Guest Len Posted March 27, 2015 at 07:21 AM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 07:21 AM I can't seem to find anything in RR about this but maybe someone else has come across this. Our HOA is making corrections to the annual general membership meeting minutes and we want to make sure privacy is upheld. Do we include just people's suite #s like in the monthly board meeting minutes or do we just include motioner's names with no suite #s or do we include both names and suite #s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:06 AM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:06 AM Nothing in RONR requires either option. Next meeting propose a rule for adoption by the membership that mandates your (collective) preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:11 AM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:11 AM Would this rule require amending the bylaws or simply making a motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:23 AM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 08:23 AM Just a majority vote -- it looks to me to be a "Standing Rule" - p. 18. No bylaw amendment needed (or advisable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM Nothing in RONR requires either option. Well, RONR does say that the name of the maker of the motion belongs in the minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:09 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:09 PM I can't seem to find anything in RR about this but maybe someone else has come across this. Our HOA is making corrections to the annual general membership meeting minutes and we want to make sure privacy is upheld. Do we include just people's suite #s like in the monthly board meeting minutes or do we just include motioner's names with no suite #s or do we include both names and suite #s? Well, RONR does say that the name of the maker of the motion belongs in the minutes.I agree with Mr. Guest. RONR is very clear that the names of people who make motions should be entered in the minutes. Not only does RONR require it, it seems to be the norm just about everywhere. Here is the precise language from page 470: "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly." Why is it that someone thinks the names of the people who make motions should not be in the minutes? Unit numbers don't speak or make motions.... real, living, breathing people do. If you have a husband and wife (or any other two or three four people) who own a unit together, and the minutes say that "unit 79" made a motion, how is someone reading the minutes to know who actually made the motion? I don't understand the reason for the secrecy. Your minutes are not public record, are they? But, if this is a HOA, the names of the owners ARE public record. Edited to add: You may, of course, adopt a rule as suggested by Dr. Stackpole regarding how the "makers of motions" (or people who attend a meeting or whatever) are recorded in the minutes. Edited again to add: I don't understand why you omit the names of people who make motions from your board minutes, either. Those board members represent other owners.... your general membership.... just like members of a city council or your legislature. It seems to me your membership would want to know WHO, not what unit number, made certain motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM If new bylaws came into effect in between the time the annual general meeting membership occurred and the correction and adoption of the minutes which bylaws should be followed to corrected and adopted the minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM I see just now from reading the thread "when is a bylaw amendment in effect", would I be correct in saying that the previous minutes that still need to be corrected and accepted are now so done according to the new bylaws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM If new bylaws came into effect in between the time the annual general meeting membership occurred and the correction and adoption of the minutes which bylaws should be followed to corrected and adopted the minutes? What sort of change was made to your bylaws that would change the procedure for correction and approval of your minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:46 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:46 PM Meetings are now to be held according to Robert's Rules in the new bylaws. I would understand this to mean that minutes too should follow Robert's Rules, including minutes that still need accepting. Am I correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:53 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 12:53 PM Well, RONR does say that the name of the maker of the motion belongs in the minutes. Oops, I've got to let at least the first cup kick in before I start answering questions. (I was focusing on the requirement for unit numbers.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 27, 2015 at 01:12 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 01:12 PM Meetings are now to be held according to Robert's Rules in the new bylaws. I would understand this to mean that minutes too should follow Robert's Rules, including minutes that still need accepting. Am I correct?Minutes should be APPROVED, not "accepted". Not once does RONR refer to "accepting" the minutes, but it refers repeatedly to approving the minutes. Not once in all of the 25 or more other books on parliamentary procedure that I have is the term "accepted" used in regard to the minutes. Every book, without exception, refers to APPROVING the minutes, not accepting them. I'm at a loss as to where this new trend to "accept" the minutes rather than to "approve" them comes from. I might "accept" a package from UPS, but that does not mean that I approve of the contents if the box contains something other than what I ordered. And a package with contents that I approve of might come COD instead of prepaid, in which case I will not "accept" the package. To me, the word "accept" means to receive something. To "approve" something, means to agree with it. You "accepted" the secretary's draft minutes when he or she passed them around the conference table, but did that amount to "approving" them? I hope not!! OK, rant over. Next rant reserved for somebody who says their "executive" did such and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len Posted March 27, 2015 at 01:17 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 at 01:17 PM Sorry, I meant approved...it's really early. Thanks everyone for your help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.