approval of minutes-problems...

[Guest momof3]

Think you'll be hearing from me often as I'm learning my role as secretary,and am new to RONR....During the last meeting, there was discussion about approving the minutes-there is a division in the board as to what happened at the previous meeting. Rather than discuss the changes that John wanted to make before approving the minutes, John first made a motion to strike quite a bit out of the minutes (which changes the history of what happened)-motion passed along dividing lines. There was then another motion made to approve the minutes with the changes that had just been made by the preceding motion. I am only 3 months into my postion and didn't realize the dilemma I'm in until I went to type up the minutes. I see that I should just state the motion was made to approve the minutes with changes, however,...I also need to record each motion. Therefore, I would be stating the changes in the minutes. Confusing? I ended up putting both motions in the minutes figuring that someone would check me on it if I were wrong, but would like to have input from you knowledgable parlamentarians. Also, I am really struggling with the fact that they changed what happened-changed history. How do you deal with that when we are supposed to be honest?

[jstackpo]

First, get a copy of RONR, the "right Book", and read the chapter on Minutes -- p. 468 ff.

Sounds like you, or someone, is putting waaaay too much information in the minutes. The "history of what happened" simply doesn't belong there in the first place, only a record of what motions were made (no discussion) and what happened to the motions: adopted, defeated, postponed, &c. Sounds like "John" was doing the right thing.

[Guest Edgar]

Think you'll be hearing from me often . . .

Then you might want to consider becoming a "member" of this forum (thereby avoiding continuing battles with the CAPTCHA code). Membership is free and, as they say, no salesman will call.

Or you can wait until the powers that be switch to a more reasonable code. (Ask how that's workin' out for me.)

[David A Foulkes]

.... they changed what happened-changed history.

How? Did you record a motion made by Joe Smith to do Thus-And-So, which after debate was passed, and "they" changed "history" be deleting that recorded event? Or is it more along the lines of Joe said this and Mary said that and blah blah blah and "they" cleaned up the minutes by deleting that unnecessary jibber-jabber? What does "history" mean to you?

[David A Foulkes]

(Ask how that's workin' out for me.)

Yeah, um..... not going there, my friend.

[Guest momof3]

I appreciate all of your helpful responses, and see that I was way too vague about the situation...here is a more detailed explanation. Not sure how much I need to give out...it's like you need some history...there has been an ongoing issue between Jane and Jim-since Sept. and it is holding back the work we need to get done as a council. We need to be focusing on healthy relationships and a healthy environment for the congregation. So, this happened a couple months ago during a 2 hour time span at the regular meeting.

There was a motion to give Jane a leave of absence-idea being that she was free to return when there was a healthy relationship established between Jane and Jim(Jim is the only paid member). Jane got upset, verbal, and said she wouldn't take a leave of absence, instead she resigned and said she would turn her stuff in the next day. She then left the meeting. After she left, there was discussion of what to do from there. A sentence explaining the situation was read aloud and members were asked if everyone agreed with the statement. No one objected. (This to help control the gossip-which you know is going to happen.) We then made plans to cover Jane's position for an interim period. The following day, Jane sent an email saying that she never resigned. At the following council meeting the group was split in half.

This is what I had in the minutes:

Following the concerns stated by a number of council members, the council felt it was important that all agree on the wording and information that had occurred during this portion of the meeting. All members were asked and encouraged to add their input and agreed by consensus to the following statement" "A motion was made, but not seconded, to grant our treasurer a leave of absence for personal reasons. After a lengthy discussion, the treasurer decided to resign her position.”

B will contact C about fulfilling an interim treasurer position. If C declines, money from church reserves can be used to hire a temporary treasurer

At the meeting-there were 2 motions made in approving the minutes. One motion was made to take everything out except "A motion was made, but not seconded, to grant our treasurer a leave of absence for personal reasons" A second motion was made to approve the minutes with the corrections of the first motion.. I bought RONR, and I"ve become a regular reader of the forums, but at the time I didn't know that there should have only been one motion. I did ask, if they don't believe Jane resigned, why did they let us make the other plans, and the response was that they were "stunned". Should I have put both motions in the minutes? Also, I checked the by-laws and don't see anything about reinstating. Could that have been an option? I just want to make sure I'm doing things honestly and correctly. Also, I may be writing too much-I initially was following the previous secretary who wrote discussion -lots of" he said, she said"...which I since have been trying to avoid like the plague. Hope that helps with your understanding of the situation. Thank you again for your help:) and yes, that capshaw is a pain :/

[Gary Novosielski]

Am I correct that people are being "granted" leaves of absence who have never requested them?

What sort of nonsense is that?

[Josh Martin]

Therefore, I would be stating the changes in the minutes.

No, you wouldn't be. Changes which are made prior to the approval of the minutes are not recorded anywhere. Just record the minutes with the changes, and in the minutes where the changes were made you would simply note "The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as corrected."

Also, I am really struggling with the fact that they changed what happened-changed history. How do you deal with that when we are supposed to be honest?

As Dr. Stackpole notes, most history doesn't belong in the minutes to begin with. If the assembly actually removed or falsified a motion, that is problematic, but since you seem to be in the minority you don't have much in the way of parliamentary options.

There was a motion to give Jane a leave of absence-idea being that she was free to return when there was a healthy relationship established between Jane and Jim(Jim is the only paid member). Jane got upset, verbal, and said she wouldn't take a leave of absence, instead she resigned and said she would turn her stuff in the next day. She then left the meeting. After she left, there was discussion of what to do from there. A sentence explaining the situation was read aloud and members were asked if everyone agreed with the statement. No one objected. (This to help control the gossip-which you know is going to happen.) We then made plans to cover Jane's position for an interim period. The following day, Jane sent an email saying that she never resigned. At the following council meeting the group was split in half.

There's no such thing as a "leave of absence" or an "interim" position in RONR, so those terms are meaningless unless you have them defined in your organization's rules. So far as RONR is concerned, someone is either treasurer or not. Resignation, at least, is defined in RONR.

Following the concerns stated by a number of council members, the council felt it was important that all agree on the wording and information that had occurred during this portion of the meeting. All members were asked and encouraged to add their input and agreed by consensus to the following statement" "A motion was made, but not seconded, to grant our treasurer a leave of absence for personal reasons. After a lengthy discussion, the treasurer decided to resign her position.”

B will contact C about fulfilling an interim treasurer position. If C declines, money from church reserves can be used to hire a temporary treasurer

I'm just going to focus on the proper content of the minutes here and leave the other issues for other parts of this post. Assuming that what you originally had in the minutes (and the council's statement) is an accurate record of what happened, that section should read more like this:

"A motion by Mr. X that the treasurer be granted a leave of absence for personal reasons died for lack of a second.

The treasurer resigned.

The council agreed by unanimous consent to issue the following statement: 'A motion was made, but not seconded, to grant our treasurer a leave of absence for personal reasons. After a lengthy discussion, the treasurer decided to resign her position.'"

The rest is extraneous.

Should I have put both motions in the minutes?

No. You are correctly doing your duty as Secretary by correcting the minutes as ordered by the council. It is the council that erred by removing the motion to issue the statement (although the council was correct to remove some of the other stuff).

Also, I checked the by-laws and don't see anything about reinstating. Could that have been an option? I just want to make sure I'm doing things honestly and correctly.

If Jane did in fact resign, which is apparently in dispute, then the options for "reinstating" the treasurer depends on what the council did afterward. Rather than issuing a statement, the usual first order of business after a resignation is for the chair to put the question on accepting the resignation. This is generally handled by unanimous consent. If this happened (or if the council considers that their statement and discussion of finding a replacement constitutes acceptance of the resignation, and I can see a plausible case for that), then Jane is out of office and the only way back in is for whoever is authorized to fill the vacancy (the council, perhaps?) to appoint her as treasurer again.

If the board did not accept the resignation and considers that its statement and subsequent discussion did not constitute acceptance of the vacancy, then Jane is still in office and she has effectively withdrawn her resignation (since she claims she never made it to begin with), so she is still the treasurer.

If Jane never resigned (as she claims), then she is still in office.

Of course, all of this may be moot, since notwithstanding what actually happened, the board has apparently decided that Jane never resigned, the board never discussed what to do about the resignation, and the board never voted to issue a statement, so I suppose Jane is still in office.

Additionally, for future reference, the method to remove someone from office against their will is to follow the disciplinary procedures in your Bylaws, or if your Bylaws are silent, the procedures in Ch. XX of RONR, not to make a motion "to grant them a leave of absence."

Am I correct that people are being "granted" leaves of absence who have never requested them?

Well, based the facts presented, the council tried to grant someone a leave of absence to someone who had not requested it, but she declined and decided to take a more permanent leave of absence, and then changed her mind, and then the council decided most of that never happened. Real-world assemblies can get so creative that it becomes difficult to apply the rules of RONR.

What sort of nonsense is that?

Any sort of "leave of absence" is nonsense unless it is defined in the organization's rules.