approving minutes

[Guest cindy]

I am unclear as to whether a motion is needed to approve minutes, or is it acceptable to simply ask for approval by acclamation? Same question for approving/accepting the treasurer's report.

[Steven Britton]

When there are no corrections, or no further corrections, the chair announces that the minutes stand approved. However, if someone happens to move for approval, it's not incorrect to put the question on the motion, either.

[Weldon Merritt]

And as to your second question, the treasurer's report should not be adopted or approved at all. It is simply filed. It is the audit (if one is performed) that is approrved.

[Dan Honemann]

When there are no corrections, or no further corrections, the chair announces that the minutes stand approved. However, if someone happens to move for approval, it's not incorrect to put the question on the motion, either.

A motion to approve the minutes is not out of order (although it is unnecessary), but it is out of order for the chair to put such a motion to a vote (RONR, 11th ed., p. 355, ll. 5-8).

[David A Foulkes]

A motion to approve the minutes is not out of order (although it is unnecessary), but it is out of order for the chair to put such a motion to a vote (RONR, 11th ed., p. 355, ll. 5-8).

I understand the concept behind this, and the inherent problems associated with a potential majority vote in the negative, but this does seem to contradict (somewhat) p. 39 ll. 8-11 (as well as p. 449 ll. 33-35). If the motion (seconded) is not out of order, and the wording is not unclear, "the chair must state the question." So, is this exception covered under the "In principle" that starts that sentence?

[Steven Britton]

A motion to approve the minutes is not out of order (although it is unnecessary), but it is out of order for the chair to put such a motion to a vote (RONR, 11th ed., p. 355, ll. 5-8).

Thanks, Dan.

This is actually one of my pet peeves, attending a meeting when the chair "entertains" a motion to approve the minutes.

I understand the concept behind this, and the inherent problems associated with a potential majority vote in the negative, but this does seem to contradict (somewhat) p. 39 ll. 8-11 (as well as p. 449 ll. 33-35). If the motion (seconded) is not out of order, and the wording is not unclear, "the chair must state the question." So, is this exception covered under the "In principle" that starts that sentence?

After reading Dan's cite, it becomes much clearer to me, now: "The minutes are thus approved without ANY formal vote, even if the a motion for approval has been made. The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary's draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 355, ll. 5-8).

However, in looking at the corresponding section on page 343 of RONR/10 (line 24) it stated:

"Whether or not a motion for approval has been offered, the chair MAY simply say "the minutes stand approved as adopted (or amended)." <excuse my paraphasing>

So, what was not specifically prohibited in RONR/10, the chair putting the approval of the minutes to a vote, is now specifically prohibited in RONR/11, correct?

Hence, the chair should NEVER "put" the question regarding the approval of minutes to a vote, at least since mid September 2011.

Question, to whom do I owe my $.25. <smile>

[Guest Cindy]

Thanks everyone! Very helpful replies.

[Josh Martin]

I understand the concept behind this, and the inherent problems associated with a potential majority vote in the negative, but this does seem to contradict (somewhat) p. 39 ll. 8-11 (as well as p. 449 ll. 33-35). If the motion (seconded) is not out of order, and the wording is not unclear, "the chair must state the question." So, is this exception covered under the "In principle" that starts that sentence?

As noted, the motion is in order (and the chair should therefore state the question) but it is not in order to put the motion to a vote. Thus, the rule of RONR, 11th ed., pg. 39, lines 8-11 is not violated, as it only refers to stating the question. The rule of RONR, 11th ed., pg. 449, lines 33-35 does refer to putting the question to vote, but the specific rule regarding the approval of the minutes trumps the general rule about putting motions to a vote (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 20, lines 9-16).

So, what was not specifically prohibited in RONR/10, the chair putting the approval of the minutes to a vote, is now specifically prohibited in RONR/11, correct?

Yes. This is made even more clear by the change in Table II in the tinted pages - for "Minutes, to approve (when proposed by a motion)", it now says "Is not voted on (see pp. 354-55)" under "Vote Required for Adoption" (RONR, 11th ed., tinted pgs. 18-19). Previously, the table stated "Majority" for this motion (RONR, 10th ed., tinted pgs. 18-19).

Hence, the chair should NEVER "put" the question regarding the approval of minutes to a vote, at least since mid September 2011.

Well, even under the 10th edition it was true that the chair should never put the approval of minutes to a vote - however, it is now clarified that such a procedure is not merely pointless and likely to cause problems, but is out of order.