[Ansteorra] Transparency. was CLOSED MEETINGS

[Laetitia]

At 11:53 AM 1/14/2008, Jay Rudin wrote:
>Cuan wrote:
> > Are we being sued?  That is two.
>
>I don't know.  But if we are, and if there is a need to keep it private,
>then they WILL NOT TELL US.  That's what "keep it private" means.

One minor quibble, while the discussion of how to handle the law suit 
is and can be held behind closed doors the organization, and by 
default its officers, cannot keep the existence of the lawsuit from 
the members.

> >  No one gave any indication that the closed session was for one of these
> > reasons.
>
>If there is a reason to keep the meeting private, then by definition that
>will *not* be discussed in public.

OK, two quibbles. Surely you see a distinction between announcing the 
topic and announcing details???
"We are discussing John Doe's term as barony exchequer and this 
meeting will be closed" is incredibly different from "We are 
discussing John Doe stealing funds from the barony and what we are 
going to do about it and this meeting will be closed"

Laetitia