Guest Secretary Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:22 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:22 AM How should this scenario be listed in minutes using Roberts Rules?A revised job description was presented, in conjunction with a title change.A motion was made by XXX, seconded by XXXX, to approve the title change/job description as presented.A motion was made by XXX, seconded by XXXX, to amend the job title.A motion was made by XXX, seconded by XXXX, to withdraw the amended motion and keep the job description as originally requested.Motion carried: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SusannaB Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:26 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:26 AM After a motion is made, seconded and approved...it can not be amended. The amendment should've been made before the vote was takenon the original motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:35 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:35 AM After a motion is made, seconded and approved...it can not be amended. The amendment should've been made before the vote was takenon the original motion.Except there is such a thing as Amending Something Previously Adopted (RONR pp. 305-310). Secretary, see RONR pp. 468-471 for what should go into the minutes and pp.472-473 for a sample of what the minutes should look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:40 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:40 AM The amendment should've been made before the vote was taken on the original motion.Who says it wasn't?The situation, as described, is confusing but it appears that several motions were made before anything was voted on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SusannaB Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:51 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 at 01:51 AM You are right. I misread the original question. I thought it stated that the motion was made, seconded and approved...My Bad! Thank for correcting me.I don't ever want to give out wrong answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 17, 2012 at 02:09 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 at 02:09 AM [snip]I don't ever want to give out wrong answers.Why should you be any different from the rest of us? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 17, 2012 at 02:13 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 at 02:13 AM Why should you be any different from the rest of us?At least the rest of us don't have annoying ads appended to every post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 17, 2012 at 02:21 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 at 02:21 AM C'mon, she's new. Quit kvetching. Have a beer. Watch Grimm, though we've missed the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 17, 2012 at 03:42 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 at 03:42 AM How should this scenario be listed in minutes using Roberts Rules?A revised job description was presented, in conjunction with a title change.A motion was made by XXX, seconded by XXXX, to approve the title change/job description as presented.A motion was made by XXX, seconded by XXXX, to amend the job title.A motion was made by XXX, seconded by XXXX, to withdraw the amended motion and keep the job description as originally requested.Motion carried:Let me know if I understand this correctly, as it is a bit hard to follow: A motion was made to approve the title change/job description, someone moved to amend it, the amendment was withdrawn, and the motion was approved as it was originally made.If that is correct, the minutes should read like this: "Mr. X moved to approve the title change/job description as presented. The motion was adopted after debate."You should use the exact wording of the actual motion in the minutes. If it really was as vague as "to approve the title change/job description as presented," it may be wise to file the title change/job description along with the minutes so people reading the minutes know what you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 29, 2012 at 11:07 PM Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 at 11:07 PM How should this scenario be listed in minutes using Roberts Rules?A revised job description was presented, in conjunction with a title change.A motion was made by XXX, seconded by XXXX, to approve the title change/job description as presented. . . .Motion carried:If that is correct, the minutes should read like this: "Mr. X moved to approve the title change/job description as presented. The motion was adopted after debate."You should use the exact wording of the actual motion in the minutes. If it really was as vague as "to approve the title change/job description as presented," it may be wise to file the title change/job description along with the minutes so people reading the minutes know what you're referring to.Josh,Why is this motion any more vague than a motion "to adopt the resolution relating to ___, which I have delivered to the secretary"? Don't you think the minutes should include the text of the resolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 31, 2012 at 02:41 AM Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 at 02:41 AM Why is this motion any more vague than a motion "to adopt the resolution relating to ___, which I have delivered to the secretary"?It's not.Don't you think the minutes should include the text of the resolution?Of course.I don't have an objection to placing the title change/job description directly into the minutes, although it may be better to make reference to it and place the full text at the end if it is overly lengthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 31, 2012 at 03:48 AM Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 at 03:48 AM Don't you think the minutes should include the text of the resolution?Of course.I don't have an objection to placing the title change/job description directly into the minutes, although it may be better to make reference to it and place the full text at the end if it is overly lengthy.OK. But, going back to my example, do you think it would be appropriate for the minutes to say that <<Mr. X moved "to adopt the resolution relating to ___, which I have delivered to the secretary">>, or <<Mr. X moved to adopt the resolution relating to ___, which he had delivered to the secretary>>, rather than simply saying that <<Mr. X moved the adoption of the following resolution: "...">>?I'm trying to understand why you think the exact words used by a member in moving the adoption of a written motion, or the approval of a written proposal, should make a substantial difference in how the minutes are written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 1, 2012 at 09:30 PM Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 at 09:30 PM OK. But, going back to my example, do you think it would be appropriate for the minutes to say that <<Mr. X moved "to adopt the resolution relating to ___, which I have delivered to the secretary">>, or <<Mr. X moved to adopt the resolution relating to ___, which he had delivered to the secretary>>, rather than simply saying that <<Mr. X moved the adoption of the following resolution: "...">>?No, I do not think this would be appropriate.I'm trying to understand why you think the exact words used by a member in moving the adoption of a written motion, or the approval of a written proposal, should make a substantial difference in how the minutes are written.Quite frankly, I simply had not considered the applicability of your example to other comparable situations. I see now that in cases where the member/chair uses some shorthand to refer to a printed document, the text of RONR, 11th ed., pg. 469, lines 17-21 should be more properly be understood to refer to the actual document that is adopted by the assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 1, 2012 at 10:07 PM Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 at 10:07 PM Might we move this, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 2, 2012 at 03:33 PM Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 at 03:33 PM Might we move this, please?Are you suggesting that the content of this thread is below the level of "General Discussion"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 2, 2012 at 09:20 PM Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 at 09:20 PM Might we move this, please?Are you suggesting that the content of this thread is below the level of "General Discussion"? Since Mr. Tesser's written motion is sufficiently unclear, may the chair require that it be submitted orally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 2, 2012 at 10:00 PM Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 at 10:00 PM Since Mr. Tesser's written motion is sufficiently unclear, may the chair require that it be submitted orally?I can't help but picture someone (perhaps played by Robert DeNiro) saying, "Submit this orally!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.