Ken: There was no cup to the wall. Not even my naked ear. Everything reported on was heard clearly by many of those who were gathered in the hall directly outside the meeting room.

Regardless of whether it was heard in the hallway...a "closed door" meeting is supposed to be honored on the same level as a request for "off the record", is it not?
Yes, I understand other things said could have been reported by what was "overheard" in the hallway. And doesn't that put you in an awkward postion, journalistically, to decide on what to print or report?
I am sure you understand the "cup on the wall" comment was used metaphorically.
Perhaps a Sargeant at Arms would have been better to deploy to ensure the guests were temporarily relocated until a consensus had arrived.

No Ken, there is no off the record stipulation attached to a closed door meeting. "Off the record" comes as an agreement between the reporter and the person being interviewed.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding your "awkward position" question.

As for relocating the guests, I'm not sure how you move the public from the hallway of a public accommodation such as a hotel.

Don't the Republican voters of Baltimore County who voted for central committee members and its chairman in September have a right to know how their interests are being served?

Let me ask you this...if someone had made comments to a reporter and stipulated they were "off the record", wouldn't you expect that to be honored, based on journalistic integrity? What is so different from things that transpire during an Executive Session as far as reporting goes?
That is my point.

Roberts Rules of Order allows for guests to attend an Executive session, but only at the whim of the majority approval of the committee and only for the purpose of making a report to the committee in session. At that point, RRO requires that all comments during an Exec session be held confidential, as the meeting may contain controversial and sensitive discussions. Which should not leave the room, but may need to be said to obtain a consensus. My understanding is that a guest is also bound by the same confidentiality requirement (under RRO). It is as if you are asking the guest to recognize the discussion as being "off the record." Although minutes may be taken during and Exec session, minutes are supposed to be what was done, not what was discussed (again per RRO). These minutes, essentially the consensus, MAY be reported (read) to the general session, but the comments and conversations are not expected (allowed) to leave the Exec session (again, per RRO). My understanding of journalistic integrity includes allowing this process to take place, to respect the process, and to wait for the consensus to report on.

Personally, I believe that the Republican voters of Baltimore County would appreciate that we are allowing for the process to take place and that we are following a civil process that allows us to air out differences while working on a consensus for the betterment and advancement of the party. While there may be some disagreements during the discussions, those disagreements are really incidental and often necessary to air in order to come to a consensus. I don't think the mature Republican voter/individual cares how messy it may get during the process, but more appreciates the fact that a consensus is being formed. Reporting on the messiness of a meeting really isn't serving the public, as much as the fact we are willing to go through it to come to a consensus.

Ken: The "rules of journalism" probably isn't a tremendously hot topic or even a very interesting one(except maybe to journalism nerds). Sometimes the "rules" are confusing.

If I were interviewing a member of the Republican Central Committee, let's say it's you, and you wanted to go off the record you would ask me before hand. I'd either agree or not.

The privilege (in my opinion and that of many journalists) stems from the reporter not the source. You can ask for it but it might not always be granted.

Once I agree, I would not use that material unless you agreed to lift the request. I am always free to go back and ask you to lift the off the record stipulation.

An executive session is not something recognized as off the record by any journalist I know.

Roberts Rules of Order are merely rules by which a club or committee or governmental body can operate its meetings.

RRO are not binding in any way on journalists.

If you're a sports fun you've probably read a story or two about one of your favorite teams having a closed door meeting about things going on inside the team. The reporter covering that team still tries, and often succeeds, in giving readers an idea of what the meetings were about.

This is pretty much the same concept.

Except the stakes are much higher than a few over paid athletes winning a game or two.

And there may be a reason why reporters are usually not invited into Executive Sessions unless they agree to confidentiality at the time.

Sorry for my "high-minded-ness". My mother was a political reporter (part-time), assigned to County Exec Agnew, and other relatives of mine are (or were) either on the Sunpapers staff, former national broadcasters or a senior member of network news (one happens to be President of one of the networks' news departments). The interest in the rules of journalism must be inbred. :) (I'm trying to figure out where this intensive interest in RRO came from)

Sally:

I'll let those who were quoted speak for themselves about the accuracy of the quotes.

There are several reasons why I stayed.

First, I've written about this issue over the last week and this meeting was a continuation of a story I was covering and I was invited to attend by the chairman.

Second,I knew I would want to interview many of the attendees after the meeting. I did so once they adjourned.

Additionally, there was no reason to expect that the committee would not end its closed session and move back into public session.

Thanks for your comments, Andrew.

There is one issue that I have a very small problem with and that pertains to the concept that reporters live by a different "code" of conduct. I don't mean it to appear as rash as it may sound.

But what happened to allowing the process to work and waiting for the result? Doesn't the media take responsibility for prolonging the agony in many cases? Or perhaps interjecting angony where it is not necessary?

The fact was the CC needed to heal and it needed the opportunity to go through that process. Why can't it be allowed to do that efficiently? Is that the role that the media takes in this process? This is new to me, as I have been a small business owner for over 20 years, and am used to being able to own up to and lick my wounds when I make a mistake. And the necessary healing of any former business mistakes can take place rather quietly (in restrospect) and quickly.

It would make sense to me that if a reporter, or any guest for that matter, were invited to a meeting that as part of accepting that invitation, they automatically agree to abide by the rules governing that organization. Are you saying that journalists live by exclusive rules? Disrespective of the host organization? Hmmmm...seems to be a conflict in ethics there...somewhere in there....

I'm sorry I wasn't aware of nor did I see the Journalist bubble that Bryan was sitting or standing in, out in the hallway. ;)

At the same time, I can truly appreciate the watchdog role that the media plays to ensure transparency, fairness and ethical behavior of a governmental or party related organizations. I just wish the same "eye" was on illegal contractors that plagued my former business and industry. I'd probably still be in business.