Minutes of previous meeting not approved.

[Guest Ray]

Please bear with me while I explain the situation in detail.

 

At a university department meeting a vote was taken as to whether or not the department would approve a new program of study. A quorum was present. This passed unanimously with 5 abstentions and not a single no. Immediately after the vote discussion about the program continued as some members weren't sure exactly how the program would be implemented.  Someone then called for a second motion that the department "would continue to develop implementation of the program." This also passed unanimously.  Whether or not this second vote was procedurally correct, it happened before the Chair running the meeting realized what was going on. And it did not negate the first vote in her mind or in the minds of others: the next step for the department WAS to discuss how the program, now approved, would be implemented.  

 

Two weeks after the meeting several faculty members seem to have changed their minds about the approved program and tried to claim that the vote was not to APPROVE the program but merely to continue to DISCUSS it.  They even asked the secretary to show them the minutes so they could make sure the reflected their incorrect version of events before distributing them to the Chair and all members of the department. The secretary did not do this and distributed minutes.  They did not include the 5 abstentions but otherwise accurately record the two votes as I described above.  

 

At the following department meeting the secretary moved to amend the minutes to include the 5 abstentions. This amendment was approved unanimously. When the vote to approve the minutes was brought up one faculty member blurted out, "You all should realize that if we approve these minutes we are approving the new program." 7 voted yes, 9 voted no, and 3 abstained. Nobody offered any further amendments to change the minutes.  The Chair, not familiar with Robert's Rules, did not know what to do when minutes are not approved and just moved on with the rest of the meeting and voted to approve some new courses.

 

So what can be done to salvage this fiasco?

 

Can people who were not present at a particular meeting vote whether or not to approve the minutes?  Some voting not to approve the minutes were not even at the meeting in question.  

 

Do amendments need to be made to the minutes until they are finally approved?  What if amendments are not offered?  Do changes to the minutes have to be unanimous?  What if an amendment that is not accurate is offered but accepted by the majority?

 

Can a majority of obstructionists block minutes being approved?  Can they, in effect, change history?  If the minutes are not approved does this mean the unanimous vote to approve the program at the previous meeting is null and void?

 

Can further meetings be held without minutes from previous meeting approved?  Are the votes at the second meeting to approve new courses now null and void?  

 

In sum, what should the Chair do to prevent a large block of obstructionists from changing history and scuttling a program that was approved by the majority?  

 

Thank you. 

[Dan Honemann]

Please bear with me while I explain the situation in detail.

 

At a university department meeting a vote was taken as to whether or not the department would approve a new program of study. A quorum was present. This passed unanimously with 5 abstentions and not a single no. Immediately after the vote discussion about the program continued as some members weren't sure exactly how the program would be implemented.  Someone then called for a second motion that the department "would continue to develop implementation of the program." This also passed unanimously.  Whether or not this second vote was procedurally correct, it happened before the Chair running the meeting realized what was going on. And it did not negate the first vote in her mind or in the minds of others: the next step for the department WAS to discuss how the program, now approved, would be implemented.  

 

Two weeks after the meeting several faculty members seem to have changed their minds about the approved program and tried to claim that the vote was not to APPROVE the program but merely to continue to DISCUSS it.  They even asked the secretary to show them the minutes so they could make sure the reflected their incorrect version of events before distributing them to the Chair and all members of the department. The secretary did not do this and distributed minutes.  They did not include the 5 abstentions but otherwise accurately record the two votes as I described above.  

 

At the following department meeting the secretary moved to amend the minutes to include the 5 abstentions. This amendment was approved unanimously. When the vote to approve the minutes was brought up one faculty member blurted out, "You all should realize that if we approve these minutes we are approving the new program." 7 voted yes, 9 voted no, and 3 abstained. Nobody offered any further amendments to change the minutes.  The Chair, not familiar with Robert's Rules, did not know what to do when minutes are not approved and just moved on with the rest of the meeting and voted to approve some new courses.

 

So what can be done to salvage this fiasco?

 

Can people who were not present at a particular meeting vote whether or not to approve the minutes?  Some voting not to approve the minutes were not even at the meeting in question.  

 

Do amendments need to be made to the minutes until they are finally approved?  What if amendments are not offered?  Do changes to the minutes have to be unanimous?  What if an amendment that is not accurate is offered but accepted by the majority?

 

Can a majority of obstructionists block minutes being approved?  Can they, in effect, change history?  If the minutes are not approved does this mean the unanimous vote to approve the program at the previous meeting is null and void?

 

Can further meetings be held without minutes from previous meeting approved?  Are the votes at the second meeting to approve new courses now null and void?  

 

In sum, what should the Chair do to prevent a large block of obstructionists from changing history and scuttling a program that was approved by the majority?  

 

Thank you. 

 

I suggest that you read what is said in RONR, 11th ed., on pages 354-55 and 473-75 concerning approval of minutes, and then see if you have any further questions.

[Thomas Ralph]

The approval of the minutes should not be put to a vote. The chair should ask for corrections and then declare the minutes approved when no further corrections are forthcoming. If a majority supports a correction to the minutes, then the correction is made. This should not be done in an attempt to "rewrite history"; however, majority rules.

The number of members abstaining on a motion should not generally be included in the minutes.

The fact that the minutes of a meeting were not approved does not rescind the motions passed at that meeting. Those motions remain valid and in force until and unless they are properly rescinded. Nevertheless, the minutes should be approved at the next meeting.

The motions made at the second-mentioned meeting are also still valid and in force.

A complication could arise if it is not possible to hold both sets of courses (e.g. if there are only a certain number of instructors or a limited budget). In this event, it could be said that the motion(s) to hold courses made at the second meeting, or at least some of them, are out of order for conflicting with a previously approved main motion, unless they were adopted by a vote sufficient to amend or rescind that previous motion, in which case they implicitly do so.

If it were up to me, I would at the next meeting contrive to approve the minutes, rescind the whole mess, and approve the courses you actually want to run.

[Gary Novosielski]

Please bear with me while I explain the situation in detail.

 

At a university department meeting a vote was taken as to whether or not the department would approve a new program of study. A quorum was present. This passed unanimously with 5 abstentions and not a single no. Immediately after the vote discussion about the program continued as some members weren't sure exactly how the program would be implemented.  Someone then called for a second motion that the department "would continue to develop implementation of the program." This also passed unanimously.  Whether or not this second vote was procedurally correct, it happened before the Chair running the meeting realized what was going on. And it did not negate the first vote in her mind or in the minds of others: the next step for the department WAS to discuss how the program, now approved, would be implemented.  

 

Two weeks after the meeting several faculty members seem to have changed their minds about the approved program and tried to claim that the vote was not to APPROVE the program but merely to continue to DISCUSS it.  They even asked the secretary to show them the minutes so they could make sure the reflected their incorrect version of events before distributing them to the Chair and all members of the department. The secretary did not do this and distributed minutes.  They did not include the 5 abstentions but otherwise accurately record the two votes as I described above.  

 

At the following department meeting the secretary moved to amend the minutes to include the 5 abstentions. This amendment was approved unanimously. When the vote to approve the minutes was brought up one faculty member blurted out, "You all should realize that if we approve these minutes we are approving the new program." 7 voted yes, 9 voted no, and 3 abstained. Nobody offered any further amendments to change the minutes.  The Chair, not familiar with Robert's Rules, did not know what to do when minutes are not approved and just moved on with the rest of the meeting and voted to approve some new courses.

 

So what can be done to salvage this fiasco?

 

Can people who were not present at a particular meeting vote whether or not to approve the minutes?  Some voting not to approve the minutes were not even at the meeting in question.  

 

Do amendments need to be made to the minutes until they are finally approved?  What if amendments are not offered?  Do changes to the minutes have to be unanimous?  What if an amendment that is not accurate is offered but accepted by the majority?

 

Can a majority of obstructionists block minutes being approved?  Can they, in effect, change history?  If the minutes are not approved does this mean the unanimous vote to approve the program at the previous meeting is null and void?

 

Can further meetings be held without minutes from previous meeting approved?  Are the votes at the second meeting to approve new courses now null and void?  

 

In sum, what should the Chair do to prevent a large block of obstructionists from changing history and scuttling a program that was approved by the majority?  

 

Thank you. 

 

You can't vote No on approving minutes.  The only way to register disapproval of the draft is to offer a correction.  And offering a "correction" that is actually not what happend is not in order. 

 

Besides, passing the minutes does not mean you're approving the program.  You already did that, and that motion is still in effect whether the minutes are ever approved or not.

 

If I were chairing this bunch, I'd require all motions to be in writing.

[Josh Martin]

So what can be done to salvage this fiasco?

 

Can people who were not present at a particular meeting vote whether or not to approve the minutes?  Some voting not to approve the minutes were not even at the meeting in question.  

 

Approve the minutes at the next meeting. The right way.

 

If you do it right, there is no vote on "whether or not to approve the minutes." The chair declares the minutes approved after any corrections are handled. Members could vote on a correction to the minutes if there is disagreement (even members who were not present at the meeting in question).

 

Do amendments need to be made to the minutes until they are finally approved? What if amendments are not offered? 

 

Amendments don't need to be offered, but if someone wants to make a change, offering a correction is the way to do it. If no amendments are offered, the chair declares the minutes approved as read.

 

Do changes to the minutes have to be unanimous?

 

No. Corrections are usually handled by unanimous consent, but a majority vote is sufficient if there is disagreement.

 

What if an amendment that is not accurate is offered but accepted by the majority?

 

Then you'll have inaccurate minutes.

 

Can a majority of obstructionists block minutes being approved?

 

No. They can amend the minutes, but they can't actually block the assembly from adopting any minutes.

 

Can they, in effect, change history?

 

Unless they have a time machine, no, I don't think they can change what actually happened. They could make it so that the minutes are not an accurate record of what happened, although it should be obvious that this is a terrible idea.

 

I'll point out now that if the members who wish to not approve this new program constitute a majority of the assembly, there are probably much less silly ways to accomplish that objective. I'll get to that later.

 

If the minutes are not approved does this mean the unanimous vote to approve the program at the previous meeting is null and void?

 

No.

 

Can further meetings be held without minutes from previous meeting approved?

 

Yes.

 

Are the votes at the second meeting to approve new courses now null and void?  

 

No.

 

In sum, what should the Chair do to prevent a large block of obstructionists from changing history and scuttling a program that was approved by the majority?  

 

Depending on how large this bloc is, the chair might not be able to stop them from scuttling the program, but he can hopefully stop them from falsifying history. I think the best course of action is for the chair to sit down with these people and explain that there are better ways to achieve their goals than falsifying or eliminating the assembly's record of that meeting.

 

The minutes are intended to be an accurate record of what happened at the meeting and corrections to the minutes are used to improve the accuracy of the minutes. Approving the minutes has nothing to do with whether people like what happened or even if what happened was proper. If some members don't like the motion, the appropriate course of action is for a member to make a motion to Rescind (to get rid of the motion entirely) or Amend Something Previously Adopted (to change the motion). Such a motion requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice for adoption. Previous notice can be given orally at the previous meeting or by including it in the call of the meeting.

 

If the majority continues to insist on "changing history" instead, you might need to take this to a higher authority in the university or talk to a lawyer or something.