Amendment to minutes

[Guest L Rockwood]

A time and date of an upcoming sub-committee meeting was recorded in the minutes. The time/date was subsequently changed at a later date. When it came to approving the minutes, a motion to amend the time/date was made. There was discourse between members as to whether an amendment was needed as the minutes correctly reflected what was known and stated at the time of the original meeting. Should the correction be made or not, and the Robert's Rules of Order addresses this issue? I couldn't find any reference.

[Guest Edgar]

 . . .  the minutes correctly reflected what was known and stated at the time of the original meeting

 

As they should. Leave the minutes alone. Don't rewrite history.

[Josh Martin]

A time and date of an upcoming sub-committee meeting was recorded in the minutes. The time/date was subsequently changed at a later date. When it came to approving the minutes, a motion to amend the time/date was made. There was discourse between members as to whether an amendment was needed as the minutes correctly reflected what was known and stated at the time of the original meeting. Should the correction be made or not, and the Robert's Rules of Order addresses this issue? I couldn't find any reference.

 

I'm not sure this information needed to be in the minutes to begin with, but in any event, the correction should not be made. As you note, the minutes correctly reflected what was stated at the time of the meeting.

[Rev Ed]

I'm not sure this information needed to be in the minutes to begin with, but in any event, the correction should not be made. As you note, the minutes correctly reflected what was stated at the time of the meeting.

 

I would not change the date and time - that was decision at the meeting, which is what the Minutes are supposed to reflect.

 

Josh, why do you think the information does not need to be in the Minutes?  I know it's a Committee (which normally would not need to keep 'official' Minutes, but normally if the decision was made, it should be included in Minutes regardless.

[Guest Edgar]

 . . . normally if the decision was made, it should be included in Minutes regardless.

 

It's not at all clear that any decision was made at that meeting.

[Josh Martin]

Josh, why do you think the information does not need to be in the Minutes?  I know it's a Committee (which normally would not need to keep 'official' Minutes, but normally if the decision was made, it should be included in Minutes regardless.

 

Edgar's point is why I'm not sure.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm curious how the time and date got changed before the meeting ever took place, if the minutes truly reflected what was decided at the last meeting.

[Rev Ed]

I'm curious how the time and date got changed before the meeting ever took place, if the minutes truly reflected what was decided at the last meeting.

 

I hope the original poster comes back and explains this, but I can see how this might happen:

 

At a meeting where there are three members: you, me, and John.  We agree to hold the next meeting on February 29th at 7:30 p.m.   When we get home, John and I realize that we both have other commitments (we checked our calenders when we got home.)  As such, with only one member present (you), the meeting will not achieve much.  However, through e-mails, we find out that everyone is available the day before.  So we decide to hold the meeting one day earlier.

 

This assumes that the By-laws of the organization do not require a specific day of the week for the meeting to be held or that there must be a very long notice period, etc.

[Gary c Tesser]

Oh Ed, you're really not kidding?  You figure two civilians over the telephone can override what has been determined at a meeting?

 

(Yes it might not make sense for Gary Novosielski to have a meeting by himself and make all the decisions for the society on his own.  On the other hand, you could do a lot worse, and probably most organizations do.)

[Josh Martin]

At a meeting where there are three members: you, me, and John.  We agree to hold the next meeting on February 29th at 7:30 p.m.   When we get home, John and I realize that we both have other commitments (we checked our calenders when we got home.)  As such, with only one member present (you), the meeting will not achieve much.  However, through e-mails, we find out that everyone is available the day before.  So we decide to hold the meeting one day earlier.

 

This cannot be done unless the bylaws authorize the assembly to make decisions by e-mail.

[Timothy]

This cannot be done unless the bylaws authorize the assembly to make decisions by e-mail.

 

I'm not sure that's totally true. If two members of a three person committee decide outside of the meeting to not show up, there won't be a quorum whether the third person decides to show up or not. The chairman or possibly two members of the committee could call for a meeting at another time. So the same effect of simply rescheduling the meeting via e-mail is possible by the rules given in RONR, even if the bylaws don't specifically allow for decisions to be made by e-mail. 

[Josh Martin]

I'm not sure that's totally true. If two members of a three person committee decide outside of the meeting to not show up, there won't be a quorum whether the third person decides to show up or not. The chairman or possibly two members of the committee could call for a meeting at another time. So the same effect of simply rescheduling the meeting via e-mail is possible by the rules given in RONR, even if the bylaws don't specifically allow for decisions to be made by e-mail. 

 

Interesting. Yes, in the case of a committee, I suppose this could be done. The first meeting would still technically need to be held, but with only one person present and another meeting already scheduled, I imagine that meeting will be quite brief. 

 

I think I forgot that we were talking about a committee.

[Guest Edgar]

I'm not sure that's totally true.

 

It's totally true. I'm sure.

 

The fact that only one (of three) members attends the meeting doesn't mean the meeting wasn't (or shouldn't have been) held as scheduled.

[Timothy]

Guest_Edgar, my point was that it could be done that way to get the same effect. In reality, the three members of the committee are probably going to simply reschedule the meeting by e-mail and no one has good reason to say that they did anything wrong because they are only taking some shortcuts that have no impact on the end result.

[Guest L Rockwood]

Thank you to all who provided input. And to answer your questions:

 

At the meeting of the Council members, which is guided by the Council Bylaws and subject to open meeting laws, a Chair of a committee announced in her oral report that said committee would be meeting the following month on {date/time}. Subsequently, the time of the committee meeting, which is not subject to the open meeting laws, was changed in order to accommodate the interpreter's schedule since an interpreter was not available at the original time. Our bylaws do not regulate meeting changes. 

[Josh Martin]

At the meeting of the Council members, which is guided by the Council Bylaws and subject to open meeting laws, a Chair of a committee announced in her oral report that said committee would be meeting the following month on {date/time}. Subsequently, the time of the committee meeting, which is not subject to the open meeting laws, was changed in order to accommodate the interpreter's schedule since an interpreter was not available at the original time. Our bylaws do not regulate meeting changes. 

 

Based on these additional facts, I think it is clear that an informational announcement regarding the time of a committee meeting has no reason to be put in the minutes of the meeting of the council, at least under the rules in RONR. Since this is a public body, however, it's quite possible the organization's rules or applicable law provide otherwise. In any event, however, the response to your original question is still that there is no reason to change what was in the meeting minutes on the basis of something that happened after the meeting adjourned.

 

Whether the change of the time for the committee meeting was handled appropriately is not entirely clear from the facts presented, but that's a separate issue.

[Timothy]

At the meeting of the Council members, which is guided by the Council Bylaws and subject to open meeting laws, a Chair of a committee announced in her oral report that said committee would be meeting the following month on {date/time}. Subsequently, the time of the committee meeting, which is not subject to the open meeting laws, was changed in order to accommodate the interpreter's schedule since an interpreter was not available at the original time. Our bylaws do not regulate meeting changes. 

 

This puts a different spin on the question. What seems to have happened here is that additional information was included in the "minutes" other than the minutes of the meeting. This was likely because the "minutes" are being used as a means of communication, rather than just a record of the meeting. Since this is the case, it would be a good idea to make some distinction between the informational only stuff that is included and the actual minutes of the meeting. There is no reason that the information stuff couldn't be modified to reflect the correct meeting time or even a note appended that mentions the change. The actual minutes, however, should always be consistent with what happened at the meeting.

[Guest Nancy N.]

L Rockwood, how important do you think it is that the minutes might read one way, when what actually happened and what actually is done is different?

 

I ask because I'm looking at the Original Post, and it looks to me (especailly, for example, the third sentence) as if you're thinkikng that the way to change the scheduled meeting time for the committee is to change what the minutes say.  Is that the way you see it?