Gary Novosielski Posted June 12, 2015 at 06:50 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 at 06:50 PM The assembly will need all that information when the question is again before the assembly. The inclusion is quite logical. Always is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smb Posted June 14, 2015 at 10:39 PM Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 at 10:39 PM The problem here is an ambiguity introduced by the 11th edition. The former rule (10th ed.) was that the names of the makers of "all important" motions be recorded. [p. 452:17] but that the names of seconders were not. [p. 453:29] In the sample minutes cited above, the author of an amendment is included because the fact that the pending amendment adhered to its main motion and was referred to the committee as well rendered the amendment an 'important" motion. ["Important" is not a value judgement on the motion itself; it is 'important' to the context of establishing a clear understanding of the process. I.e., main motions are important because they are the substantive business. Points of Order are important because they establish precedent. Secondary motions not lost or withdrawn are important for completeness or clarity. The current 11th edition deleted the "all important motions" language [p. 469:10] and moved the reference to the maker of "main motions" to the following page and joined it to the former rule against including the name of the seconder. [p. 470:27] The sample minutes were not altered to conform to these changes. [The sample minutes also still show the name of the member who moved that the item be referred.] The implication is that we no longer care who moved secondary motions, important or otherwise, just as we have never cared who seconded. Or was moving "the name of the maker" to p. 470 only intended to clarify that we record the maker of a main motion but not the seconder, and the example implies that we really do still want to know who moved important secondary motions? My suspicion is the former. [Which means the sample minutes are now a bad example that need to be rewritten.] But frankly Scarlet, I don't really care all that much. As others have already stated, these rules are all "shoulds" not "musts" or "shalls" and every organization I have ever worked with developed its own customs and practices about minutes no matter what RONR had to say about the matter. Actually I take that back...while I don't care that much about the 'rule' here, I do care that RONR be consistent. So, here's hoping we see the example rewritten in edition 12. Oh yes, getting back to the original topic... Me too: Common sense should prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 15, 2015 at 03:10 PM Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 at 03:10 PM No ambiguity was "introduced by the 11th edition." If there ever was any ambiguity in this connection, it was in the wording used in the 10th edition, which might be interpreted as meaning that the names of the makers of important secondary motions (as well as main motions) should be entered in the minutes. However, my recollection is that the drafters of the 10th edition never intended to depart from the rule as stated in all previous editions of ROR and RONR, which was that the names of the makers of all important main motions should be entered in the minutes. The only change made in the 11th edition was to eliminate any reference at all to importance. The rules as now stated in the 11th edition are clear and unambiguous. All main motions should be entered in the minutes, together with the names of the persons making them. Secondary motions should be recorded only in those instances where it is necessary to record them for completeness or clarity. There is nothing which states that the names of the persons making such secondary motions should be recorded, but neither is there anything saying that they should not be. In the model form for minutes, the instances in which the names of the makers of secondary motions are included is not now, and never have been, because the rules say that they should be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted June 15, 2015 at 05:50 PM Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 at 05:50 PM In the model form for minutes, the instances in which the names of the makers of secondary motions are included is not now, and never have been, because the rules say that they should be included. Well, that's a bit strange, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 15, 2015 at 06:08 PM Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 at 06:08 PM Well, that's a bit strange, isn't it? No, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted June 26, 2015 at 11:11 PM Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 at 11:11 PM One drafting technique I've used and which I'm surprised to not see mentioned (perhaps just because I should be surprised at my poor performance as Secretary!) is to record both the original and final forms: Mr. Roberts moved the adoption of a motion "to commend..." which, after debate an amendment, was adopted as a motion "to censure...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted June 26, 2015 at 11:34 PM Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 at 11:34 PM One drafting technique I've used and which I'm surprised to not see mentioned (perhaps just because I should be surprised at my poor performance as Secretary!) is to record both the original and final forms: Mr. Roberts moved the adoption of a motion "to commend..." which, after debate an amendment, was adopted as a motion "to censure...". I like that. Record the motion that was made. Record the motion that was adopted (or otherwise disposed of). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorry Posted June 28, 2015 at 03:39 PM Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 at 03:39 PM In all the over 55 years I have been involved as a Director/President, Secretary, Delegate, member, etc., in bodies that change, amend, etc., etc., motions, it is always stated within the motion which is then recorded word for word in the minutes " I move that "motion dated xxxx, made by xxxx as follows 'full wording of motion as passed' be rescinded (could end here with new separate motion to replace or) and replaced with xxxxxx." Would that not solve any questions very simply? For some reason I thought that was always a basic part of Robert's Rules. According to the experts above, apparently not??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted June 28, 2015 at 04:43 PM Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 at 04:43 PM In all the over 55 years I have been involved as a Director/President, Secretary, Delegate, member, etc., in bodies that change, amend, etc., etc., motions, it is always stated within the motion which is then recorded word for word in the minutes " I move that "motion dated xxxx, made by xxxx as follows 'full wording of motion as passed' be rescinded (could end here with new separate motion to replace or) and replaced with xxxxxx." Would that not solve any questions very simply? For some reason I thought that was always a basic part of Robert's Rules. According to the experts above, apparently not??? The motion as stated by the chair just before the vote is taken should be recoded verbatim in the minutes, and I don't think anyone is saying anything different. The question is, when the motion as made has been amended so that the final wording is different from the initial wording, what should be recoded? Acocrding to RONR, the name of the maker, and the final wording of the motion as amended, should be recorded, along with a refernce to the fact that it was amended (but not the original wording). Any society is, of course, free to adopt a special rule to specify some other practice (such as not recording the name of the maker, recording both the original and final wording, or the like). I personally favor omitting the name of the maker and recording only the final wording, but that is not the RONR default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorry Posted June 28, 2015 at 05:38 PM Report Share Posted June 28, 2015 at 05:38 PM Ahh, my apologies. I was not understanding the reference to "amending" was to only a motion already on the floor. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.