Correcting minutes -- or amending a resolution?

[Guest Vic Rosenthal]

Recently my organization allocated $5,000 for a specific purpose. At the next meeting, when the minutes were read, the chairman insisted that they were in error and the amount was $2,500. Then a motion was made to 'correct' the minutes, which passed by a majority of 1 vote!

I protested that there should have been a motion to amend, which would have required a 2/3 vote, but the chairman and his group insisted that they were 'only' correcting the minutes.

Given that there were many more members present when the original motion was passed, it was recorded as $5,000 by the Secretary, the orgainization's executive director, and the Treasurer (me), I feel like a fast one was pulled. Was it?

Wouldn't it vititate the whole idea of a motion to amend or rescind if all you had to do was 'correct the minutes' when you wanted to undo a decision?

[George Mervosh]

You can't rewrite history, but those present when the minutes are approved decide what was really adopted. Obviously there was confusion when it was adopted.

Move to change the allocation via a motion to amend something previously adopted, accept the results of that vote, and move on.

[Guest Victor Rosenthal]

I see the point. But it's problematic that it's always possible to amend a resolution by a simple majority at a lightly-attended meeting.

[George Mervosh]

I see the point. But it's problematic that it's always possible to amend a resolution by a simple majority at a lightly-attended meeting.

RONR's rules aren't meant for a society that doesn't wish to follow rules.

[jstackpo]

And furthermore...

It only requires a majority to "correct" - amend - minutes when they are first presented for adoption or approval.

[Larry Cisar]

Submitting motions, including motions to amend, in writing helps to alleviate this problem. Kept papers offer proof.