Minutes

[Guest Tawana E]

Can three to four months of minutes be approved by a new majority of members during a special call meeting just to approve the specific minutes?

[Bruce Lages]

If by "the specific minutes", you mean specifically those three to four months worth of minutes, then yes. But see RONR, 11th ed. p.354. l. 9 and following for the proper way to approve minutes. If there are no corrections offered, a majority vote will not be necessary.

[Guest Tawana]

Thanks!

[Guest Tawana]

What do you mean; a majority vote need not be necessary if no corrections? Please elaborate

[David A Foulkes]

What do you mean; a majority vote need not be necessary if no corrections? Please elaborate

A vote should not be taken on the approval of minutes, but any corrections that are proposed that cannot be agreed upon by all members present would be subject to a majority vote to be included or not. After all corrections are dealt with, the chair simply announces the minutes to be approved (either "as read" if no corrections, or "as corrected" if there are).

From RONR:

After any proposed corrections have been disposed of, and when there is no response to the chair's inquiry, "Are there any corrections [or "further corrections"] to the minutes?" the chair says, "There being no corrections [or "no further corrections"] to the minutes, the minutes stand [or "are"] approved [or "approved as read," or "approved as corrected"]." The minutes are thus approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made. The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary's draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it. It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval. (RONR 11th ed. p. 354 l. 34 - p. 355 l. 11)

[Gary Novosielski]

What do you mean; a majority vote need not be necessary if no corrections? Please elaborate

Yes.

The only way to object to the approval of minutes is to propose a correction to them. So, when no (more) corrections are offered, the minutes stand approved, essentially by unanimous consent.

[Anawat47]

Yes.

The only way to object to the approval of minutes is to propose a correction to them. So, when no (more) corrections are offered, the minutes stand approved, essentially by unanimous consent.

So, I don't need approval from the new body to approve those specific minutes?

[Bruce Lages]

No, not if there are no corrections offered to those minutes. As noted, if there are no corrections, you (assuming you are the chair) will simply declare those minutes as approved. However, if there are corrections offered, and there is not unanimous consent that the corrections are accurate, approval by a majority vote will be necessary to incorporate those corrections into the minutes.

And the body that will do the approving is the members present at this special meeting, whether new, old, or a combination thereof.

[Sean Hunt]

Although I would question that you need bother with a special meeting for this purpose, since ordinarily, approving the minutes is of little importance. Does your organization attach some special significance to approving the minutes?

[Anawat47]

Although I would question that you need bother with a special meeting for this purpose, since ordinarily, approving the minutes is of little importance. Does your organization attach some special significance to approving the minutes?

Yes, and thanks

[Guest Edgar]

So, I don't need approval from the new body to approve those specific minutes?

The minutes need approval but the approval doesn't need a vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

So, I don't need approval from the new body to approve those specific minutes?

Yes, you need to have the minutes approved if they were never approved. But there is no "new body". There is the same body with new members, and that body is approving its own minutes.

You do NOT need to approve them by a motion and vote, but you do approve them by reading them, asking if there are corrections, accepting any corrections which are not controversial, voting on any that are, and then, when they are in final form, declaring them approved.

Why you need a special meeting for this is quite unclear.

[Anawat47]

Yes, you need to have the minutes approved if they were never approved. But there is no "new body". There is the same body with new members, and that body is approving its own minutes.

You do NOT need to approve them by a motion and vote, but you do approve them by reading them, asking if there are corrections, accepting any corrections which are not controversial, voting on any that are, and then, when they are in final form, declaring them approved.

Why you need a special meeting for this is quite unclear.

I am unclear myself as to why we are in need a special call meeting to approve the minutes. I was actually wondering where I would find that info in RONR if any?

[David A Foulkes]

I am unclear myself as to why we are in need a special call meeting to approve the minutes. I was actually wondering where I would find that info in RONR if any?

Won't find it in RONR, not explicitly anyway. What hasn't been asked/explained (though it's only personal curiosity at work here) is why the minutes have not been approved for three or four months? Each meeting should approve the minutes of the previous one, and early on in the order of business, so they shouldn't be piling up like this unless you never achieve a quorum.

While it is "important" to approve the minutes, such approval (or lack thereof) has no affect on the business conducted at the previous meeting(s). Any motions that received an adequate affirmative vote were adopted, effectively immediately. They don't need the approval of the minutes to make them effective. So, it's mostly an administrative procedure, but still worth attending to in a timely fashion. Grouping them to be approved at a Special Meeting implies another, perhaps larger, problem that should be addressed.

[George Mervosh]

Grouping them to be approved at a Special Meeting implies another, perhaps larger, problem that should be addressed.

Perhaps so, but it's clearly proper if special meetings are authorized by the bylaws. http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2012_1

[David A Foulkes]

Perhaps so, but it's clearly proper if special meetings are authorized by the bylaws. http://www.robertsru...ist.html#2012_1

Oh, I'm not saying it is parliamentarily improper to do so, I'm just saying there is a hint at another problem at the root of this that should not be ignored.

[Guest Edgar]

Oh, I'm not saying it is parliamentarily improper to do so, I'm just saying there is a hint at another problem at the root of this that should not be ignored.

(though it's only personal curiosity at work here)

[Sean Hunt]

I am unclear myself as to why we are in need a special call meeting to approve the minutes. I was actually wondering where I would find that info in RONR if any?

On occasion, someone comes here with a mistaken impression, such as that no action is official until the minutes are approved. This is false; the minutes are just the record of the action already taken. So if it was something like that, it might be better just to actually go ahead with whatever it is that needs doing, rather than have a rather pointless meeting just to approve minutes. If the meeting will happen anyway, it might be a good idea to ask at the meeting why, so that it can be avoided in the future.