sammy Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:32 PM Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:32 PM During the discussion of the minutes for any changes or correction asked by the chairperson, a correction was made and the secretary said that she would correct the minutes but under protest, how can this be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:35 PM Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:35 PM During the discussion of the minutes for any changes or correction asked by the chairperson, a correction was made and the secretary said that she would correct the minutes but under protest, how can this be.The secretary, if a member, has the right to express disagreement with a proposed change to the minutes. If the chairman feels the assembly is somewhat divided on a proposed change, he/she can put the matter to a vote. However, once the matter is settled, the secretary should cease debating the matter.-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Cisar Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM During the discussion of the minutes for any changes or correction asked by the chairperson, a correction was made and the secretary said that she would correct the minutes but under protest, how can this be.Because she was not happy with the change. To bad as the final wording of the minutes belongs to the assembly and not any individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry4000 Posted March 30, 2011 at 01:34 AM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 01:34 AM Because she was not happy with the change. To bad as the final wording of the minutes belongs to the assembly and not any individual.True, but what if the secretary's objection was due to an improper change, such as recording something that did not actually happen at the meeting, or to include comments, discussion, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 30, 2011 at 01:36 AM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 01:36 AM True, but what if the secretary's objection was due to an improper change, such as recording something that did not actually happen at the meeting, or to include comments, discussion, etc.?Then the change would, by definition, not be a correction. And we're talking about a correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 30, 2011 at 04:21 AM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 04:21 AM True, but what if the secretary's objection was due to an improper change, such as recording something that did not actually happen at the meeting, or to include comments, discussion, etc.?Then the Secretary would be justified in objecting, but the fact remains that the assembly has the final say over the content of the minutes. Although this raises an interesting point. I'm rather curious as to why the Secretary objected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 30, 2011 at 10:48 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 10:48 PM During the discussion of the minutes for any changes or correction asked by the chairperson, a correction was made and the secretary said that she would correct the minutes but under protest, how can this be.I assume the secretary is referring to adjusting the text of the minutes to reflect the correction made by the assembly. The secretary is essentially saying he will do his job, but under protest. The secretary is free to object to the correction and force a vote on it, if he's a member. If the secretary believes the correction violates a rule, such as to the form of the minutes, he should make a point of order. I see no parliamentary purpose for his comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.