use and Abuse of "Executive Session"

During its deliberations over nominations for both office and honors & awards the AC routinely invokes the use of executive session -- a mechanism permitted under Roberts' Rules of Order whereby discussions are not minuted, and disclosure outside its privileges is prohibited. In effect, it makes those deliberations secret. Should these issues be dealt with in this fashion? This is an important issue for us as Delegates to ponder and comment upon, because it affects the way our Association conducts its business -- and the way each of you might be treated if persuaded to stand for office or if you are nominated for honors & awards.

What's all the fuss about?

As the AAPG governing body responsible for Bylaws revisions, the subject is of direct concern to Delegates. First, individuals being considered as candidates for office or honors & awards have been the targets of what I can only describe as character assassination -- conducted under the protection of executive session. Second, over many years, breaches of executive session have occurred, with discussions assumed to be confidential being disclosed to other members.

When is executive session appropriate?

The primary use, in my own experience on various committees outside AAPG, is to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive issues such as personnel performance -- and then only for the short duration of a single agenda item. But is it appropriate where executive session is invoked ostensibly to permit free and frank discussions of the merits or otherwise of members being considered as candidates for election to office or for honors & awards? The real issue is whether anyone should be allowed to say things about individuals, under the protection of executive session, which they might not say publicly or to the individual's face.

Leadership accountability.

During my recent three-year tenure on the AC, a few of us voted against executive session each time to promote a degree of openness and transparency for our deliberations, but to no avail. Afterwards, I was frequently asked why a particular slate of candidates was chosen, but had to sidestep the question. How accountable is that of the Association's leadership to its members? The AC is selecting candidates for office who are going to steward the Association on our behalf -- and members ought to be able to get answers to their questions.

Inappropriate comments.

It is quite appropriate, for example, to question whether a nominee for the position of Treasurer has the relevant experience in budgeting, accounting, financial statements, balance sheets, etc., required for the role. It is not appropriate, however, to describe an individual as a "rabble-rouser" or to otherwise malign a person's character. Such "character assassination" occurred several times while I was serving on the AC -- but in executive session, which prohibits me from disclosing any details. I was not the only one to object to individuals being "slagged" in this way but, of course, it is not possible to withdraw a derogatory remark once it has been made. And by then it has already had the intended effect. That's not acceptable!

Do we need a Bylaws change?

We could limit the use of executive session or restrict the time period for which discussions are held confidential. I do not think we should eliminate it entirely. However, we could release the confidentiality of executive session after the announcement of candidates or awardees by the EC -- that is, after 2-3 months. Then the deliberations would no longer be secret and members could ask how the decisions were made.

Bylaws are written primarily to provide guidance to the Association, but are frequently written to prevent abuse. Changing the Bylaws ought not to be necessary, of course. After all, we are all bound by common courtesy, and the rules of professional and ethical conduct -- but Bylaws changes might have to be made to prevent abuse. Or will simply discussing the issue out in the open be sufficient to let our leadership know we expect appropriate professional and ethical behavior even behind closed doors? I am not convinced this will work.

Tell us what you think!

This is an issue that could affect any of us as individual members. Each of you as a Delegate has volunteered to represent your fellow members in the House. Please, take the time to discuss this issue with them and your other Delegates. And let us know what you think. You can contact the House leadership directly with your questions and opinions.

Contacts | Who is my delegate? | Delegate's Forum

In this issue...

Committee Reports

> 15 YEARS AGO: SEPM Separates from AAPG

> Officers and Committees

Download this issue
12 pages, 299 kb