Approving Minutes

[Guest MAH]

Is it permissible for members who were absent from a previous meeting to vote to approve minutes from the meeting they missed?

[hmtcastle]

Is it permissible for members who were absent from a previous meeting to vote to approve minutes from the meeting they missed?

Yes, all members can vote. But if the recommended procedure is followed there will be no vote at all.

[Rob Elsman]

Is it permissible for members who were absent from a previous meeting to vote to approve minutes from the meeting they missed?

The approval of the minutes is never put to a vote, even if a formal motion is made; rather, the presiding officer declares them approved after all proposed corrections have been handled. This is a special instance of transacting business by unanimous consent.

[Gary Novosielski]

This is a special instance of transacting business by unanimous consent.

I've always thought of it as a perfectly ordinary instance of unanimous consent.

[Rob Elsman]

I've always thought of it as a perfectly ordinary instance of unanimous consent.

You shouldn't. The forms given in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 51-53, are not used; rather, the presiding officer, having asked, "Are there any [further] corrections?", simply declares the minutes approved as read, or as corrected, if no one proposes a correction.

[hmtcastle]

The forms given in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 51-53, are not used; rather, the presiding officer, having asked, "Are there any [further] corrections?", simply declares the minutes approved as read, or as corrected, if no one proposes a correction.

And turns a deaf ear when a member points out the majority vote that's required when approving minutes by motion (tinted pp. 18-19).

[David A Foulkes]

And turns a deaf ear when a member points out the majority vote that's required when approving minutes by motion (tinted pp. 18-19).

Well, page 343 lines 24-28 seem to give the chair the authority to ignore the motion nonetheless and simply declare the minutes approved (as corrected). Just sayin'.....

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, page 343 lines 24-28 seem to give the chair the authority to ignore the motion nonetheless and simply declare the minutes approved (as corrected). Just sayin'.....

And if someone objected, and demanded that the question on approval be put, you would rule how?

Even with the apparent authority to ignore a motion, I would hold that unanimous consent, regardless of whether a special or general case, would require putting the question, in the face of an actual objection. Why anyone without a correction to offer would object, I don't pretend to know. But if they did, I'd assume the motion, take the extra six seconds and just put the darn question on approval. No biggie.

[Josh Martin]

I've always thought of it as a perfectly ordinary instance of unanimous consent.

It's not, as the only way to object to the minutes is to offer a correction. The assembly must approve the minutes, but the content of the minutes is subject to amendment.

And if someone objected, and demanded that the question on approval be put, you would rule how?

I would rule the point not well taken per RONR, 10th ed., pg. 343, lines 24-28. I would then try and figure out what the member's intent is to determine if there is an appropriate motion he can use for his goal. The member might believe the minutes are filled with such numerous errors that the assembly cannot fix them all at the time, so a motion to Postpone Definitely or to Commit may be appropriate.

Even with the apparent authority to ignore a motion, I would hold that unanimous consent, regardless of whether a special or general case, would require putting the question, in the face of an actual objection.

Approving the minutes is a special case. Just like it is not proper to elect no one in an election, it is not proper to not approve any minutes. A member may only object by offering a correction.

But if they did, I'd assume the motion, take the extra six seconds and just put the darn question on approval. No biggie.

What if the assembly rejects the motion?

[David A Foulkes]

I guess we can always hope that the 11th will resolve this in some fashion so this horse can rest in peace.

[Josh Martin]

I guess we can always hope that the 11th will resolve this in some fashion so this horse can rest in peace.

I don't think there is anything to resolve. This is fairly low on my wish list for the 11th edition, and fairly low on the list of my favorite ongoing arguments for the forum.

[David A Foulkes]

I think the whole concept of unanimous consent as regards approval of the minutes as well as handling of corrections leaves some room for improvement.

P. 343 ll. 18-19 state that corrections "are usually handled by unanimous consent." (emphasis added) Usually, but not exclusively. When is the unusual occasion? If a member proposes a correction that enough members disagree with, then what?

A motion to approve the minutes is "normally unnecessary unless, for example, there has been a dispute over the accuracy of propriety of something in the minutes." (ie. a correction needing to be proposed) (ll. 22-24, emphasis added)

Unanimous consent works when no one objects to the uncorrected minutes, or any proposed correction , but that may not be the case, and unless you take the step of asking if anyone objects to the corrections proposed, you're just ramrodding it through without giving members their right to debate and vote.

I can see voting on corrections, and letting the majority rule, and then finally approving the minutes (as corrected) by the chair's declaration. Putting the approval to a vote and taking a final vote on the minutes does open up the possibility that the motion will be defeated. And then what? Yes, that could be problematic.

This may be a minor issue, and perhaps the largest majority of organizations out there don't ever have to deal with this. Still and all, I would be happy to see it clarified better.

[Josh Martin]

When is the unusual occasion?

When a correction is controversial. If the assembly is following the recommendations of RONR regarding the content of the minutes, this should be highly unusual.

If a member proposes a correction that enough members disagree with, then what?

If a member objects, the chair states the question on the correction and puts it to a vote after debate. A majority vote is required for the correction to be adopted.

Unanimous consent works when no one objects to the uncorrected minutes, or any proposed correction , but that may not be the case, and unless you take the step of asking if anyone objects to the corrections proposed, you're just ramrodding it through without giving members their right to debate and vote.

Unanimous consent works fine for corrections as well. In that case, the usual procedure for unanimous consent is followed. If a member objects, the question is put to debate and a vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

P. 343 ll. 18-19 state that corrections "are usually handled by unanimous consent." (emphasis added) Usually, but not exclusively. When is the unusual occasion? If a member proposes a correction that enough members disagree with, then what?

A motion to approve the minutes is "normally unnecessary unless, for example, there has been a dispute over the accuracy of propriety of something in the minutes." (ie. a correction needing to be proposed) (ll. 22-24, emphasis added)

Yes, which suggests to me that merely ignoring such a motion would not be a prerogative of the chair.

[Guest MikeC]

Are the motions and vote (pass/fail) of an Executive Session recorded in the minutes?

[Chris Harrison]

Are the motions and vote (pass/fail) of an Executive Session recorded in the minutes?

Yes. However, the vote total is not included in the minutes unless it was counted, held by ballot (secret or signed), or by roll call.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks ChrisH. Where in RONR would I find this information?

[Chris Harrison]

Thanks ChrisH. Where in RONR would I find this information?

RONR pp. 404 and 407. I don't see where in RONR it addresses counted votes being included in the minutes but stay tuned to see if someone can supply a cite for that.

[LeeM]

I don't see where in RONR it addresses counted votes being included in the minutes...

The cite you're looking for is page 453, lines 31 - 32.

[Chris Harrison]

The cite you're looking for is page 453, lines 31 - 32.

Thanks.

[Rob Elsman]

And if someone objected, and demanded that the question on approval be put, you would rule how?

Even with the apparent authority to ignore a motion, I would hold that unanimous consent, regardless of whether a special or general case, would require putting the question, in the face of an actual objection. Why anyone without a correction to offer would object, I don't pretend to know. But if they did, I'd assume the motion, take the extra six seconds and just put the darn question on approval. No biggie.

Since the rules require the assembly to keep minutes of its meetings, a question whose effect in the negative is not to approve minutes is not in order. The only rational question to be handled is whether the secretary's draft or some corrected version will be approved as the official minutes. The case is somewhat similar to an election of officers scheduled in the bylaws.