Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
AYork

CHANGES TO DRAFT MINUTES

Recommended Posts

Our board had a special meeting to approve a contract with a vendor we are hiring.  At the meeting we approved the contract with a contingency. The following day the board decided via email to remove the contingency and send the contract as it was originally written.

The secretary provided a draft of the minutes that includes the contingency.  The contract has already been sent to the vendor for signing with the contingency removed.  What is the proper protocol with regards to the minutes of that meeting.  Should we remove the contingency from that meetings minutes as a correction, or leave it as is and just make a note in the minutes of our next meeting that the contract was submitted without the contingency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do your bylaws and other rules say about email voting? It is prohibited unless specifically authorized.  

What you should do is submit the contract WITH the contingency unless the email vote to remove the contingency complied with your bylaws and other rules for email voting and for amending something previously adopted.

The minutes should reflect the adoption of the motion as it was originally adopted at the in person meeting .

If... and only if... the later amendment was PROPERLY adopted, should new minutes (not the minutes of the in person meeting) reflect the amendment the same way your minutes reflect other action taken via an email vote.

The minutes should reflect what actually transpired .

I suspect the email modification was not validly adopted, but we need more information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is agreement, you may be able to ratify the removal of the contingency clause, at a properly called meeting with a quorum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, J. J. said:

If there is agreement, you may be able to ratify the removal of the contingency clause, at a properly called meeting with a quorum. 

No, I don't think so, although I suppose the action of the officer who submitted the contract without the contingency might be ratified.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, J. J. said:

If there is agreement, you may be able to ratify the removal of the contingency clause, at a properly called meeting with a quorum. 

 

23 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No, I don't think so, although I suppose the action of the officer who submitted the contract without the contingency might be ratified.

 

I agree with Mr. Honemann. If the removal of the "contingency clause" wasn't done at a properly called and noticed special meeting or as otherwise authorized in the bylaws, the decision to remove the clause cannot be ratified. But, as Mr. H stated, perhaps the actions of the officer who removed the clause can be. 

I'm still anxious to know by what authority the clause was "removed" via an email vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, J. J. said:

If there is agreement, you may be able to ratify the removal of the contingency clause, at a properly called meeting with a quorum. 

 

21 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No, I don't think so, although I suppose the action of the officer who submitted the contract without the contingency might be ratified.

 

 

21 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

 

I agree with Mr. Honemann. If the removal of the "contingency clause" wasn't done at a properly called and noticed special meeting or as otherwise authorized in the bylaws, the decision to remove the clause cannot be ratified. But, as Mr. H stated, perhaps the actions of the officer who removed the clause can be. 

I'm still anxious to know by what authority the clause was "removed" via an email vote. 

After doing a bit more reading, I'm not so sure of the answers that Mr. Honemann and I gave.  This quote from page 488 of RONR seems to say that action "approved" by unanimous agreement of a board outside of a board meeting CAN be ratified:  "The personal approval of a proposed action obtained separately by telephone, by individual interviews, or in writing, even from every member of the board, is not the approval of the board, since the members lacked the opportunity to mutually debate and decide the matter as a deliberative body. If action is taken on such a basis, it must be ratified (pp. 124–25) at a regular or properly called board meeting in order to become an official act of the board."

What am I missing?  The email approval referred to by the OP and JJ's answer seems to fit squarely within that provision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

 

 

After doing a bit more reading, I'm not so sure of the answers that Mr. Honemann and I gave.  This quote from page 488 of RONR seems to say that action "approved" by unanimous agreement of a board outside of a board meeting CAN be ratified:  "The personal approval of a proposed action obtained separately by telephone, by individual interviews, or in writing, even from every member of the board, is not the approval of the board, since the members lacked the opportunity to mutually debate and decide the matter as a deliberative body. If action is taken on such a basis, it must be ratified (pp. 124–25) at a regular or properly called board meeting in order to become an official act of the board."

What am I missing?  The email approval referred to by the OP and JJ's answer seems to fit squarely within that provision. 

That's what you get for doing too much reading.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

After doing a bit more reading, I'm not so sure of the answers that Mr. Honemann and I gave.  This quote from page 488 of RONR seems to say that action "approved" by unanimous agreement of a board outside of a board meeting CAN be ratified:  "The personal approval of a proposed action obtained separately by telephone, by individual interviews, or in writing, even from every member of the board, is not the approval of the board, since the members lacked the opportunity to mutually debate and decide the matter as a deliberative body. If action is taken on such a basis, it must be ratified (pp. 124–25) at a regular or properly called board meeting in order to become an official act of the board."

What am I missing?  The email approval referred to by the OP and JJ's answer seems to fit squarely within that provision. 

Note that the last sentence begins with “If action is taken on such a basis...” So the board is not ratifying the decision reached by the board members, it is ratifying the action (if any) taken by the officers to carry out that decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, if there is agreement, AYork's board may be able to ratify the removal of the contingency clause, at a properly called meeting with a quorum.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, J. J. said:

Like I said, if there is agreement, AYork's board may be able to ratify the removal of the contingency clause, at a properly called meeting with a quorum.  :)

Yeah, but the next time you go and answer a question about ratification that wasn't asked, please make clear exactly whose action you say it is that might be ratified.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2017 at 6:59 PM, Josh Martin said:

Note that the last sentence begins with “If action is taken on such a basis...” So the board is not ratifying the decision reached by the board members, it is ratifying the action (if any) taken by the officers to carry out that decision.

I don't think so. If that's what it meant, it would have said, "If action is taken to carry out action taken on such a basis . . ." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't think so. If that's what it meant, it would have said, "If action is taken to carry out action taken on such a basis . . ." :)

Or to put a different slant on it, if it meant to say what it said it should have said so.  :)

In this discussion we are assuming that this board's governing documents do not permit it to vote by e-mail. Since voting by e-mail is prohibited, there is no time when (or any place where) the result of such a vote can properly be announced, and no rules relating to when points of order regarding the conduct of the vote must be raised.  There are no rules relating to the keeping or approval of minutes, since no meeting has been held. Minutes are a record of the proceedings of a deliberative assembly. The fact is, there has been no decision made or action taken by the board, as the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion but so far no one has really answered the actual question asked.

The minutes of the special meeting should accurately reflect what occurred at the special meeting. Then, the action that occurred afterward should be reported at the next meeting and properly recorded in those minutes.   Whether that later action is valid or not is immaterial to the minutes -- it happened and needs to be recorded.  The digression of whether that later action is valid or not something that can't really be answered with the limited information we have.  If this is an incorporated organization, the codes of many states permit board approval via email if consent is unanimous.   Likewise, if the contract is signed by both parties, you may have a valid contract -- even if it may have been improperly authorized.  The latter two points are outside the realm of this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, smb said:

Interesting discussion but so far no one has really answered the actual question asked.

The minutes of the special meeting should accurately reflect what occurred at the special meeting. Then, the action that occurred afterward should be reported at the next meeting and properly recorded in those minutes.. . . . (Remainder of post omitted)

Um, did you read the first response to AYork's question?  :)

I agree with the remainder of your comment, though. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, smb said:

Interesting discussion but so far no one has really answered the actual question asked.

The minutes of the special meeting should accurately reflect what occurred at the special meeting. Then, the action that occurred afterward should be reported at the next meeting and properly recorded in those minutes.   Whether that later action is valid or not is immaterial to the minutes -- it happened and needs to be recorded. 

Yes, the first response answered the questions asked rather nicely. It's worth quoting:

"The minutes should reflect the adoption of the motion as it was originally adopted at the in person meeting .

"If... and only if... the later amendment was PROPERLY adopted, should new minutes (not the minutes of the in person meeting) reflect the amendment the same way your minutes reflect other action taken via an email vote."

That first response is based upon the rules in RONR, as it should be. To say that "the action that occurred afterward should be reported at the next meeting and properly recorded in those minutes" most certainly is not based upon the rules in RONR if it refers to the decision which was purportedly arrived at by e-mail the next day.

I agree that the second response moved off in a different direction, since it concerns the proper application of rules in RONR relating to motions to ratify, but since the OP's questions had been answered, I think this can be forgiven.  :)

 

Edited by Daniel H. Honemann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, the first response answered the questions asked rather nicely. It's worth quoting:

"The minutes should reflect the adoption of the motion as it was originally adopted at the in person meeting .

"If... and only if... the later amendment was PROPERLY adopted, should new minutes (not the minutes of the in person meeting) reflect the amendment the same way your minutes reflect other action taken via an email vote."

 

 

I this this is a bit unclear.  You wrote:  "the later amendment was PROPERLY adopted, should new minutes"

1.  Is the "later amendment" the amendment to the contract?

2.  Are the "new minutes" the minutes of a future meeting where the ratification takes place?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I this this is a bit unclear.  You wrote:  "the later amendment was PROPERLY adopted, should new minutes"

1.  Is the "later amendment" the amendment to the contract?

2.  Are the "new minutes" the minutes of a future meeting where the ratification takes place?

 

Well, first of all, I didn't write it, I was quoting Mr. Brown. But in any event, when read as the response to what was asked, it seems clear that "later amendment" refers to amendment of the motion adopted at the special meeting, and "new minutes" refers to minutes of the meeting at which such amendment was adopted, if it was properly adopted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops....somehow I did miss that answer in the first response.   But I think it is somewhat incomplete and I must disagree with the criticism of my response.  Mr Brown stated [and Mr. Honemann appears to agree] that the results of the email vote should be recorded in later minutes only if that amendment was properly adopted.  So, what if it was NOT properly adopted -- do you simply ignore it?  Of course not  -- whether or not it was properly adopted it is still an action by the Board that needs to be recorded -- if for no other reason than to provide the factual foundation for whatever needs to happen next.   Hence, my suggestion that the emailed action be 'reported' at the next meeting and that report be recorded in those minutes.  Above, it was 'presumed' the bylaws don't allow for an emailed vote -- why are we presuming that?  Moreover the statement on p 487 of RONR [ll. 4-12] that permits a Board to ratify an emailed [or telephoned] action does not require as a predicate that email be authorized in the bylaws. It's very purpose is to ratify an improper act.  And, if this is an incorporated body that is statutorily permitted to take action by unanimous consent via email, that statutory authorization trumps RONR's admonition on p. 487.  I realize I am getting into a bunch of speculative non-RONR issues here -- but they are necessary to the point:  This board took an action to amend [either expressly or implicitly] an adopted motion; whether or not it was proper and whether or not that action took place in a 'deliberative proceeding' it still needs to be put into the minutes somewhere so that the factual foundation for whatever further action might be necessary is part of the record; that can occur at the next meeting either by ratifying the action or by reporting the action as having been taken and recording that report.   I erred earlier by only suggesting the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, smb said:

Oops....somehow I did miss that answer in the first response.   But I think it is somewhat incomplete and I must disagree with the criticism of my response.  Mr Brown stated [and Mr. Honemann appears to agree] that the results of the email vote should be recorded in later minutes only if that amendment was properly adopted.  So, what if it was NOT properly adopted -- do you simply ignore it?  Of course not  -- whether or not it was properly adopted it is still an action by the Board that needs to be recorded -- if for no other reason than to provide the factual foundation for whatever needs to happen next.   Hence, my suggestion that the emailed action be 'reported' at the next meeting and that report be recorded in those minutes.  Above, it was 'presumed' the bylaws don't allow for an emailed vote -- why are we presuming that?  Moreover the statement on p 487 of RONR [ll. 4-12] that permits a Board to ratify an emailed [or telephoned] action does not require as a predicate that email be authorized in the bylaws. It's very purpose is to ratify an improper act.  And, if this is an incorporated body that is statutorily permitted to take action by unanimous consent via email, that statutory authorization trumps RONR's admonition on p. 487.  I realize I am getting into a bunch of speculative non-RONR issues here -- but they are necessary to the point:  This board took an action to amend [either expressly or implicitly] an adopted motion; whether or not it was proper and whether or not that action took place in a 'deliberative proceeding' it still needs to be put into the minutes somewhere so that the factual foundation for whatever further action might be necessary is part of the record; that can occur at the next meeting either by ratifying the action or by reporting the action as having been taken and recording that report.   I erred earlier by only suggesting the latter.

First of all, the discussion prompted by J.J.’s response presumes that voting by e-mail is not authorized because J.J.’s response made that presumption. Why else bring up the possibility of ratification?

Secondly, to say “whether or not it was properly adopted it is still an action by the Board that needs to be recorded” has no basis at all in RONR. As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, no action was taken by the board, since “a board can transact business only in a regular or properly called meeting …” (RONR, 11th ed., p. 486, ll. 33-34). There is certainly nothing in RONR which even hints at the notion that minutes should be taken at anything that isn't a regular or properly called meeting.

It may well be that if an officer takes action prompted by what a group of people (it’s not the board) decides by e-mail should be done, that fact will undoubtedly end up being reported in some fashion to the board (or perhaps to the association itself), at which time that unauthorized action may or may not be ratified. That’s beside the point of this discussion, which is really a discussion about why RONR says what it says on page 487, lines 9-12, or, at least, how to properly understand it.

It’s not really an earth shattering sort of discussion, but we're having fun with it and you can join in if you'd like. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×