Approval of minutes

[Guest Tom]

Does a person need to be in attendance at a previous meeting in order to move that its minutes be accepted?

[Guest Edgar]

Does a person need to be in attendance at a previous meeting in order to move that its minutes be accepted?

No, but a formal motion isn't even required. Once all corrections have been made (and the formerly absent member is free to suggest corrections), the chair can simply declare the minutes approved (not "accepted").

[Guest Tom]

Thanks, I was told that the mover and secpnder for the approval of previous minutes was necessary. Perhaps it was just common practice at the local organization.

[Rev Ed]

Well a motion to approve the Minutes is not required, but would not be out of order either. However, there should never be a vote on the Minutes as a whole - but a vote could take place on individual corrections or alterations if there is a dispute as to what occurred at the meeting.

However, in most cases an absent member will not know exactly what occurred at the meeting, but might be able to offer suggestions on formatting, content, etc. of the Minutes.

[sMargaret]

There are quite a lot of incorrect customs about the approval of the minutes, and I shudder to think of all the time that is wasted in reading, finding someone to make the motion, finding a seconder, having the seconder say "wait, wait, I wasn't at the meeting, better find someone else", having discussion on whether or not that is necessary, and then have the secretary say "wait, who made the motion? And how do you spell your name"?

What is suggested in this forum (and of course, supported by The Book), is to approve the minutes by Unanimous Consent:

Chair asks if there are any amendments or corrections to the minutes (which were distributed in advance). Chair may even given a few moments for members to quickly scan the minutes.

Chair then states, "If there is no objection (pause) we will approve the minutes as distributed (or as amended)."

Personally, I would then suggest that the chair direct the secretary to record that the minutes were approved by unanimous consent.

[Dan Honemann]

There are quite a lot of incorrect customs about the approval of the minutes, and I shudder to think of all the time that is wasted in reading, finding someone to make the motion, finding a seconder, having the seconder say "wait, wait, I wasn't at the meeting, better find someone else", having discussion on whether or not that is necessary, and then have the secretary say "wait, who made the motion? And how do you spell your name"?

What is suggested in this forum (and of course, supported by The Book), is to approve the minutes by Unanimous Consent:

Chair asks if there are any amendments or corrections to the minutes (which were distributed in advance). Chair may even given a few moments for members to quickly scan the minutes.

Chair then states, "If there is no objection (pause) we will approve the minutes as distributed (or as amended)."

Personally, I would then suggest that the chair direct the secretary to record that the minutes were approved by unanimous consent.

Unfortunately, these statements are completely wrong. Read pages 354-55 again.

[sMargaret]

Memory failed in details, but not in concept. "Completely" wrong, I would disagree with.

Chair announces that minutes were sent to all members in advance, and therefore the minutes will not be read aloud. (assuming that is the case, and assuming nobody requests that minutes be read).

Chair asks "Are there any corrections to the minutes?" and pauses.

Chair says "There being no (further) correction to the minutes, the minutes are approved (as read/as corrected)."

My reason for directing the secretary for noting this in the minutes is for the situations where one is introducing the concept of unanimous consent, it may not otherwise be written down (sigh).

I will also note that my paragraph about the incorrect customs was meant to indicate that the sequence of events given there is, in fact, incorrect.

[Dan Honemann]

Memory failed in details, but not in concept. "Completely" wrong, I would disagree with.

Chair announces that minutes were sent to all members in advance, and therefore the minutes will not be read aloud. (assuming that is the case, and assuming nobody requests that minutes be read).

Chair asks "Are there any corrections to the minutes?" and pauses.

Chair says "There being no (further) correction to the minutes, the minutes are approved (as read/as corrected)."

My reason for directing the secretary for noting this in the minutes is for the situations where one is introducing the concept of unanimous consent, it may not otherwise be written down (sigh).

I will also note that my paragraph about the incorrect customs was meant to indicate that the sequence of events given there is, in fact, incorrect.

There is a substantial difference between adopting something by unanimous consent (the procedure described on pages 54-56), and the procedure by which minutes are approved. As you will note, an objection to a unanimous consent request results in a vote being taken, but no vote is ever taken on the approval of minutes. The only way to object to their approval is to offer a correction.