special meeting minutes

[Noelgroup]

A Special Meeting (called for by 20% of members and according to our bylaws) was held 2 weeks ago and as the presiding officer did not attend, a pro tem chairman (the inexperienced condo property manager) was appointed. The Association Secretary was present and took minutes. Several actions resulted, including a successful motion to (finally) hold a written ballot on a question of interest to the membership (mentioned in the call) (and a question that has been successfully blocked by the board for some time now).

Who should be the approving body for the minutes?

The property manager has already replied to an email saying that he will give his vote tally report to the board and that the minutes are the responsibility of the secretary. We have pointed out to him that this was not a board meeting but have heard nothing back. The secretary has not replied or sent out the minutes. The board are against any change and may even try to delay things. We would like to think that the minutes will be accurate and reflect the decisions made, but we don't have a lot of history to support that thought/hope/wish. Anything in RONR that could help us on this?

If we had been more practised at this (there have been NO regular or special meetings held for the membership in the last 2 years and the last 'open' board meeting was September 2010) - we might have thought to ask for a group to be selected to carry out this minute approving task... but hindsight didn't catch up with us in time to think of it during the meeting!

[Rev Ed]

At the end of the day it is up to the organization. RONR suggests that if regular meetings are not scheduled on a quarterly basis (i.e. at least every three months) that the Board, or a Committee, be charged to approve the Minutes. The Minutes can be later amended through a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Or the general membership can simply approve the Minutes at its next regular meeting.

In one organization, for which I am Secretary, the Board, at its first meeting following the AGM will 'provisionally' approve the Minutes for the AGM and then place them before the general membership at the next AGM for final approval. Our rationale is that the Minutes are finished and ready to go and at least a group of people with "first hand" memory of the meeting can approve the Minutes while the meeting is still fresh. However, as the Minutes do not belong to the Board, but the general membership, the Board feels it is more appropriate for the general members to have the final say on the Minutes of their meeting.

[Gary c Tesser]

Setting aside the issue of the minutes itself (the issue, not the minutes themselves, though you could say that the minutes are implicitly laid on the table when the issue is set aside; not that I recommend you actually say that, you'll sound like a loon), what was enacted is in force. I think you all should keep an eye out, and if what was ordered is not done, then, after a respectable and civil, if pro forma, nudge of those responsible, call another special meeting and Say What For. As well as approving those minutes, and if there's doubt, go ahead and approve the minutes of the meeting you're in. (Yadda yadda, but so what. You're in a shootout.)

For that matter, why haven't you had membership meetings? Did you all tell the board to take care of scheduling them for you? Robert's Rules isn't the solution, moxie is the solution! (And the organization is the solvent; RONR is the stirring stick. Ooo, a 5 AM metaphor.)

[Noelgroup]

Thanks guys - much appreciated.

Rev Ed - your minutes approval practice seems very sensible - and one which we will try to implement in the future.

Gary T - I always enjoy reading your replies to posters on this forum - the wackier the better and full of info as well as amusement value - but now that I have my own answer from you I find I need a little more interpretation (or a 5am filter decoder?). What did you mean by -

• 
  

"Setting aside the issue of the minutes itself (the issue, not the minutes themselves, though you could say that the minutes are implicitly laid on the table when the issue is set aside; not that I recommend you actually say that, you'll sound like a loon), what was enacted is in force."

And yes, some of us have the moxie (I personally am full of it! ) but it is hard when all attempts at communication are ignored and not even replied to! Really. The only thing that seems to get any kind of response is a legal letter and that gets expensive after a while! But this forum is not about these issues - so thank you again for your replies and keep up the good work!

[Josh Martin]

What did you mean by -

"Setting aside the issue of the minutes itself (the issue, not the minutes themselves, though you could say that the minutes are implicitly laid on the table when the issue is set aside; not that I recommend you actually say that, you'll sound like a loon), what was enacted is in force."

It's always hazardous to guess what Mr. Tesser means, but I suspect that what he is getting at is that the motion is effective the moment it is adopted and should be carried out. The minutes are simply a record of the meeting and the fact that the minutes are not yet approved (or are inaccurate) does not affect the validity of the motion.

To put it another way, if the members are concerned that the board will try to delay what was adopted by the membership, the minutes are the least of your problems.

[Noelgroup]

Thank you Mr Martin - a useful clarification.