When It's OK to Close Meetings

The overarching theme of this blog is articulating what it takes to build and sustain cooperative culture—as distinct from the mainstream competitive culture from which we come—and why we need to be doing that as one of our top social change priorities.

Much of what I write about is how this plays out in meetings of groups that are ostensibly committed to cooperative culture yet are still feeling their way into it (it turns out that there are a great many more people who share an analysis of how competitive culture fails to address issues of fairness and long-term sustainability than there are people who have done the personal work needed to unlearn competitive responses in the dynamic moment: when the stakes are high and you encounter disagreement or resistence).

One aspect of cooperative culture that I've written about a number of times previously is transparency. Reference the following entries:
Acceptable Risk • Jan 13, 2015
Collateral Healing • May 30, 2015
The Challenge of Hybrid Governance • Oct 22, 2015
Balancing Transparency & Confidentiality • April 22, 2009
Balancing Transparency and Discretion • July 31, 2014
Balancing Transparency and Discretion, Part II • March 28, 2015
 
Essentially, transparency is joined at the hip with trust. If groups want to succeed in developing cooperative culture there needs to be a high level of trust and that means a high level of transparency. Let me give you an example.

Earlier this month I was working with a grocery that had just made the switch from being a sole proprietorship to being a co-op. As incentive to keep the staff that had been working under the old management, workers had been offered a retention bonus based on gross sales. As it happened, I was present for the meeting at which the sales numbers for November—their first month operating as a co-op—were shared with staff. While the board was worried that the staff might react badly because sales were down 20% from November a year ago (which translated to a smaller bonus), in fact, the staff responded very positively because, for the first time, they were given a peek behind the financial curtain. They had never before been given that kind of detail about the grocery's finances and they were enthusiastic about helping to turn things around. It was clear that being committed to transparency went a long ways toward breaking down the traditional barriers between staff and management.

In this essay, I want to drill down on one particular aspect of transparency: the degree to which meetings are open. In general, I urge cooperative groups to have the least barriers possible in this respect, such that the default is that meetings (as well as the minutes summarizing what happened at them) are open to the public. That said, I think there are three reasons why cooperative groups might reserve the right to temporarily meet in closed session:

I. Personnel Sensitivity
There are times when frankness trumps transparency—when the need to honestly express feelings and reservations is more important than letting everyone hear everything. In many instances, people are uncomfortable voicing hesitancies or concerns about someone in their presence. Let's look at three situations where this might apply:

A. Selection
This can come in two forms: 1) when you're evaluating candidates to fill a job or a committee slot; or 2) when you're assessing nominees to receive an award or honor. In either case you want to be able to thoroughly discuss the pros and cons of candidates without worrying about hurting anyone's feelings.

B. Performance Evaluation
Here the situation is different in that the person already has been given an assignment and you want to examine carefully both how they're meeting expectations and how they may be falling short. Often the person's presence (or their unabashed allies) can inhibit the full expression of shortcomings.

C. Firing (Involuntary Loss of Rights)
Though the least common of the three, it is often crucial that the group examine carefully whether there are sufficient grounds for imposing sanctions on a member, and that due process has been followed before taking action. This consideration will tend to go much better in a closed session where the person in question is not present.

In all three of these cases, I would support there being a closed session, with the understanding that the people being discussed will receive a private in-person summary of what was discussed at the earliest opportunity. This is an important caveat.

II. Political Sensitivity
For some groups (such as networks or nonprofits) there can arise questions about relationships with sister organizations where you want the consideration to happen in-house until a course of action is settled upon, with the agreement that you have not completed the conversation until you've explicitly decided what to share with whom about what was discussed.

III. As a Substitute for Member Screening
People are sometimes selected to be a member (say, of a board) for reasons of networking or bridge building—that is, the person has valuable ties to a group or target population that you want to explicitly cultivate, yet you may not trust that they'll use appropriate discretion if sensitive information is openly shared with them. Thus, you may establish an Executive Committee comprised of board members and staff that have demonstrated an ability to be discrete and to think strategically, that is empowered to occasionally meet in closed session for the purpose of discussing sensitive matters as they arise.

This way you can stretch to include allies in board selection without compromising the group's ability to handle tough, potentially volatile topics as needed. As in the other examples above, it's important that the closed group commit to providing to the full board a decent summary of the discussion, without making inflammatory comments.

For everything else, I say to the sun shine in.

Blymey: on Being a Public Couple

Last week I received an email communication from a friend in Sweden, Stephan Wik, in response to my blog of May 9, The Lemon and the Lyme. He wondered about my discretion in disclosing intimate information about my marriage. (I figure the viewer rating on my blog is somewhere between PG and R—that is, I'm occasionally too graphic to be G; yet not nearly risque enough to be assigned an X.)

Stephan wrote:
In your latest blog you write:
 
Low libido
As Doctor Annette explained, when your immune system is compromised, your sex drive is one of the first things to be parked (as the body deems it nonessential relative to other hormone functions). While touch and tenderness never go out of vogue, it means we're working with a more limited vocabulary in expressing our love right now.

I was just wondering, does Ma'ikwe read your blogs before you send them out? Is she OK with the level of detail you divulge about your relationship? On the one hand I find it interesting to read how you're grappling with your situation—so it makes good reading. On the other hand I sometimes find myself feeling uneasy for Ma'ikwe—if I was her I'd not want to have so much info about myself spread to a worldwide audience!

Of course, this may be none of my business and you're welcome to say so.

I riposted:
Good question! Ma'ikwe and I have been together now for over six years and it only took us about 15 minutes to sort out that we're both public figures and for her to understand that I have low boundaries about what I share in public. I've now been doing my blog for over four years and she's fully aware that I'm willing to disclose personal information at a level that most others would decline to do. It's just who I am (and I think it makes for more compelling writing).

At this point, Ma'ikwe understands that being partnered with me necessarily means a certain amount of being at risk of having information disclosed in public that many would consider better left private.

All of that said, I almost never disclose information that I believe will put someone else in a bad or embarrassing light unless I have their express permission to do so. If I think it will land poorly and I don't have permission (or don't want to delay posting long enough to ask for it), I tell the story without attribution. This policy does not, of course, guarantee that I will stay out of trouble, or that I will always make an accurate assessment, but it works pretty well.

In this particular instance (writing about Ma'ikwe's libido), I did not check with Ma'ikwe ahead of publishing, so I've cc'd her on this response and she can answer you directly. We'll see together how much hot water I may be in!
 
The next day, Ma'ikwe chimed in with:
Stephan, the funny thing is that I didn't even blink at that one. Laird has been doing me a real service in being willing to blog about my illness issues... it keeps a lot of people who care about me informed about what's up with me, without me having to do a whole slew of emails to folks. And it also reassures me that he is indeed paying attention and doing good work learning about what's going on with me. The truth is, my libido is shot, and like a lot of Lyme couples, we are struggling with it. My general policy is that if our struggles can help others feel seen, or understood, or not alone, then we should be as open as we can about what is actually going on. This, too, is a kind of social change work.

I think the times when it has felt hard for me (and Laird has indeed, gotten into hot water with me) are more when I feel like I look selfish or reactive. You are right to think that it isn't always smooth sailing between us, but Laird is also right to say that we've talked about this in general and that I'm also fine with being publicly exposed, so long as it has a good purpose behind it. Sometimes we have moments where the lines that he draws aren't the same as the ones I've drawn, and then we get a chance to refine our understanding about what's OK.
 
To which Stephan continued with:
I applaud you for this. It's not easy being public about things which, for many people, are deeply personal. I speak from personal experience...

If you forward me your snail mail address I'd be happy to arrange for a copy of our book, Beyond Tantra, to be sent to you free of charge.

I don't know if you have been exposed to Chinese energy work at all, but it can be a powerful tool. I'm just getting over Borrelia myself, and I find that managing my energy (qi) consciously is crucial. [Laird's note: Borrelia burgdorferi is the spirochete that causes Lyme disease.]

By the way, did you ever have a look at the Cowden Protocol? It has made all the difference to me when it comes to getting rid of borrelia.

> more when I feel like I look selfish or reactive.

I've never met you, but I certainly have not received that impression from what Laird has written. Just the opposite, he has made it clear that you are quite an amazing woman to be in a relationship with a man that has such a, ahem, strong personality and a peripatetic lifestyle.

What a great exchange! Not only did we get a chance to articulate why we we're dedicated—both individually and as a couple— to transparency as a component of social change work, but we were immediately rewarded with both a specific suggestion to consider in our quest for the best way to treat Lyme and a book that may help our sex life (which at the very least is bound to be compelling reading). I reckon that's as clear an affirmation as the universe can give you that you're making good choices.

When I spoke by phone with another friend over the weekend and filled her in on the Lyme journey that Ma'ikwe and I are on, she advised me to write a book about how relationships can cope with the emotional, psychological strain of chronic Lyme when one partner has it and the other doesn't. While it's gratifying to be encouraged to be transparent, and I do think that Ma'ikwe and I are staying afloat in the storm tossed seas that are buffeting our relation ship, I wryly note that: a) it's premature to summarize what we've learned; and b) we're still at sea, rather than reporting about the journey after our hoped-for safe arrival in the port of Ma'ikwe's recovered health. I think the book will have to wait at least until we reach shore.

[As an aside, and to sustain my seafaring metaphor, I note that British seamen have long been referred to as "limeys," derived from their reliance on citrus as an antiscorbutic during the long sea voyages characteristic of the 17th and 18th Century. Blimey if that doesn't make Ma'ikwe and me "Lymeys."]
From my perch in the crow's nest, I expect to gain (in)sights from time to time as the Lyme journey continues. No need to wait for the book, however, whenever we encounter something interesting you can expect a report here, in the captain's blog.