Guest Nicolette Anderson Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:04 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:04 PM An agenda item (Approval of Board Agenda) was briefly discussed during the board meeting. The Chair asked if there were any abstentions. The Board replied no. No motion or vote was entertained to approve the baord agenda. Should the minutes be noted to reflect the oversight and have it address at the next Board meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:13 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:13 PM See FAQ #14 regarding agendas. Minutes are a record of what was done at a meeting (see FAQ #15). If there was no motion, there is nothing to record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:17 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:17 PM The Chair asked if there were any abstentions. The Board replied no. Abstentions to what? If no vote was taken then there was nothing to abstain from. Not that the chair should be calling for abstentions in the first place, of course. The chair should call for "Ayes" and then "Nos" (or "Noes", if you prefer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:21 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:21 PM See FAQ #14 regarding agendas. Minutes are a record of what was done at a meeting (see FAQ #15). If there was no motion, there is nothing to record. Abstentions to what? If no vote was taken then there was nothing to abstain from. Not that the chair should be calling for abstentions in the first place, of course. The chair should call for "Ayes" and then "Nos" (or "Noes", if you prefer). Do either of you think this was a botched request for unanimous consent to approve the agenda, and the fact that the agenda was seemingly approved and used without objection should be noted? Granted the procedure needs cleaned up a lot, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:45 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 09:45 PM Do either of you think this was a botched request for unanimous consent to approve the agenda . . . It did occur to me (after I posted) that it may have a request for unanimous consent (i.e. "Any abstentions?" should have been "Any objections?") . . .though for what I'm not sure. For the agenda? Or for the agenda item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 29, 2015 at 12:01 AM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 12:01 AM I'm of the opinion that what the chair was trying to to, although improperly, was to ask if there were any objections. I would say that the agenda was in fact adopted by general consent (or unanimous consent) if there was no objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 29, 2015 at 12:06 AM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 12:06 AM . . .though for what I'm not sure. For the agenda? Or for the agenda item. Ah, I see that the "agenda item" in question was the approval of the agenda. That's a little too self-referential for me. In other words, you can't approve an item on the agenda until you approve the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:18 PM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:18 PM The motion to approve the agenda does not belong on the agenda, for much the same reason that the call to order doesn't belong on the agenda. Both of those things have to happen before the agenda can truly be called the Agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.