Are closed (business) meetings sectarian?

[The Idler]

http://internationalsocialismuk.blog...ary-party.html
Tim Nelson writes

The International Socialists, the forerunners of the SWP, set itself apart by rejecting such structures, attempting to build an open democratic organisation with a plurality of different ideas and an utter rejection of the dogmatism that was another trait which many Trotskyists had unfortunately inherited from Stalinism.
...
We need freedom of criticism, communication and association. We need an end to the belief that ideas and theory is the sole province of the privileged few, that plans can only be formulated at the top.
...
At every stage of this democracy, in every debate, the involvement of the wider movement should not just be allowed, but encouraged. On the other side of the debate is a top-down model of organisation, with the ideas and whims of the central committee decreed from above to the party faithful, who then deliver these preconceived plans to the class, without discussion or agreement.
...
A party needs to be built from below, and this is done by revolutionaries responding to and encouraging the self-activity of the working class, encouraging the widest possible participation in the party, and the movement as a whole,

International Socialist Network have promised a public meeting but all meetings so far have been closed to the public.
Likewise at the Independent Socialist Network meeting just today
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/f...a#comment-5409

Two of us went to this meeting (today, Saturday) but it wasn't what we expected. All the same it was interesting and very revealing.
It wasn't a public meeting at all but an internal meeting of the Independent Socialist Network. This, as we learned, is one of the four constituent parts of TUSC, the other 3 being the RMT, the SWP and the ex-Militant Tendency calling themselves SPEW. They seem to be individuals and groups who are not members of any of the other three.
We should have realised that it wasn't a public meeting when, to get it, we had to text a number and say who we were, but once in we couldn't find an opportunity to leave so we stayed until after half-an-hour or so the chair asked those round the table to say not just who they were but who they represented. As soon as we said we were from the Socialist Party, the real one, the main speaker (Nick Wrack) interrupted to say we couldn't stay. We didn't have an objection as we had come under a misunderstanding and said so and left without creating a fuss.
The explanation Wrack gave that "this is not a meeting for political parties" wasn't the real reason, at least not for him. For him (ex-Militant, ex-Socialist Alliance, ex-Respect) it would have been because we were "the SPGB". If we'd been some other party or group, I'm sure they would have been pleased to let us stay. As it was there was a representative of the "Anti-Capitalist Initiative" (a breakaway from Workers Power, it was actually, for the sake of trainspotters here, Simon Hardy himself, their main theoretician) and Lewisham People before Profits. But what was revealing was that Wrack had just given a talk in which he called for a new, open, democratic Leftwing party that wouldn't be structured like the SWP or SPEW and here he was insisting on a secret meeting. We were even asked to hand back the documents that had been on the table before us.

[subcp]

I've read that the SPGB (or at least SPGB members) participate with other organizations, specifically public meetings and inter-group efforts, in an open and comradely fashion.

Even organization Congresses are open to invited guests from other groups and sympathizers/observers, depending on the organization (though maybe all of these things are common to tendencies and organizations which are not Trotskyist).