Minutes

[Guest Johnnie Carswell]

Three members of the current Board of Commissioners (five total) have been asked to approve minutes that are three years old after the Clerk discovered that had not been approved by the full board at the time of the meeting (2009). Is this appropriate to be done at this time by the three remaining members of the 2009 board?

[Dan Honemann]

Three members of the current Board of Commissioners (five total) have been asked to approve minutes that are three years old after the Clerk discovered that had not been approved by the full board at the time of the meeting (2009). Is this appropriate to be done at this time by the three remaining members of the 2009 board?

Well, they don't have the right to do it by themselves, but the current Board can do it.

[George Mervosh]

Well, they don't have the right to do it by themselves, but the current Board can do it.

Of course, but since 3 of the 5 current commissioners did it, would it be correct to say that they should consider those minutes approved anyway?

[Dan Honemann]

Of course, but since 3 of the 5 current commissioners did it, would it be correct to say that they should consider those minutes approved anyway?

Well, it needs to be done by the board at a meeting of the board. If that is what happened, then all's well.

[Guest Johnnie]

But, two of us (current members) were not at the 2009 meeting. So, the three current remaining members of the 2009 board can approve the 2009 minutes without the other two that have been voted off the board?

[Guest Edgar]

But, two of us (current members) were not at the 2009 meeting. So, the three current remaining members of the 2009 board can approve the 2009 minutes without the other two that have been voted off the board?

It's the board, as a body, that approves the minutes, not any one, two, or three members. And the members of the board who weren't members in 2009 have the same rights as those who were.

[Guest Edgar]

But, two of us (current members) were not at the 2009 meeting. So, the three current remaining members of the 2009 board can approve the 2009 minutes without the other two that have been voted off the board?

Also keep in mind that the approval of minutes is not put to a vote. Once all corrections (if any) have been agreed to, the chair simply declares the minutes approved. Clearly the three members who were present at the 2009 meeting may have more to say about what actually happened (i.e. attest to the accuracy of the minutes), but the two (current) members who weren't there have the same right to make suggested corrections (perhaps to form, if not to content). And the two who used to be members but aren't any more have no rights at all.

[Gary Novosielski]

But, two of us (current members) were not at the 2009 meeting. So, the three current remaining members of the 2009 board can approve the 2009 minutes without the other two that have been voted off the board?

No.

Everybody who is currently a member of the board gets to vote on board decisions. There are no attendance requirements. Ask anyone who says there are to show you the rule.

(I was at a board meeting just last night, where a member who was not present at the May meeting discovered an error and offered a correction to the minutes of that meeting. The minutes said that he had delivered the report of the Finance Committee, when in fact he was in Paris at the time.)

So it's correct that the two members voted off the board do not get to vote, but the members presumably voted on in their places do get to vote. And, as Edgar points out, votes are seldom necessary in the process of approving minutes, unless there is some disagreement about what a particular correction should say.