Correspondence as unfinished business

[Louise]

As a guest at a Board meeting this week, "correspondence" was listed near the end of the agenda. By the time that part of the meeting (finally) rolled around, it was late and they postponed it until the next meeting.

It appears, however, that they have been doing so for a couple of months and have yet to get to the correspondence.

If it were just thank you letters etc., I'm thinking that would be fine, but a couple of the letters require action by the Board...and they aren't getting to the letters in the course of the meeting.

I'm thinking they need to move these letters to "Unfinshed Business" and deal with them relatively early during the next business. (And I made that suggestion...hopefully I wasn't completely out of order in doing so!)

Are there different "types" of correspondence? Should some letters actually be included under "New Business" on the agenda?

[Guest Nancy N.]

(First. Teeth grinding. The correspondence was not a guest! Ask David Foulkes, who used to think that the Gulf Stream swims in the ocean.)

†he important stuff here I usually get wrong, so here goes. 1. RONR does not differentiate between types of correspondence. (Please all set aside jokes about e-mail.) 2. If the agenda is adopted, and I'm probably wrong on this, then specific items on it constitute general orders; therefore if they are not gotten to, they are (item (d) at the top of p. 359; bottom of p. 365). Also (p. 358) since this stuff was postponed, it gets moved up into Unfinished business and General Orders.

Also note that Unfinished comes before New in the standard list (p. 25-26), so that's your better bet.

Finally, as a guest, note that Louise has zero rights at a board meeting, though any sensible board, or any collection of humans who find themselves in her presence, would do poorly to disregard her.

(1.)

[Louise]

(First. Teeth grinding. The correspondence was not a guest! Ask David Foulkes, who used to think that the Gulf Stream swims in the ocean.)

Point well taken! You're quite right - allow me to rephrase that: As a guest at a Board meeting this week, I noted that "correspondence" was listed near the end of the agenda.(I'm rather mortified that I'm guilty as charged. It was late. I was tired. [insert appropriate excuse here]...)

1. RONR does not differentiate between types of correspondence. 2. If the agenda is adopted, and I'm probably wrong on this, then specific items on it constitute general orders; therefore if they are not gotten to, they are (item (d) at the top of p. 359; bottom of p. 365). Also (p. 358) since this stuff was postponed, it gets moved up into Unfinished business and General Orders.

Also note that Unfinished comes before New in the standard list (p. 25-26), so that's your better bet.

That's why I suggested they put it under "unfinished". Although now I'm wondering: Does correspondence that hasn't been discussed at all (yet...still) qualify as "unfinished"?

And having scoured RONR for the word "correspondence", it has occurred to me that it is used rather seldom. Would I be correct in surmising that perhaps it would be best for "correspondence" to NOT be its own item at the end of the agenda, assuming that this Board presumably has a tendency to not get to that portion of the meeting?

Finally, as a guest, note that Louise has zero rights at a board meeting, though any sensible board, or any collection of humans who find themselves in her presence, would do poorly to disregard her.

(1.)

Thank you for your very kind words.

[David A Foulkes]

That's why I suggested they put it under "unfinished". Although now I'm wondering: Does correspondence that hasn't been discussed at all (yet...still) qualify as "unfinished"?

I've always thought the example as noted on p. 355 l. 31-33 was pretty standard.

[Bruce Lages]

I agree with David. I would also refer you to p. 460, ll. 2-5: "If, under 'Reports of Officers' in the order of business, correspondence of an official character is to be read, it is normally read by the recording secretary, and not by the corresponding secretary." I take this to mean that correspondence is appropriately placed under Reports of Officers in the standard order of business.

[Louise]

I've always thought the example as noted on p. 355 l. 31-33 was pretty standard.

I agree with David. I would also refer you to p. 460, ll. 2-5: "If, under 'Reports of Officers' in the order of business, correspondence of an official character is to be read, it is normally read by the recording secretary, and not by the corresponding secretary." I take this to mean that correspondence is appropriately placed under Reports of Officers in the standard order of business.

Thank you so very much, Mr. Foulkes and Mr. Lages. These references are exactly what I was looking for.

Louise