Can not have scheduled meeting due to no minutes

[Jamey]

My organization has not had a meeting in several months because the secretary was "suspended" indefinitely, and as result, he has refused to provide the minutes of the previous meeting. I was told that per Robert's Rule, we can not have a meeting without the minutes. I suggested the scheduled meeting should have been called and a motion could be made to suspend the rules. After passing the suspension, another motion to have the meeting without the reading of the previous minutes(after all we don't have them anyway) should be made. I was told we couldn't do this. I just don't understand how not having minutes that are obviously not going to be provided can be the excuse to not have meetings that are mandatory per our Bylaws. My question is how do we address this?

[George Mervosh]

What you were told was incorrect.  You need to continue to hold meetings.  Elect someone at each meeting to take minutes to be approved at the subsequent meeting.  If all you're missing is a set or two of minutes your group can create a committee to create a set on their own and approve them, assuming anyone remembers what happened.  If not, just move on for now having meetings and having someone other than the Secretary take minutes each time.

[Jamey]

Ok, I understand what you are saying. I need to know how to handle the first meeting. Do we just skip the process of the minutes all together, or do we acknowledge the fact that we don't have the minutes and move to elect someone to take the minutes for that meeting and the next? Wouldn't it be easier to elect a secretary pro tem? If so, what and how exactly should we go about this? I ask because I plan on showing this to someone in my organization and the "steps" to take, would be accepted more so by someone with a little more parliamentarian expertise than myself so to speak.

[Gary c Tesser]

Jamey.  First.  Get yourself, and maybe your president also, a copy of RONR - In Brief and read it.  At once.  Right there at the bookstore, standing there, maybe step aside from the register so other customers can buy their copies.  It -- your first reading -- should take maybe an hour or so; I'm told that college graduates somehow need more time.  No eating first, no going back to work, someone else can pick up the kids or shoot flamethrowers at Godzilla:  your job for the next hour is to read that little book.  Especially, horrors, don't leave it till you're fresh the next day:  the next day is when your second reading comes.

 

That one hour will put you years ahead of everyone else.  And come back here and ask more questions.  (Everyone does.  Knowledge stimulates thinking.  Unless you're a Democrat.)

 

... I need to know how to handle the first meeting. Do we just skip the process of the minutes all together, or do we acknowledge the fact that we don't have the minutes and move to elect someone to take the minutes for that meeting and the next? 

 

George Mervosh gave you the basics.  Oh yes, you don't ignore your minutes problem. The presiding officer tells the assembly (to make it official, since I guess pretty much everyone knows) that you don't have previous minutes, so let's have a committee cobble together a set of after-the-fact-collected list of what we did last meeting, and we can approve it next meeting at minutes-approving time.

 

(For that matter:  if there's time before your upcoming meeting, anyone, or a group, can cobble together (Great Steaming Cobnuts, I hope that's the last time I use that expression this year, if not forever) the best record he, or they, (or she or they, depending on the pronoun) of what was done at the previous meeting.  Then, at the meeting -- preferably having briefed the chairman beforehand, so as not to blindside him -- he (or she) should stand up and offer his work as a proposed draft of the minutes.  Actually, that's what minutes are, anyway.  Then you treat it exactly as if it were the secretary's draft:  the chairman asks if there are any corrections, and when any corrections are agreed to and put into the draft, the chair declares the minutes approved.  Bingo!)

 

Then, as Mr Mervosh advises, to cover this current meeting, "elect someone at each meeting to take minutes to be approved at the subsequent meeting."

 

(But that election, presumably brief and simple, deals with only the current meeting.  If you want to elect a secretary pro tem who will serve for more than the current meeting, you have to announce the election beforehand.

 

(I confess that this is not in your RONR - In Brief; and for that matter I don't think it's in the full RONR, either.  I say that about previous notice of the election of a secretary pro tem for more than one meeting by analogy with what RONR says about electing a chairman pro tem for more than one meeting.  I might be off base; not the first time this month.)

 

... Wouldn't it be easier to elect a secretary pro tem? If so, what and how exactly should we go about this?

 

Jamey, that's what a secretary pro tem is.  What's your impression of what a secretary pro tem is, if not that?

 

... I ask because I plan on showing this to someone in my organization and the "steps" to take, would be accepted more so by someone with a little more parliamentarian expertise than myself so to speak.

 

Better off showing him p. 459, at the bottom, to the top of p. 460; and the top of p. 453, in RONR, if you have time to get a copy of it also.  And no, I'm not going to rant at you about how long it'll take you to read those 800 pages.  It's five in the morning; you should get some sleep.

 

Oh, and if you're serious about showing this to someone, post again and say so, so I or someone else can rewrite this and leave out the inane jokes and asides, so it will seem less frivolous.

____________

N. B.  Kidding about Democrat.

 

[Edited to tinker]

[Jamey]

Gary, most of the stuff you said I knew (I have taken the time to read the "official book"), In fact I also have an unofficial copy on all of my electronic devices just in case I can't get to my copy of RONR! It's difficult to explain this stuff to someone in an official capacity when they themselves seem not to have read it and refuse to accept what you say even if you attempt to let them read it from the Book. Some people would rather hear or read this from a "Gary", a "George", or a "Josh" or even the guy that refers to himself continuously as a guest when he's been posting forever and a day "Edgar", (whom I haven't heard from yet, I guess you can say that I'm an undercover fan of you guys incite!)

I do plan on showing this to someone, hence the reason I posed the question! I will repost it if you want, but I see no serious harm in the jokes! After all, life may be serious, but there is a need for a good laugh every once in a while.

Thank you for taking the time to answer, I had confidence that some of the people I actually follow would respond! So far I am two for two... Still waiting on Josh, Edgar, and the "good doctor".

Now off to work I go.

[Edgar Guest]

Still waiting on Josh, Edgar, and the "good doctor".

 

I can't think of anything to add to Mr. Mervosh's reply (#2).

 

Wouldn't it be easier to elect a secretary pro tem?

That's what Mr. Mervosh suggested. After the chair calls the meeting to order, a brief election is held to select a secretary pro tem.