[neil theisen]

I attended a recent board meeting where the board and I were informed at meeting time that the entire meeting was going to be held in camera. Others, such as the secretary and treasurer were informed earlier that the entire meeting was going to be held in camera and that they were not to attend. Issue has been taken at the way things were handled. Can someone clear up if things were handled correctly? T

[JudyKayTee]

I attended a recent board meeting where the board and I were informed at meeting time that the entire meeting was going to be held in camera. Others, such as the secretary and treasurer were informed earlier that the entire meeting was going to be held in camera and that they were not to attend. Issue has been taken at the way things were handled. Can someone clear up if things were handled correctly? T

I don't understand your question - what don't you think was handled correctly?

The in camera part? The telling people not to attend? The advance notice?

[twinkiedooter]

The term "in camera" is a legal term that means the topic is to be discussed in the Judge's chambers. Maybe you meant "on camera" in that the proceedings are to be video taped for replay later on.

[excon]

Hello neil:

If the rules of the entity allow for the board to meet "in camera", then they did nothing wrong. Look at the rules. They're NOT all the same.

excon

[neil theisen]

I don't understand your question - what don't you think was handled correctly?

The in camera part? The telling people not to attend? The advance notice?

I don't have a problem with the way things were handled. The treasurer, at our board meeting last night, said that she has "dug into" in camera meetings and how they are to be handled. She said that in our minutes there is to be a starting time and an ending time written down. An in camera session is to be part of a regular board meeting, but in this case the entire meeting was held in camera. The treasurer was not part of the in camera meeting and that is where the problem lies.

[JudyKayTee]

I don't have a problem with the way things were handled. The treasurer, at our board meeting last night, said that she has "dug into" in camera meetings and how they are to be handled. She said that in our minutes there is to be a starting time and an ending time written down. An in camera session is to be part of a regular board meeting, but in this case the entire meeting was held in camera. The treasurer was not part of the in camera meeting and that is where the problem lies.

OK, I must be having a bad day - what is your question? Can the treasurer do something about being told not to attend the meeting? Can the board be sued (or something)?

If the question is a moral one, then I have no idea; if it's a legal issue - what is the legal issue - ?

[sideoutshu]

In camera in a legal context refers to any discussions, rulings, inspections, etc. that are done off the record, and not subject to public disclosure, or even disclosure to the other parties to a suit.

In terms of a meeting such as the ione you are referring to, it means that the in camera portion of the meeting will be held in private and not subject to the record made in normal meetings. It is commonly used for things like discussing salaries, etc. that you do not want general membership concerned with.

[incameraguy]

Seems to me you weren't getting very helpful responses to the question about in camera sessions. In camera sessions are normally held participation of normal staff support persons unless the discussion is going to focus on performance issues of those staff support persons. Even then, it is the duty of the chair to ensure that as soon as possible following an in camera session, the staff support person is advised of the nature of the concerns (only the identity of the board member raising a concern is kept confidential). In the case you've described, the board has treated the staff with disrespect. Seems to me that board could use some governance training.