Vote to dispense reading of minutes

[Jim Anderson]

At a general meeting of my organization, the Chair entertained a motion to dispense with a body practice of dispensing with the reading of meeting minutes into perpetuity. The motion was made, seconded and the body voted by acclimation to never again to move to dispense with the reading of minutes.

 

First, I do not believe this was in order and unfortunately no one spoke up with a "point of order" at the time even though there were more than one member present who has a far greater understanding of RONR than I.

 

Secondly (and perhaps more important) the effects of this motion/vote seem to be mute as I wonder how one dispenses with dispensing.

 

My understanding (now that I've begun reviewing RONR) is that "dispensing with the reading of minutes" only delays the actual reading until later in that meeting or at the next meeting prior to the reading of the minutes for the meeting where "dispense" motion was made. Further, this motion is not a request to omit their reading altogether.

 

My question is, now that our assembly has voted as described above, what needs to be done? As this motion and vote thereof seems to be somewhat self destructive, does anything really need to be done other than to call for a "point of order" citing this action not in compliance with Parliamentary Law and/or Rules?

 

Thank you

 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Organizations are free to create special rules of order.

Special rules of order are customized parliamentary rules adopted by an organization to override the default parliamentary rule of one's parliamentary authority (which I assume is Robert's Rules of Order).

 

So, if the adoption was correctly done (which, sorry to say, it probably has not), then your rule is valid and enforeable.

 

And the rule is suspendable, too. -- If and when you need to read aloud the minutes, the assembly can, by a 2/3rds vote.

[Jim Anderson]

Thank you.

 

RONR is our parliamentary authority where it does not conflict with our bylaws and other than the bylaws, we have not adopted "special rules of order". Our bylaws have no rule concerning the reading or approval of minutes.

[Josh Martin]

At a general meeting of my organization, the Chair entertained a motion to dispense with a body practice of dispensing with the reading of meeting minutes into perpetuity. The motion was made, seconded and the body voted by acclimation to never again to move to dispense with the reading of minutes.

 

First, I do not believe this was in order and unfortunately no one spoke up with a "point of order" at the time even though there were more than one member present who has a far greater understanding of RONR than I.

 

A special rule of order could be adopted for this purpose, but adopting such a rule requires a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice.

 

My understanding (now that I've begun reviewing RONR) is that "dispensing with the reading of minutes" only delays the actual reading until later in that meeting or at the next meeting prior to the reading of the minutes for the meeting where "dispense" motion was made. Further, this motion is not a request to omit their reading altogether.

 

Correct.

 

My question is, now that our assembly has voted as described above, what needs to be done? As this motion and vote thereof seems to be somewhat self destructive, does anything really need to be done other than to call for a "point of order" citing this action not in compliance with Parliamentary Law and/or Rules?

 

Was there a majority of the entire membership present at the meeting in question? If so, then the body has adopted a special rule of order that a motion to Dispense with the Reading of the Minutes is not in order. Special rules of order take precedence over RONR. If a member wishes to get rid of the rule, the motion to Rescind will be the appropriate tool. Rescinding a special rule of order has the same requirements as for adopting one.

 

If there was less than a majority of the entire membership present, then yes, a member should raise a Point of Order that the motion is null and void, followed by an appeal if necessary.

 

I don't quite understand why you think the motion is self destructive. The motion to Dispense with the Reading of the Minutes should rarely be necessary, and if your assembly has been using it regularly you're probably doing something very wrong with your minutes.

 

...we have not adopted "special rules of order".

 

Well, you might have adopted one now.

[Richard Brown]

Was there a majority of the entire membership present at the meeting in question? If so, then the body has adopted a special rule of order that a motion to Dispense with the Reading of the Minutes is not in order.

 

Josh, are you sure about that?  Just having a majority of the entire membership present at a meeting isn't enough to adopt a special rule of order.  It would take a vote of a majority of the entire membership to adopt such a special rule of order without notice.  Unless you know that a majority of the entire membership actually voted for the special rule, rather than just being present at the meeting, how can you say they in fact adopted the rule if a majority of the membership was present?

 

Am I missing something?

 

Edited to add:  Ahh, never mind. My mistake.   I see where the original poster said in post number 1 that the motion "was adopted by acclamation".     In that case, I agree:  that vote, if a majority of the entire membership was present, probably amounted to the adoption of a special rule of order.

[Dan Honemann]

We are told that "the Chair entertained a motion to dispense with a body practice of dispensing with the reading of meeting minutes into perpetuity" and that "the body voted by acclimation to never again to move to dispense with the reading of minutes."

 

I agree with those who say that a special rule of order may have been adopted, but if so, they will need to dispense with their practice of dispensing with the reading of the minutes in order to know for sure what that rule may be. 

[Jim Anderson]

Thank you all for your input.

 

One point I see is most of you indicate a special rule may have been adopted however you seem to qualify the opinion with "if a majority of the entire membership were present".

 

Our quorum requirement is 25% of voting eligible members (currently that would amount to 72 vote eligible members) and we had as I recall around 90 present. Our total vote eligible membership is 286.

 

Thank you again

[Richard Brown]

One point I see is most of you indicate a special rule may have been adopted however you seem to qualify the opinion with "if a majority of the entire membership were present".

 

Our quorum requirement is 25% of voting eligible members (currently that would amount to 72 vote eligible members) and we had as I recall around 90 present. Our total vote eligible membership is 286.

 

I don't think you are completely understanding what we are saying.  l believe you are confusing the quorum requirement with the vote requirement.

 

RONR says it takes a "vote of a majority of the entire membership" to enact a special rule of order without previous notice.  That has nothing to do with your quorum requirement, although, of course, you must have a quorum present in order to adopt anything other than a few procedural motions.  If you have 286 members, it would take the affirmative vote (a yes vote) of 144 in order to adopt a special rule of order without previous notice.... or, perhaps, approval by unanimous consent (or acclamation), PROVIDED at least 144 members are present.

 

Edited to add:  With previous notice, a special rule of order can be adopted with a two-thirds vote... i.e., two thirds of those present and voting, assuming the presence of a quorum.

[Jim Anderson]

Thank you Richard,

 

You are correct about my confusion and I believe entering this forum will go a long way in my education along with continued reading of RONR.

 

Your statement "RONR says it takes a vote of a majority of the entire membership to enact a special rule of order without previous notice." clears up my confusion on this one.

 

Just to clarify, the action taken above was done without notice.

 

Thank you

[Jim Anderson]

Per suggestion from Edgar I am adding my "Follow-up" question concerning "dispense reading of minutes" here.

 

If an assembly introduces a "special rule of order" to never read the minutes, how does the chair declare them approved?

 

I read in RONR the suggestion for not reading the minutes at the next meeting by sending draft copies to all members prior to the meeting where reading would occur and if no corrections/additions are presented at the meeting, the Chair simply announces the minutes are approved as written (or in the event of corrections/additions, "approved with corrections/additions")

 

Should the "special rule" include requirement to send draft copy to all members?

 

 

Kim Goldsworthy wrote:

 

A1.) If the draft minutes are

        (a.) never sent out: and

        (b.) never read aloud,

 

then I don't know how approval is possible.

 

If the minutes are posted plainly somewhere, or if the minutes are indeed sent,

 

then the chair merely approves the minutes as you have already described.

 

(E.g., "You have read the minutes posted on the cork board of Buddy's Tavern. Are there any corrections to the minutes, as published?")

A2.) Perhaps.

 

If you do not read aloud the minutes, then how shall the printed text ever reach 100 % of members who are to vote on the minutes?                           

 

For example, you can post the minutes in a public place (e.g., on-line; City Hall's public announcements newsletter; in the New York Times classified ad section; on Buddy's Tavern's cork board; etc.)

 

And leave it up to the members to find that public place, and read the document on their own time, and to make their own notes about what needs correcting, and come to the meeting carrying their notes.

 

(Yeow!)

 

Good luck with that.

[Richard Brown]

Maybe this is a bit late, but I'm going to suggest that I think a rule prohibiting dispensing with the reading of the minutes is a bad idea.  So is a rule prohibiting reading them at a meeting. 

 

If you don't think RONR adequately covers it and you insist on having a special rule of your own governing the approval process, I would suggest a special rule of order (or a standing rule) that simply requires the secretary to send out the draft minutes to the membership a certain number of days after the last meeting or prior to the next meeting.  The rule might also require the secretary to have copies available at the meeting for members.

 

Then, since everybody has been sent the minutes via email AND a copy is available at the meeting for everybody, there is certainly no need to read the minutes and they can be approved "as distributed" or "as corrected" if there are corrections.

 

The rule can even say something like, "the minutes shall not be read aloud at a meeting unless ordered by a majority vote (or two thirds vote) without debate.  Without such a rule, any member can insist that the minutes be read.  (RONR, p. 474).

 

I think this is being made unnecessarily complicated.   But, as to the rule already adopted, it can be rescinded or amended just like any other rule.

[Jim Anderson]

Again, Thank you for your input.

 

I totally agree with your comments and for the record, I do not subscribe to what has been done in our organization and oppose it. My intent here was to gain insight from well seasoned parliamentarians, as to how I ought to proceed in my attempts to get our organization back on what seems to be the right and "appropriate to RONR" track.

 

Again, I truly thank all of you for the comments and insights.

 

Jim Anderson

[Guest michael shane wilcher]

I'm newly elected county commissioner in Tennessee.  Our commission religiously suspends the reading of the minutes and has not approved minutes in years.  Our county attorney has told us we don't have to approve.  Please advise.  warrencountywilcher@gmail.com

[Edgar Guest]

I'm newly elected county commissioner in Tennessee. 

 

You've now posted this same question in two different topics.

 

This forum works best if you post your question as a new topic (even if you find an existing topic that's similar).