Approval of minutes

[Andy Travis]

Does a board need to formally vote on wether they are going to approve the minutes by unanimous consent or by making a motion and voting on their approval?

[Richard Brown]

No.  Per RONR, a formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary.  Neither is an actual vote on approving them.  If there are no corrections, or after corrections have been made, it is proper for the chair to say, "Are there any other corrections to the minutes?  If not, they are approved".  And that's that.  It's done.

 

Edited to add:  This is part of what RONR says about approving the minutes on pages 354 and 355:

 

"A formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary, although such a motion is not out of order. After the minutes have been read (or after their reading has been omitted by unanimous consent as described in the previous paragraph), and whether or not a motion for approval has been offered, the chair asks, "Are there any corrections to the minutes?" and pauses. Corrections, when proposed, are usually handled by unanimous consent (pp. 54–56), but if any member objects to a proposed correction—which is, in effect, a subsidiary motion to Amend—the usual rules governing consideration of amendments to a main motion are applicable (see 12).

After any proposed corrections have been disposed of, and when there is no response to the chair's inquiry, "Are [page 355] 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."

[Andy Travis]

Yes I was referring to what you quoted. But I am wondering if a board needs to formally vote on how they would like to handle approving the minutes going forward since RONR says there are two appropriate ways. Either by unanimous consent or by making a motion and voting on them at each meeting.

[Richard Brown]

Yes I was referring to what you quoted. But I am wondering if a board needs to formally vote on how they would like to handle approving the minutes going forward since RONR says there are two appropriate ways. Either by unanimous consent or by making a motion and voting on them at each meeting.

That's not what RONR says about APPROVING the minutes.  That's what it says about CORRECTING the minutes.  There is no need for either a motion or a vote to actually approve them, whether with or without corrections.  The corrections, if any, are made before they are approved.

[Edgar Guest]

RONR says there are two appropriate ways. Either by unanimous consent or by making a motion and voting on them at each meeting.

 

RONR says no such thing. Voting on the approval of the minutes is not an option since not approving the minutes is not an option.

[Andy Travis]

I'm still confused by RONR where it says "A formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary, although such a motion is not out of order." I'm not sure why there would be a motion or a motion for what if the minutes are approved by unanimous consent.

Perhaps writing a hypothetical example would help me.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm still confused by RONR where it says "A formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary, but such a motion is not out of order." I'm not sure why there would be a motion or a motion for what if the minutes are approved by unanimous consent.

Perhaps writing a hypothetical example would help me.

 

Perhaps reading what RONR says about this in its entirety (p. 354, l. 23 to p. 355, l. 11) will also help.

[DanielEHayes]

I'm still confused by RONR where it says "...a motion for approval..." I'm not sure why there would be a motion or a motion for what if the minutes are approved by unanimous consent.

A member can offer up a motion to CORRECT the secretaries minutes.The correction is the motion. It's a subsidiary motion to amend.  This can be done through unanimous consent but if there is objection, then there will need to be a vote that requires a majority vote to adopt the amendment/correction. (RONR 11th ed. p.133. ll.19-20.)

Note THIS VOTE is for the CORRECTION(amendment) only. The main motion(approval of the minutes) is always done by unanimous consent.

"The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary's draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it." (RONR 11th ed. p.355. ll.7-8.)

 

 

 

 

 

[Andy Travis]

Ah, now I understand. Thank you.

[Edgar Guest]

The main motion(approval of the minutes) is always done by unanimous consent.

 

Well, I'm not sure that's strictly accurate. "Unanimous consent" suggests that an objection is possible and there can be no objection to the approval of the minutes.

[Josh Martin]

I'm still confused by RONR where it says "A formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary, although such a motion is not out of order." I'm not sure why there would be a motion or a motion for what if the minutes are approved by unanimous consent.

Perhaps writing a hypothetical example would help me.

A member may (but need not) make a motion to approve the minutes. Whether or not such a motion is made, the chair proceeds in the same manner - by asking if there are any corrections to the minutes. After any corrections are handled, the chair declares the minutes approved as read (or as corrected). No final vote is taken on the approval of the minutes.

[Andy Travis]

So would the minutes read as follows:

1. Member X made a motion to accept the approved minutes as read (or corrected).

Or they could read as follows:

2. The minutes were read and accepted (or accepted as corrected).

[Josh Martin]

So would the minutes read as follows:

1. Member X made a motion to accept the approved minutes as read (or corrected).

Or they could read as follows:

2. The minutes were read and accepted as read (or accepted as corrected).

The second example is correct in any event.

[Andy Travis]

A member may (but need not) make a motion to approve the minutes. Whether or not such a motion is made, the chair proceeds in the same manner - by asking if there are any corrections to the minutes. After any corrections are handled, the chair declares the minutes approved as read (or as corrected). No final vote is taken on the approval of the minutes.

If a member does make a motion to approve the minutes, does someone second that motion but not vote by all members is done?

[Josh Martin]

If a member does make a motion to approve the minutes, does someone second that motion but not vote by all members is done?

A second is not required, and in any event, no vote is taken. As noted previously, the procedure for approving the minutes is the same whether or not a motion to approve the minutes is offered.

[Andy Travis]

The second example is correct in any event.

So it would be incorrect to write even the main motioners name in the minutes?

[Andy Travis]

A second is not required, and in any event, no vote is taken. As noted previously, the procedure for approving the minutes is the same whether or not a motion to approve the minutes is offered.

I understand the procedure is the same. I'm just making sure how it would be written in the minutes.

[Richard Brown]

The minutes should reflect that they were APPROVED, not that they were "accepted".   Throughout RONR it speaks of APPROVING the minutes.  It does not once refer to "accepting" the minutes.  For some examples, see pages 354, 355, and 472-475.

 

I have three dozen or so books on parliamentary and nowhere do ANY of them suggest "accepting" the minutes.  They ALL refer to APPROVING the minutes.  The two terms do not necessarily mean the same thing.

 

I might "accept" the package UPS delivers to me, but that doesn't mean that I "approve" of its contents.   I might refuse to accept a package that comes COD even though I do approve of its contents.  The secretary might "accept" the treasurer's report and place it on file, but that doesn't mean she approves of it.

 

Where on earth has this recent trend of people saying "the minutes were accepted" come from?

[Edgar Guest]

Where on earth has this recent trend of people saying "the minutes were accepted" come from?

And why is Mr. Martin endorsing it?

 

Or they could read as follows:

2. The minutes were read and accepted (or accepted as corrected).

 

The second example is correct in any event.

[Richard Brown]

And why is Mr. Martin endorsing it?

 

Good question.  Mr. Martin, why are you endorsing the use of the phrase "the minutes were accepted" rather than the RONR specified terminology of "the minutes were approved"?

[Andy Travis]

Duly noted Richard. And your hypothetical examples always help. Thank you.

So the example would read as follows:

The minutes were read and approved as read.

OR

The minutes were read and approved as corrected.

Just to clarify again, no names of motioners are ever to be part of those sentences???

[Edgar Guest]

Good question.  Mr. Martin, why are you endorsing the use of the phrase "the minutes were accepted" rather than the RONR specified terminology of "the minutes were approved"?

 

I think we can forgive the occasional "brain freeze". Especially for those of us who live where the temperature routinely drops below zero.

[Richard Brown]

Just to clarify again, no names of motioners are ever to be part of those sentences???

That's my understanding, but I don't know that it's actually an iron-clad rule.  It just seems to be the accepted way of doing it....and the way suggested in RONR and used in the examples.

 

Edited to add:  I think it's a bit redundant to say "the minutes were read and approved as read", etc.  I believe the more common way of saying it is simply, "The minutes were approved as read" or "The minutes were approved as corrected".  

[Edgar Guest]

Just to clarify again, no names of motioners are ever to be part of those sentences?

 

There are no "motioners" (though you might sometimes refer to the maker of a motion).

 

The sample minutes in RONR (p.472) contain this sentence: "The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved as corrected".

[Andy Travis]

Thank you everyone.