Minutes drafting

[Jayadev]

While drafting minutes I know the general rule is to write what is done rather what was said. In our Not for profit organization Board meeting a motion was proposed by A and seconded by B and immediately an amendment was proposed and seconded by C and D. ,then an amendment to amendment was proposed and seconded E and F.

The amendment to the amendment was failed, and the amendment proposed by D was accepted. Board passed the motion with proposed amendment.

My question is while drafting the minutes do we need to mention all the details of amendment and amendment to amendment or simply write what was adopted by the board final verston of resolution? Thanks in advance.

Jay Mett

[jstackpo]

The final versiion, as finally adopted as "the" main motion, is all that needs to be in the minutes.

A special case exception: if the whole thing was postponed (or the like) to the next meeting midway in the process of amending, you would have to record whatever was pending, including the main and any pending amendments. This way the group will "remember" where to pick things up next time.

[Trina]

The minutes should contain the name of the maker of the motion, and 'the wording in which each motion was adopted or otherwise disposed of (with the facts as to whether the motion may have been debated or amended before dispostion being mentioned only parenthetically)' (RONR 11th ed. p. 469 ll. 17-21)

So, the minutes might say, "Mr. A made a motion, which, after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows: "[exact wording of the motion as finally adopted, including, in your example, the amendment to the motion which was offered by member C and adopted by the assembly]"

[Tim Wynn]

While drafting minutes I know the general rule is to write what is done rather what was said. In our Not for profit organization Board meeting a motion was proposed by A and seconded by B and immediately an amendment was proposed and seconded by C and D. ,then an amendment to amendment was proposed and seconded E and F.

The amendment to the amendment was failed, and the amendment proposed by D was accepted. Board passed the motion with proposed amendment.

My question is while drafting the minutes do we need to mention all the details of amendment and amendment to amendment or simply write what was adopted by the board final verston of resolution? Thanks in advance.

Jay Mett

Ms. A made a motion, which, after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows: "that President Smith be commended for opening the club to those displaced by the flood over the weekend."

Personally, if the amendment presents an extreme change, I lean toward recording it as shown below.

Ms. A moved "that President Smith be commended for opening the club to those displaced by the flood over the weekend," which, after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows: "that President Smith be censured for opening the club to those displaced by the flood over the weekend."

[Trina]

Ms. A made a motion, which, after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows: "that President Smith be commended for opening the club to those displaced by the flood over the weekend."

Personally, if the amendment presents an extreme change, I lean toward recording it as shown below.

Ms. A moved "that President Smith be commended for opening the club to those displaced by the flood over the weekend," which, after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows: "that President Smith be censured for opening the club to those displaced by the flood over the weekend."

Thank you for providing this example. I was wondering about the case when the original motion is greatly modified, to the extent of not representing the view of the original motion maker at all in the extreme case. I would also record it as you describe in your example. However, does RONR provide any support for this approach?

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you for providing this example. I was wondering about the case when the original motion is greatly modified, to the extent of not representing the view of the original motion maker at all in the extreme case. I would also record it as you describe in your example. However, does RONR provide any support for this approach?

No, RONR doesn't provide for this, but it can be a useful way to head off the nightmare of approving the minutes, when the maker doesn't want his name attached to the motion that was adopted or lost.

[Weldon Merritt]

No, RONR doesn't provide for this, but it can be a useful way to head off the nightmare of approving the minutes, when the maker doesn't want his name attached to the motion that was adopted or lost.

An even better way, in my opinion, is to not include the name of the maker of the motion in the first place. This, too, is at variance from the rule in RONR (and therefore should be supported by a Special Rule of Order); but I have never heard a particularly convincing reason for the exixtence of that rule. What is impartant is what was adopted, not who proposed it. And if, in a rare instance, the assembly deems it important to include the name of the maker, they are free to order that on a case-by-case basis.

[Jayadev]

I sincerely thank all of you for your help

Jay