Minutes

[Guest Randall]

I've searched RONR for an hour already, and I know the RONR 'Think Tank' can assist me faster than my present pace. When reading the minutes of the previous meeting, a member made an inaccurate statement which was recorded in the minutes. The Secretary corrects the statement, crossing out what was actually said and replacing it with the fact. I know this is improper to do so, but I am unable to find the source. Thanks.

[jstackpo]

Well.... what is actually more or less improper is the inclusion of the "statement", whether right or wrong, in the minutes in the first place.

ALL that should be there is a formal record of motions made and how they were disposed of, plus some administrative details. See p. 468 ff. for all the details. Do that and you will avoid any number of "I never said that" / "Oh, yes to did!" arguments.

[David A Foulkes]

...... crossing out what was actually said and replacing it with the fact.

The minutes "should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members." (RONR 11th Ed., p. 468 ll. 17-18)

The secretary made the first mistake including comment/discussion/debate in the minutes. If s/he doesn't do that again, this problem will be avoided.

[Guest Edgar]

And if your organization wants to ignore RONR's advice and record what was said, then record what was said, not what should have been said, or what was meant to have been said.

The minutes of the next meeting could record that, when Joe Smith said "black" at the previous meeting, he meant "white".

But, as advised, none of this belongs in the minutes in the first place.

[Gary c Tesser]

Or, since I don't quite follow this, and i don't think anyone will disagree with this, becauxe it's inarguable: if the statement that the minutes should have recorded said "teal," then the minutes should record that the word was "teal."

(Not that I personally like "teal.")

[Trina]

I've searched RONR for an hour already, and I know the RONR 'Think Tank' can assist me faster than my present pace. When reading the minutes of the previous meeting, a member made an inaccurate statement which was recorded in the minutes. The Secretary corrects the statement, crossing out what was actually said and replacing it with the fact. I know this is improper to do so, but I am unable to find the source. Thanks.

Others have said that what was said doesn't belong in the minutes in the first place. This is generally true, but if the incorrect statement was perhaps part of a brief report presented to the assembly (as described at the top of p. 526 in RONR 11th ed.) then the secretary would be correct in recording 'the complete substance of the report in the minutes as it is given orally.'

In such a case it is certainly possible that the reporting member, knowingly or unknowingly, says something inaccurate. For example, "rental cost of the large dining room at XYZ Restaurant, where we plan to hold our club Christmas party, will be $150." Later, it is discovered that the actual cost to the organization would be $350, with a $150 deposit required up front. It would be improper for the secretary to cross out "150" and substitute "350" -- that was not the substance of the report as it was given orally.

I suppose the assembly could order a footnote (or something of that sort) to be inserted before approving the minutes, so that the correct information is there close at hand in the organization's records... as long as the record of what actually happened at the meeting is not improperly 'corrected'.

[Dan Honemann]

Others have said that what was said doesn't belong in the minutes in the first place. This is generally true, but if the incorrect statement was perhaps part of a brief report presented to the assembly (as described at the top of p. 526 in RONR 11th ed.) then the secretary would be correct in recording 'the complete substance of the report in the minutes as it is given orally.'

In such a case it is certainly possible that the reporting member, knowingly or unknowingly, says something inaccurate. For example, "rental cost of the large dining room at XYZ Restaurant, where we plan to hold our club Christmas party, will be $150." Later, it is discovered that the actual cost to the organization would be $350, with a $150 deposit required up front. It would be improper for the secretary to cross out "150" and substitute "350" -- that was not the substance of the report as it was given orally.

I suppose the assembly could order a footnote (or something of that sort) to be inserted before approving the minutes, so that the correct information is there close at hand in the organization's records... as long as the record of what actually happened at the meeting is not improperly 'corrected'.

I'm afraid that this example ("rental cost of the large dining room at XYZ Restaurant, where we plan to hold our club Christmas party, will be $150.") clearly will not fit into any one of the types of reports that can be rendered orally in a small assembly, as described on pages 526-27 of RONR (11th ed.).

[Trina]

I'm afraid that this example ("rental cost of the large dining room at XYZ Restaurant, where we plan to hold our club Christmas party, will be $150.") clearly will not fit into any one of the types of reports that can be rendered orally in a small assembly, as described on pages 526-27 of RONR (11th ed.).

You are correct, of course, that my example doesn't actually fit into one of the designated categories on those pages (if I had read more thoroughly, I would have made up a better example). However, the main point I was trying to make is that there are (rare) occasions when the secretary should record what someone says at a meeting, and, if there are inaccuracies in what is said/reported, it is not the secretary's job to correct the inaccuracies when preparing the minutes.

I am now curious about oral reports in general (since such reports are very common in the small organizations I see in person); however, that's really a question separate from this thread.