Rejection of Minutes?

[Guest Frank]

I am part of a student government. Our first meeting was held amid confusion as to whether or not there was a quorum (the Chair interpreted the Constitution to state that only members elected and sworn in should be counted for the purposes of a quorum, while others thought that all elected members need be considered for quorum, regardless of whether or not they were sworn in.) Anyway, the Chair's interpretation prevailed, and we appointed a Vice-Chair amongst our members, in accordance with our Constitution.

The next meeting, those who were not present at the first meeting objected to the interpretation and about 3/4 of the government. The Parliamentarian suggested that if the minutes of the previous meeting were not approved, that it would be as if any business conducted in that meeting (essentially the election of Vice-Chair) would not have taken place. Is this a correct interpretation? Can we vote against approving a meeting's minutes, and if that happens, does that nullify everything that took place then? What should we do?

[Chris Harrison]

The Parliamentarian suggested that if the minutes of the previous meeting were not approved, that it would be as if any business conducted in that meeting (essentially the election of Vice-Chair) would not have taken place.

There is absolutely nothing in RONR that supports such an absurd idea (and someone should smack him upside the noggin with a hardback copy of RONR for even making such a suggestion! ).

Is this a correct interpretation?

No way!

Can we vote against approving a meeting's minutes,

You can do that but that just means you would be rejecting the record of the proceedings rather than rejecting the actions themselves.

What should we do?

Since the Chair's interpretation of the Constitution was not challenged (or it was challenged but the assembly agreed with it) the interpretation is considered precedent which would be binding until the precedent was rescinded (RONR pp. 293-299) or the Constitution was amended to make it more to their liking. Which method is the appropriate one depends on the exact circumstances of the situation.

[Guest Frank]

Will do!

How about if the Parliamentarian made that suggestion (that the rejection of the minutes would nullify those proceedings,) the Chair made that his decision, which was appealed, but the meeting voted down the appeal by a large majority (they sustained the Chair's decision.) Does this mean that the Chair's decision (however erroneous the advice given by the Parliamentarian may have been,) as approved by the large majority, stand, or should the matter be revisited at the next meeting?

Thanks for your kind and quick help!

[Chris Harrison]

Will do!

How about if the Parliamentarian made that suggestion (that the rejection of the minutes would nullify those proceedings,) the Chair made that his decision, which was appealed, but the meeting voted down the appeal by a large majority (they sustained the Chair's decision.) Does this mean that the Chair's decision (however erroneous the advice given by the Parliamentarian may have been,) as approved by the large majority, stand, or should the matter be revisited at the next meeting?

Thanks for your kind and quick help!

I'm getting a headache (like you are I'm sure).

I would say that the decision stands since the Appeal was defeated by a large majority and thus it would be very unlikely that a motion to Rescind would be successful. It may be time for the Chair and "parliamentarian" to get a refresher course in RONR.

[hmtcastle]

Can we vote against approving a meeting's minutes

You can do that but that just means you would be rejecting the record of the proceedings rather than rejecting the actions themselves.

The approval of minutes should never be put to a vote. Once any corrections have been made (and the corrections, if contested, can be put to a vote) the chair declares the minutes approved. The only way to "vote against" approving the minutes is to offer a correction.

I'm afraid your "parliamentarian" has some homework to do before the next meeting, assuming he's willing to show his face in public again.

[Matt Schafer]

I agree with Chris H. in regards to the minutes. Rejecting the minutes will not invalidate the actions taken at the previous meeting; that action will only reject the written record of what happened at the meeting. And if you do that, all of a sudden, you don't have anything to look at in the future for the precedent that was set with the chair's ruling and the assembly's sustainer of the ruling. And nothing throws a group into disarray faster than faulty memories. So you should stick to approving the minutes if they accurately reflect what happened at the previous meeting, even if you don't agree with the actions themselves.

As far as the membership of the assembly is concerned, you'll need to look at your constitution, which it sounds like you've already done. If it is clear with regard to when a person is officially a member (upon election or only after swearing in), then there is no room for interpretation. If not, then the group must interpret the constitution, which has already happened, correctly or not. If it is not clear, some guidance on how to interpret is in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 570-573. Beyond that, if RONR is specified as the parliamentary authority, then take a look at p. 430, l. 5-20, and in particular, the second paragraph of that passage. This may be persuasive in future debate on this issue. Indeed, if the constitution is silent, and RONR is the parliamentary authority, then it seems to me that this passage is your rule.

As to what you do now that precedent has already been set, I'm not sure. I assume that by now, all of the members of your assembly have been sworn in, and no one would dispute their membership. So the issue may be moot. And since the decisions have already been made in the previous meeting, they would need to meet one of the conditions on p. 244, l. 10-23 to be nullified. Otherwise, I think you're stuck with them.

Stay tuned; other folks with more experience may disagree or have more to add.

[Trina]

I am part of a student government. Our first meeting was held amid confusion as to whether or not there was a quorum (the Chair interpreted the Constitution to state that only members elected and sworn in should be counted for the purposes of a quorum, while others thought that all elected members need be considered for quorum, regardless of whether or not they were sworn in.) Anyway, the Chair's interpretation prevailed, and we appointed a Vice-Chair amongst our members, in accordance with our Constitution.

....

....

How about if the Parliamentarian made that suggestion (that the rejection of the minutes would nullify those proceedings,) the Chair made that his decision, which was appealed, but the meeting voted down the appeal by a large majority (they sustained the Chair's decision.) Does this mean that the Chair's decision (however erroneous the advice given by the Parliamentarian may have been,) as approved by the large majority, stand, or should the matter be revisited at the next meeting?

....

....

I would say that the decision stands since the Appeal was defeated by a large majority and thus it would be very unlikely that a motion to Rescind would be successful

.....

It seems there were two decisions by the chair, at two different meetings. First there was the interpretation about who should be counted toward quorum. Presumably that interpretation sets a precedent, which might be rescinded if the assembly so chooses (assuming there is ambiguity in the group's constitution on this point).

At the second meeting the chair made a ruling (that not approving the minutes would somehow invalidate what happened at the first meeting) which is just plain wrong. Surely that doesn't set a precedent which must be respected in the future ? I would argue that the chair, by making this bone-headed ruling, is trying to rescind the actions taken by the assembly at the first meeting, without following the proper parliamentary steps needed for a motion to rescind -- thus this would violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, and would constitute a continuing breach.

Maybe it would help to know what exactly the chair's decision stated, in terms of suggesting what the assembly could/should do next (the bolded description above seems rather vague). I guess I'm unclear on what Chris H. thinks a hypothetical motion to rescind would be applied to...

[Chris Harrison]

At the second meeting the chair made a ruling (that not approving the minutes would somehow invalidate what happened at the first meeting) which is just plain wrong. Surely that doesn't set a precedent which must be respected in the future ?

If a ruling was made that refusing to approve the minutes means that the business wasn't officially conducted and it wasn't overturned on Appeal I fear that a precedent was set which would stand until it is rescinded (which should happen sometime before yesterday).

I would argue that the chair, by making this bone-headed ruling, is trying to rescind the actions taken by the assembly at the first meeting, without following the proper parliamentary steps needed for a motion to rescind -- thus this would violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, and would constitute a continuing breach.

That is certainly one way to look at it (and I really want to look at it that way). However, I suspect the Chair and Parliamentarian are both so clueless to parliamentary procedure that such a concept would escape their grasp. Also, even if that was his intent, from what Frank said in his original posting about 3/4 of the government not agreeing with what was done in the first meeting and then a "large majority" voting down the Appeal in the second meeting it is entirely possible that there was enough votes in favor of supporting the Chair that RONR p. 244 ( b ) would not apply.

Maybe it would help to know what exactly the chair's decision stated, in terms of suggesting what the assembly could/should do next (the bolded description above seems rather vague). I guess I'm unclear on what Chris H. thinks a hypothetical motion to rescind would be applied to...

I think the motion to Rescind would be applied to the precedent set by the (sustained upon Appeal) ruling that rejection of the minutes of a meeting would nullify all actions taken in the meeting in question.

[hmtcastle]

If a ruling was made that refusing to approve the minutes means that the business wasn't officially conducted and it wasn't overturned on Appeal I fear that a precedent was set which would stand until it is rescinded (which should happen sometime before yesterday).

Appeal or not, the chair can't rule, willy-nilly, on matters of incontrovertible parliamentary, and historical, fact. The fact is that what was done was done, whether the chair says so or not. The chair does not have the authority to, in effect, overturn legitimate decisions of the assembly simply because he wants to.

I think the motion to Rescind would be applied to the precedent set by the (sustained upon Appeal) ruling that rejection of the minutes of a meeting would nullify the proceedings of the meeting in question.

I'm not sure that a motion to rescind is required (or is appropriate) to point out the fact that the chair's ruling was absurd. A point of order should do the trick.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The approval of minutes should never be put to a vote.

"Never"?

Well, hardly ever.

Excerpt from RONR page 343 line 14:

It is generally smoother to do the approval of minutes also by unanimous consent, although a formal motion to approve them is not out of order.

CAPT: I never use a big, big D___.

CREW: What, never?

CAPT: No, never!

CREW: What, never?

CAPT: Well, hardly ever.

CREW: Hardly ever swears a big, big D___.

- Gilbert & Sullivan, "H. M. S. Pinafore"

[hmtcastle]

Excerpt from RONR page 343 line 14:

It is generally smoother to do the approval of minutes also by unanimous consent, although a formal motion to approve them is not out of order.

However the fact that a formal motion is not out of order does not mean that a vote on the approval of minutes is in order.

[Josh Martin]

However the fact that a formal motion is not out of order does not mean that a vote on the approval of minutes is in order.

It is correct that even if a formal motion to approve the minutes is made, the chair should still use the regular procedure for approving the minutes - when no further corrections are offered, the chair declares the minutes approved as read or as corrected, whichever the case may be. Yet it would not be out of order for the chair to put the approval of the minutes to a vote. It would, however, be rather silly.

[hmtcastle]

Yet it would not be out of order for the chair to put the approval of the minutes to a vote.

Where's Mr. Elsman when you need him!

[David A Foulkes]

It is correct that even if a formal motion to approve the minutes is made, the chair should still use the regular procedure for approving the minutes - when no further corrections are offered, the chair declares the minutes approved as read or as corrected, whichever the case may be. Yet it would not be out of order for the chair to put the approval of the minutes to a vote. It would, however, be rather silly.

In light of p. 343 ll. 24-28 which - shall we say - "encourage" the chair to ignore such a motion and simply declare the minutes adopted, I would suggest that if it has been (the RONR highly-revered) custom in the organization to move and vote thusly, I'd think the chair's best approach would be educate the masses of the "smoother" <wink wink> method, in hopes of going forward in that fashion, and establishing a new custom.

Smoother? That's the word they chose to use?? Oh-kA-ay.......

[Josh Martin]

Where's Mr. Elsman when you need him!

Yes, Mr. Elsman's optimistic and straightforward, "The approval of the minutes is never put to a vote" is quite refreshing, although reality disagrees with him.

In light of p. 343 ll. 24-28 which - shall we say - "encourage" the chair to ignore such a motion and simply declare the minutes adopted, I would suggest that if it has been (the RONR highly-revered) custom in the organization to move and vote thusly, I'd think the chair's best approach would be educate the masses of the "smoother" <wink wink> method, in hopes of going forward in that fashion, and establishing a new custom.

Of course. I think the best starting point for such education is to ask members "What happens if we vote the approval of the minutes down?", look at the confused faces, and then explain the proper procedure.

[hmtcastle]

I think the best starting point for such education is to ask members "What happens if we vote the approval of the minutes down?", look at the confused faces, and then explain the proper procedure.

Talk about optimism!

If you ask the members, "What happens if we vote the approval of the minutes down?", they're likely to say, "Then nothing that was done at the last meeting is valid!". Those won't be confused faces you're facing, they'll be the faces of victory.

I'm all for empowering the masses but there are times one can sympathize with Mr. Elsman's iron fist on the gavel.

[Josh Martin]

Talk about optimism!

If you ask the members, "What happens if we vote the approval of the minutes down?", they're likely to say, "Then nothing that was done at the last meeting is valid!". Those won't be confused faces you're facing, they'll be the faces of victory.

I'm all for empowering the masses but there are times one can sympathize with Mr. Elsman's iron fist on the gavel.

Yes, if I had members like that I think I'd want Mr. Elsman with the gavel as well.

[Rob Elsman]

It is correct that even if a formal motion to approve the minutes is made, the chair should still use the regular procedure for approving the minutes - when no further corrections are offered, the chair declares the minutes approved as read or as corrected, whichever the case may be. Yet it would not be out of order for the chair to put the approval of the minutes to a vote. It would, however, be rather silly.

Silly or not, it is improper for the chairman to put the question on the approval of minutes to a vote. The only way to reject one version of the minutes is to approve some other version. This is true whether or not a formal motion to approve them has been made. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 343, ll. 19-28.

This question has repeatedly been raised on this forum, and I have the cited text highlighted in my copy to indicate that I expect a clarification in the next edition.

[Rob Elsman]

Talk about optimism!

If you ask the members, "What happens if we vote the approval of the minutes down?", they're likely to say, "Then nothing that was done at the last meeting is valid!". Those won't be confused faces you're facing, they'll be the faces of victory.

I'm all for empowering the masses but there are times one can sympathize with Mr. Elsman's iron fist on the gavel.

...Mr. Elsman's iron fist...

Li'l ol' me?

[David A Foulkes]

Of course. I think the best starting point for such education is to ask members "What happens if we vote the approval of the minutes down?", look at the confused faces, and then explain the proper procedure.

Talk about optimism!

Well, here's a potentially scary thought - I'm President of our Board (and believe me despite whatever shivers that might send, it has been made clear to me on numerous occasions that I still know more about bylaws and RONR than anyone else in our organization including the past (3-term) president!, so many thanks to all for your sufferance, sharing, and education).

I mention that simply in friendly rebuttal of the esteemed Mr. Mountcastle as I tell you we no longer vote on approval of minutes or adjournment, nor bother with seconds on nominations, and a small host of other improvements that make our meetings run - dare I say - "smoother."

So, Yay Education!