Babs Posted November 3, 2012 at 06:55 AM Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 at 06:55 AM What is the proper procedure when the minutes of a meeting accurately reflect what was said by the Chairman of a committee in a committee report, but it was later discovered that what the chairman said was inaccurate? I am the recording secretary and am of the opinion that the minutes reflect what actually was said in the meeting, and should not be altered by corrections to those minutes. I think that the correction should come during the next meeting when the chiairman can correct himself and that will be reflected in those minutes. Am I right or wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM The minutes should only reflect what is done at a meeting not what is said (RONR p. 468 ll. 16-18). So if you all get rid of the references to what was said and stick to what was done the problem will be resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted November 3, 2012 at 01:24 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 at 01:24 PM The minutes should only reflect what is done at a meeting not what is said (RONR p. 468 ll. 16-18). So if you all get rid of the references to what was said and stick to what was done the problem will be resolved. However, in this case it appears that the 'what was said' was a committee report. Short reports do sometimes have a place in the minutes (pp. 526-27).Regarding the original question, the minutes should be an accurate report of the business conducted. If the (inaccurate) report belonged in the minutes in the first place (see Chris's cautionary statement), then it is not appropriate to retroactively alter the content of the report in the process of writing up the minutes.You might consider adding a marginal note about the correction (e.g. "Mr. Brown misspoke in reporting that the club had received a bill for $1,219 from General Roofing. The actual amount of the bill was $1,291."). Stay tuned, though, for possible opinions that such a marginal note is not in accordance with RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted November 3, 2012 at 01:51 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 at 01:51 PM Stay tuned, though, for possible opinions that such a marginal note is not in accordance with RONR.Such a marginal note is not in accordance with RONR . . . unless it only directs the reader to the minutes of a subsequent meeting where a correction was presented. While the simple transposition of two numbers seems a likely (and harmless) candidate for marginalia, I fear it creates the proverbial slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 3, 2012 at 02:05 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 at 02:05 PM However, in this case it appears that the 'what was said' was a committee report. Short reports do sometimes have a place in the minutes (pp. 526-27).Regarding the original question, the minutes should be an accurate report of the business conducted. If the (inaccurate) report belonged in the minutes in the first place (see Chris's cautionary statement), then it is not appropriate to retroactively alter the content of the report in the process of writing up the minutes.You might consider adding a marginal note about the correction (e.g. "Mr. Brown misspoke in reporting that the club had received a bill for $1,219 from General Roofing. The actual amount of the bill was $1,291."). Stay tuned, though, for possible opinions that such a marginal note is not in accordance with RONR.I think there is no chance whatsoever that the committee report to which Babs refers falls within one of the extremely limited exceptions described on pages 526-27. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.