Entry Into Executive Session Isn't a Continuing Breach

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/stephen-meier-open-letter-to-the-lnc

Stephen, I contend that the rules about timeliness of objections are exactly as stated in RRONR, which describes exactly five classes of exceptions.  I further contend that your argument doesn't even have the correct shape to be valid if you don't explain how entry into executive session fits into one of these five classes.

Un-motioned entry into ES isn't a "continuing breach".  The un-motioned entry into ES that you infer occurred last September is obviously not something that is continuing right now.  Entry into ES is something that ends when the ES starts.

I'm not at all creating an exception to the rules for entering ES.  Rather, I'm explaining that the rules for entering ES fall into the default category for which objections have to be timely.

If the LNC makes a motion to say X and nobody objects, then it remains a fact that the LNC said X, even if X is "the moon is made of cheese".

I know you don't think LNC members share enough of the thinking and deliberations that go into their votes.  I tend to agree.  However, that still doesn't mean that the LNC is taking any votes in secret, as you seemed to suggest earlier. I agree that deliberations are a part of business, but the private cognitive nature of deliberations is such that they can never be fully disclosed, whereas the crucial parts -- the votes -- are always fully disclosed.