If you have ever been on a nonprofit board, you have probably heard the phrase “in camera.” If you have never been on one, you almost certainly have not. And even on boards that use it, the concept is often unclear, inconsistently applied, and used only when something has gone wrong.
That last part is the heart of the problem. And it is one of the most fixable governance issues a board has.
This article makes a simple case. Every board meeting should end with an in camera session. Every single one. Even when there is nothing on the agenda to discuss. Even when the meeting was uneventful. Even when it might only last twenty seconds.
Especially then.
What an In Camera Session Actually Is
If the term is new to you, here is the working definition.
The phrase itself comes from old legal language meaning “in chambers” or “in private.” The function is exactly that. A private space inside the meeting where the board can speak among itself, without the dynamic that comes with the executive being in the room.
Some boards do it occasionally. Most boards do it almost never. A small number of well-governed boards do it every single meeting, as a standing item, regardless of whether anything specific needs to be addressed.
That last group is the one we want to be in. And the reasons matter.
The Problem with In Camera as a Rare Event
When a board only goes in camera in response to a problem, in camera itself becomes the problem.
Think about what that signal communicates. The board has met for two hours. The reports have been received. The decisions have been made. The meeting is winding down. And then the chair says, “We are going to move into in camera. Could you step out, please?”
If that has only ever happened twice in your tenure as an executive, and both times something was wrong, what do you experience in that moment?
Panic. Pure and immediate. Because the pattern your nervous system has learned is that in camera means trouble.
And this is where the symptoms start to show up. The ones every board has watched happen and most have not connected to the underlying cause.
The Panicked Text
The meeting ran late. The ED knows it ran late. They are at home, on the couch, waiting for the chair's usual "thanks for tonight" message that signals the meeting wrapped up. It does not come. They check the time again. They text another board member. "Hey, is everything okay? Why is the meeting still going?" That text is a tell. The board's pattern of using in camera only for crisis has trained the ED to assume the worst whenever a meeting runs long.
The Annual Brace
The board goes in camera roughly once a year. The ED has learned to brace for it the way you brace for impact. Their performance review is one possible reason. A complaint they have not been told about is another. A discussion about whether they are still the right person for the role is a third. They sit at home that night reviewing every decision they have made in the last six months, trying to figure out what they did wrong. Often, nothing was wrong. The board just used in camera for something routine. But the ED could not know that, because rare use trained them to fear it.
The Avoidant Chair
Some chairs see this dynamic and decide the solution is to avoid in camera entirely. They never call one. They handle anything sensitive in side conversations, in emails, in coffee meetings. The ED is spared the panic, but the board loses one of its most important tools. The chair is being kind in a way that is actually costing the organization governance.
The Side Channel
Without in camera as a normal practice, feedback to the ED comes through whatever channel feels safest. A casual comment after the meeting. An email two weeks later. A side conversation between board members that eventually reaches the ED in distorted form. The feedback was real and probably useful. But because there was no proper forum for it, it arrives late, watered down, or through the wrong messenger. Trust erodes a little every time this happens.
The Festering Question
A board member has a concern but is not sure it is the kind of thing to raise with the ED in the room. Maybe it is about a hiring decision. Maybe it is about how a recent communication landed. Maybe it is something subtle about culture. They sit on it. They tell themselves they will bring it up next time. They never quite find the right moment. The concern festers, often for months, until it surfaces in a way that is harder and more damaging than it ever would have been if there had been a place for it earlier.
All five of these are real. All five happen on real boards every week. And all five have the same root cause: in camera is being treated as a tool of last resort instead of as a normal closing rhythm of the meeting.
The Reframe
Here is the principle that changes everything.
In camera is not for when things go wrong. It is the thing that prevents them from going wrong.
When in camera is a standing item on every agenda, none of those five scenes happen. The ED does not panic when the meeting runs long, because in camera is normal and they know it is. The annual brace does not exist, because there is no annual surprise. The chair does not have to avoid the practice, because the practice is built in. The side channels go quiet, because the proper forum is reliable. The festering questions get raised early, because every meeting has space for them.
This is the reframe. In camera is not about catching the executive when something is wrong. It is about giving the board the regular discipline of doing its job without the executive in the room.
Sometimes the conversation is about the ED. Sometimes it is about a specific board member. Sometimes it is about a decision the board is working through. Sometimes it is about something one board member is not sure how to raise. And often, often, it is about nothing at all. The chair asks, “Does anyone have anything for in camera tonight?” Everyone says no. The chair says, “Great, we are adjourned.” That is twenty seconds well spent.
Because the goal of standing in camera is not the content of the conversation. The goal is the existence of the forum. Available every time. Owed to nobody. Expected by everyone.
Why This Is About Fairness to the Executive
This is the part that surprises most boards when I explain it.
Standing in camera is not primarily for the board's benefit. It is for the executive's benefit. It is one of the single greatest gifts a board can give the person they have hired to lead the organization.
Think about the position an ED is in when in camera is rare. Every closed-door conversation, by definition, is a high-stakes one. Every time the board needs to discuss something privately, the ED is forced into a state of high alert. The board's normal governance work becomes an unintended source of stress on the person already carrying the most weight in the organization.
Now imagine the same ED on a board where every meeting ends with in camera. They have watched the chair call it dozens of times. They have heard, after meetings, “We did our usual in camera and adjourned.” They have come back to the next meeting and seen no change in tone, no follow-up of concern, no shift in their relationship with the board.
The pattern their nervous system has learned now is the opposite. In camera is normal. In camera does not mean trouble. When something does eventually come up that is hard, the ED still feels the gravity of it, but they do not also have to carry the panic that comes with the unknown.
That same dynamic works the other way too. A board that wants to acknowledge an ED's exceptional work, vote on a raise or a bonus, or simply express appreciation that does not need to happen in front of them — that conversation is much easier to have in camera. But if the board only goes in camera for hard things, an in camera session about a bonus or a raise will still terrify the executive. They will not know it is good news until the chair tells them. The asymmetry alone is a kind of harm.
If in camera only happens when something is wrong, even your good news will scare your executive.
Routine in camera removes the asymmetry. The room becomes neutral. The forum becomes safe. And the executive gets to focus on the work instead of on what the closed door might mean.
Why This Protects the Board Too
The benefit to the executive is the most overlooked. But there is real benefit to the board as well, and it is significant.
It creates a home for the question that is not quite ready.
Board members regularly hold things back during meetings. Sometimes because they are not sure if the question is appropriate. Sometimes because they want to think about it more before voicing it. Sometimes because they sense the question is more about operations than governance and they are unsure where the line is. When in camera is reliable, these questions get raised in a low-stakes setting. The chair can help discern whether it is board work or staff work, whether it should come back to the next meeting, whether it should be raised with the executive directly, or whether it is something that needs to be set aside.
It creates a space for the board to evaluate itself.
One of the most important governance habits a board can build is a brief reflection at the end of each meeting. How did we do? Did we cover what we needed to cover? Did we treat each other with respect? Was there a moment where we got off track? The honest version of that conversation rarely happens with the executive in the room, because the executive's presence subtly changes the answers. In camera is the natural place for it.
It creates a relief valve before things compound.
Small concerns that get raised in real time stay small. Small concerns that get held in for three months become large concerns by the time they surface. A board that goes in camera every meeting almost never has the kind of accumulated tension that wrecks board-ED relationships. It is not that the board has fewer concerns. It is that the concerns have a place to land before they harden.
It signals to new board members that governance is serious.
When a new board member sees the chair close every meeting with in camera, they learn something important about how this board operates. The board is not a rubber stamp. The board is not a polite audience. The board has its own work to do, and it does that work consistently and openly within itself. That is a signal worth sending, especially to people new to governance.
How to Actually Do This Well
The mechanics are simple. The discipline is what takes practice.
Put it on every agenda as a standing item.
The last item before adjournment is "In Camera." Not optional. Not conditional. Not "if needed." Always.
Brief the executive on what to expect.
If your board is shifting to standing in camera for the first time, the executive needs to know what is happening and why. Explain that this is a new practice, that it will happen every meeting, that it does not signal anything specific, and that the vast majority of in camera sessions will be brief and routine. Then live up to that. Predictability is the gift.
Keep it short by default.
Most in camera sessions should last under five minutes. The chair asks, "Does anyone have anything for in camera tonight?" The room responds. If nothing comes up, the meeting adjourns. If something does come up, the board addresses it briefly and either resolves it on the spot, agrees on next steps, or schedules a follow-up if it needs more time than the moment allows.
Take notes selectively.
In camera notes are typically not part of the official minutes. The chair or secretary may keep a brief private record for follow-up purposes. Anything that becomes a board decision still needs to be documented and brought into the next meeting as appropriate. But the conversations themselves are protected by the privacy of the room.
Follow up appropriately.
If in camera surfaces something that needs to be communicated to the executive, the chair handles that follow-up. Not in the parking lot. Not in a vague email. In a clear, direct, properly framed conversation. The executive should never have to wonder what happened in the room. They should be told what they need to know in a way that respects both the board's privacy and the executive's standing.
The Standard
If your board only goes in camera when something is wrong, in camera will always feel like something is wrong.
If your board goes in camera every meeting, in camera becomes what it is supposed to be — a normal, protected, routine part of doing governance well. Sometimes it is twenty seconds. Sometimes it is an hour. Usually it is short. But when you need an honest conversation, it is good to have one already on the agenda.
This is one of the smallest changes a board can make to its meeting structure, and one of the most impactful. It does not require new policy. It does not require new bylaws. It does not require training. It requires one standing item on every agenda and the discipline to honour it whether the conversation is needed or not.
The boards that build this habit find that, over time, almost every other governance practice gets easier. Hard conversations happen earlier. Trust between the board and the executive deepens. The chair has a built-in moment every meeting to check the room and confirm everyone is aligned. The executive learns to read the board accurately instead of bracing for surprises that almost never come.
It is one of the highest-leverage governance moves available to a board. And it costs nothing.
Add it to your next agenda. Keep it there forever. Let it be twenty seconds when it needs to be. Let it be an hour when the moment calls for one. But never skip it. Because the value of in camera is not in any single session. It is in the fact that the forum exists, available every time, owed to nobody, expected by everyone.
That is what good governance feels like. Quiet, consistent, protective of everyone in the room.
How healthy is your board's meeting rhythm?
Standing in camera is one piece of a larger picture. If your board meetings feel inconsistent, tense, or unproductive, a Foundation Check can help you see what is missing and how to fix it. No pressure, no pitch. Just a conversation.
Book Your Foundation CheckKeep Reading
You Don't Have a Governance Problem. You Have a Foundation Problem.
Most boards that struggle with wasted time, frustrated staff, and good people leaving don’t know those are governance symptoms.
Read articleBoard GovernanceGovern Instead of Guess: Why Every Board Needs a Real Policy Manual
Most nonprofit boards operate without a real board policy manual. The result is quiet erosion of trust, ED burnout, and mission drift.
Read articleBoard GovernanceStaying Informed Is Not the Same as Governing
Most nonprofit boards spend their meetings receiving reports instead of actually governing.
Read article