Record Retention

[Guest Sherri]

I'm the secretary of a Board and would like to know how long Board of Director minutes to be retained. Also, which records need to be retained. We have committee reports, financials, minutes, etc.

[Guest Edgar]

I'm the secretary of a Board and would like to know how long Board of Director minutes to be retained. Also, which records need to be retained. We have committee reports, financials, minutes, etc.

The short answer: Keep everything forever.

[Guest Nancy N.]

We need a longer answer.

[Tim Wynn]

We need a longer answer.

Keep minutes, reports, bylaws, special rules of order, and standing rules until the organization is dissolved.

[Tim Wynn]

We need a longer answer.

Forever and a day?

[Guest Sherri]

No . . . not really! Seriously?

[Guest Sherri]

What about financial reports? They're already in QuickBooks.

[Tim Wynn]

What about financial reports? They're already in QuickBooks.

The records of the organization should be preserved as long as the organization endures. You never know, a member may want to examine them, as is his right.

[Guest Sherri]

Thank you for all of your help. Just what I was looking for.

[Gary Novosielski]

What about financial reports? They're already in QuickBooks.

What about them?

[Rev Ed]

It also depends on the jurisdiction. Financial documents normally must be retained for at least seven years. Although it is advisable to keep records forever - you never know when you might need to know something from the past.

[Tim Wynn]

It also depends on the jurisdiction. Financial documents normally must be retained for at least seven years. Although it is advisable to keep records forever - you never know when you might need to know something from the past.

This, of course, has nothing to do with RONR.

[Guest Guest]

The records of the organization should be preserved as long as the organization endures. You never know, a member may want to examine them, as is his right.

Other than the minutes, which it seems clear RONR intends an organization to keep forever, where does it say that, or even imply it regarding the other documents the original poster mentioned.

[Guest Guest]

Other than the minutes, which it seems clear RONR intends an organization to keep forever, where does it say that, or even imply it regarding the other documents the original poster mentioned.

I am speaking of length of time to retain.

[Tim Wynn]

Other than the minutes, which it seems clear RONR intends an organization to keep forever, where does it say that, or even imply it regarding the other documents the original poster mentioned.

Take a look at the following locations in RONR (11th ed.):

p. 458, l. 34 "To keep on file all committee reports."

p. 459, l. 1 "To keep the organization's official membership roll..."

p. 459, l. 13-17 "To maintain record book(s) in which the bylaws, special rules of order, standing rules, and minutes are entered, with any amendments to these documents properly recorded, and to have the current record book on hand at every meeting."

In the first two cases, when the word "keep" is used without qualification, I don't imagine it has an expiration. More importantly, in the third case, I don't see how the secretary can have these records at EVERY meeting if he opts to throw them away from time to time.

Finally, p. 459, ll. 4-5, dictates that the secretary shall make the minutes and RECORDS available to members upon request. This is a feat that becomes considerably more difficult after the distruction of those records.

[Tim Wynn]

I am speaking of length of time to retain.

I've been getting a lot of questions from Guest_Guest, lately, which makes me think that some parliamentary prodigy is reluctant to become a member of this forum or that a member of this forum is hiding behind anonymity (wouldn't be the first time). I'm not too thrilled with either of those possibilities.

Who knows: it could be my imagination.

[David A Foulkes]

I've been getting a lot of questions from Guest_Guest, lately, which makes me think that some parliamentary prodigy is reluctant to become a member of this forum or that a member of this forum is hiding behind anonymity (wouldn't be the first time). I'm not too thrilled with either of those possibilities.

Who knows: it could be my imagination.

While I too cringe when I see posts by "Guest_Guest", there's nothing preventing someone from registering with a "real names" such as John R. Brown (p. 472 l. 16) or Ernest Dunn (p. 273 l. 16) or Mrs. Applegarth (p. 179 l. 25), none of which would lend any more credence, validity or legitimacy to their posts by virtue of a name. What motivates someone to post simply as Guest_Guest who knows, or cares?

[Tim Wynn]

While I too cringe when I see posts by "Guest_Guest", there's nothing preventing someone from registering with a "real names" such as John R. Brown (p. 472 l. 16) or Ernest Dunn (p. 273 l. 16) or Mrs. Applegarth (p. 179 l. 25), none of which would lend any more credence, validity or legitimacy to their posts by virtue of a name. What motivates someone to post simply as Guest_Guest who knows, or cares?

You doth protest too much, methinks.

[Guest Edgar]

I've been getting a lot of questions from Guest_Guest, lately, which makes me think that some parliamentary prodigy is reluctant to become a member of this forum or that a member of this forum is hiding behind anonymity (wouldn't be the first time). I'm not too thrilled with either of those possibilities.

I can only chalk it up to laziness since "Guest_Guest_" is the default when nothing is entered. I'd also add that it's rude but maybe that's just me. You certainly don't need to use your real name ("H. Wm. Mountcastle"? Really?) but you should at least have the courtesy to present a consistent identity.