Supplemental rules for Minutes

[paulmcclintock]

Suppose a group wants to adopt a rule that the minutes should contain a list of all members in attendance. Assume they don't want to encumber their bylaws with such a rule. Would the rule be a standing rule (administrative), or a special rule of order (procedural)?

Could they later at a particular meeting agree to omit the list from a particular set of minutes? If so, by what vote requirement (two-thirds, to suspend the "rule of order")?

[Rob Elsman]

Suppose a group wants to adopt a rule that the minutes should contain a list of all members in attendance. Assume they don't want to encumber their bylaws with such a rule. Would the rule be a standing rule (administrative), or a special rule of order (procedural)?

Could they later at a particular meeting agree to omit the list from a particular set of minutes? If so, by what vote requirement (two-thirds, to suspend the "rule of order")?

A special rule of order should be adopted to add a heading for a roll call to the established order of business. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 349, ll. 25-33. If the society's established order of business is embodied in the bylaws, then the heading would be added by adopting an amendment to the bylaws; otherwise, it could be adopted as a stand-alone motion or resolution like any other special rule of order.

[Josh Martin]

Would the rule be a standing rule (administrative), or a special rule of order (procedural)?

It would be a special rule of order.

Could they later at a particular meeting agree to omit the list from a particular set of minutes? If so, by what vote requirement (two-thirds, to suspend the "rule of order")?

Yes. It would require a 2/3 vote.

[Chris Harrison]

A special rule of order should be adopted to add a heading for a roll call to the established order of business. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 349, ll. 25-33. If the society's established order of business is embodied in the bylaws, then the heading would be added by adopting an amendment to the bylaws; otherwise, it could be adopted as a stand-alone motion or resolution like any other special rule of order.

Would setting up a SRO to add a Roll Call to the order of business also extend to adding whoever attended the meeting into the minutes? Or would that require a second SRO? I would think that a separate SRO would be necessary because who is at the meeting 10 minutes into the meeting might be different then who was there when Roll was called due to members coming and going. I would also imagine that the SRO could be suspended by a 2/3 vote

[Rob Elsman]

Would setting up a SRO to add a Roll Call to the order of business also extend to adding whoever attended the meeting into the minutes? Or would that require a second SRO? I would think that a separate SRO would be necessary because who is at the meeting 10 minutes into the meeting might be different then who was there when Roll was called due to members coming and going. I would also imagine that the SRO could be suspended by a 2/3 vote

There is nothing I know of in RONR about keeping track of members' comings and goings during a meeting.

[paulmcclintock]

Thanks for reminding me of the rules for roll calls for attendance on p. 349. Quite helpful.

[Chris Harrison]

There is nothing I know of in RONR about keeping track of members' comings and goings during a meeting.

But the original question was regarding listing in the minutes all members in attendance. If you just included who was there at Roll Call that would not reflect who walked in five minutes late but still did attend the meeting.

[Rob Elsman]

But the original question was regarding listing in the minutes all members in attendance. If you just included who was there at Roll Call that would not reflect who walked in five minutes late but still did attend the meeting.

I'm all dry. RONR says so much and no more.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Suppose a group wants to adopt a rule,

that the minutes should contain a list of all members in attendance.

Assume they don't want to encumber their bylaws with such a rule.

Would the rule be a standing rule (administrative), or a special rule of order (procedural)?

Could they later at a particular meeting agree to omit the list from a particular set of minutes?

If so, by what vote requirement (two-thirds, to suspend the "rule of order")?

Interesting question.

I was leaning toward "rule of order" because it occurs inside a meeting.

But!

Such a rule has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure.

The business shall be transacted EXACTLY THE SAME, whether the rule is enforced 100% or violated 100%. -- It affects nothing.

Indeed its realization will only occur after the secretary finishes writing down the final name, at adjournment hour. Or later!

(The secretary is not obligated to write down the names dynamically, as people enter. The rule only specifies an end-product, and not a process.)

So it cannot be a "rule of order".

Like "wearing badges", or like fonts and typefaces and point-size, it must be in the nature of a standing rule, which is obeyed DURING a meeting, but not at all related to parliamentary procedure.

***

A test.

Q. Can a nonmember be delegated this duty of the new rule?

If you can delegate this "new" duty to a nonmember, then that is more weight to the argument that it isn't a rule of order, since no member, and no members' rights, are involved. Special rules of order won't apply to nonmembers, until or unless the nonmember executes a RIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP, like (a.) speaking; (b.) making motions.

This "test" is not absolute. But it does add a bit more ammunition to the side that "anything you can kick to paid staff" will be something other than a "rule of order", in most cases, in most circumstances.

[Josh Martin]

Like "wearing badges", or like fonts and typefaces and point-size, it must be in the nature of a standing rule, which is obeyed DURING a meeting, but not at all related to parliamentary procedure.

Are you suggesting that all rules relating to the content of the minutes are standing rules, or just this one?

A test.

Q. Can a nonmember be delegated this duty of the new rule?

If you can delegate this "new" duty to a nonmember, then that is more weight to the argument that it isn't a rule of order, since no member, and no members' rights, are involved. Special rules of order won't apply to nonmembers, until or unless the nonmember executes a RIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP, like (a.) speaking; (b.) making motions.

This "test" is not absolute. But it does add a bit more ammunition to the side that "anything you can kick to paid staff" will be something other than a "rule of order", in most cases, in most circumstances.

I'm not sure that's a very good test. Plenty of rules of order involving the duties of officers can be delegated to non-members. For instance, a non-member may preside over a meeting.