Recording an Amended Motion in the Minutes

[Edgar Guest]

I understand that the name of the maker of the motion should be recorded and that the motion in its final form should be recorded (along with, if applicable, a parenthetical note that it had been amended) but there's seems to be a disconnect there.

 

If Mr. Green makes a motion to paint the clubhouse blue and, after amendment, the adopted motion is to paint the clubhouse green (perhaps in honor of the maker of the motion; perhaps not), Mr. Green's name is linked to a motion he didn't make.

 

Or consider a more extreme example when a motion to "commend" is amended into a motion to "censure". The name of the maker of the motion is linked to the opposite of what he proposed. 

 

An example of how to record such a motion would be appreciated.

[Dan Honemann]

As you well know, you have examples in the sample minutes.

[Edgar Guest]

As you well know, you have examples in the sample minutes.

 

Well, I saw the example where Maragaret Duffy recorded the original motion made by Mr. Gordon and then the amendment offered by Mrs. Thomas. But that motion was referred to a committee so there was no final version to record.

 

But I see I have another example in your recent post.

 

So I guess my question is why Mr. Gordon's motion is recorded as made yet, had it been severely amended and adopted, it wouldn't have been?

[Dan Honemann]

Well, I saw the example where Maragaret Duffy recorded the original motion made by Mr. Gordon and then the amendment offered by Mrs. Thomas. But that motion was referred to a committee so there was no final version to record.

 

But I see I have another example in your recent post.

 

So I guess my question is why Mr. Gordon's motion is recorded as made yet, had it been severely amended and adopted, it wouldn't have been?

 

Mr. Gordon's motion (as well as the proposed amendment) was recorded as made because the minutes must reflect exactly what was referred to the committee.

[Edgar Guest]

Mr. Gordon's motion (as well as the proposed amendment) was recorded as made because the minutes must reflect exactly what was referred to the committee.

 

I understand that. I'm still troubled by the following scenario:

 

Mr. Green makes a motion that the treasurer be commended for the job he's done. During debate, an amendment is adopted that strikes "commended" and inserts "censured". As I understand it, if the amended motion is adopted, the minutes would record something like:

 

Mr. Green moved the adoption of a motion which, after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows: "That the treasurer be censured for the job he's done".

[Dan Honemann]

I understand that. I'm still troubled by the following scenario:

 

Mr. Green makes a motion that the treasurer be commended for job he's done. During debate an amendment is adopted that strikes "commended" and inserts "censured". As I understand it, if the amended motion is adopted, the minutes would record something like:

 

Mr. Green moved the adoption of a motion which, after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows: "That the treasurer be censured for the job he's done".

 

Yes, when the minutes report that a motion has been amended, it is understood that what was adopted is not what was originally moved.

 

In any event, if anyone gets all upset about it, the minutes can be drafted (or amended) to report whatever additional information the assembly deems necessary.

[Edgar Guest]

Yes, when the minutes report that a motion has been amended, it is understood that what was adopted is not what was originally moved.

 

Yes. But when the adopted motion is the exact opposite of the motion that was initially made, I'm not sure what purpose is served by associating it with the maker of the original motion.

 

Or, to look at it another way, if the minutes are a record of what was done, surely the making of a main motion is a pretty fundamental instance of something that was done.

 

And, yes, an organization could (and I think should) adopt a rule that requires that the original main motion be recorded in the minutes (whenever it has been amended), but I'm not sure why RONR doesn't.

 

In any event, if anyone gets all upset about it, the minutes can be drafted (or amended) to report whatever additional information the assembly deems necessary.

If I were Mr. Green I think I'd get all upset about it.

[Dan Honemann]

 If I were Mr. Green I think I'd get all upset about it.

 

Well then, he can try to convince a majority to approve minutes reflecting that he was so stupid as to move that the Treasurer should be commended for doing a job that the majority decided that he should be censured for doing. No big deal. I'd vote for it.

[Edgar Guest]

Well then, he can try to convince a majority to approve minutes reflecting that he was so stupid as to move that the Treasurer should be commended for doing a job that the majority decided that he should be censured for doing. No big deal. I'd vote for it.

 

Stupid? He should have known how a majority of the members present, not necessarily a majority of the membership, would vote?

 

And even if he knew that, he shouldn't have made a motion to commend the treasurer because his name might be forever associated with a motion to censure the treasurer?

[Shmuel Gerber]

My guess is that what usually happens in such extreme cases is that the member who does not want his name associated with the amended motion would ask, and be granted, permission to withdraw it, with the understanding that a different member will offer the amended version of the motion.

[Dan Honemann]

What RONR actually says about this on page 470 is:

 

    "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."

 

I think it's safe to say that this statement is not to be taken as a hard and fast rule that the names of the makers of all main motions must be entered in the minutes. In an extreme case such as the one presented in post #5, I think that a secretary need not be hesitant to omit from his draft the name of the maker of the motion, particularly if he knows that the maker wishes that he do so. Furthermore, the reference only to main motions should certainly should not be taken as implying that the names of makers of motions that are not main motions should never be entered in the minutes.

 

As a general rule, the names of the makers of main motions should be entered in the minutes, but RONR should not be understood as saying that these names must be entered even when doing so is apt to be offensive due to the extent to which the motion has been amended. There is no rule against the application of a little common sense.

[Richard Brown]

Ahhh.  So it is a "should" rule.   Good.  I'm all for a little flexibility and common sense in the minutes.  I've always felt that the instructions/guidelines in RONR for the minutes were not meant to say "it must be this way and no other way".

 

I fully appreciate the point Mr. Guest is making. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

I agree that there is no rule against the application of a little common sense. In fact, when it comes to the preparation of minutes (or "mintues," as the subject line of this topic calls them), secretaries often apply so much "common sense" that they hardly resemble what RONR prescribes.

I also still would guess that in such extreme cases -- where the member who originally made a motion would adamantly oppose it in its amended form -- the originating member would usually want the motion withdrawn on principle, and not solely because of what the minutes might say. (And in reality the member most often might simply attempt to withdraw it, without knowing or caring that it requires permission of the assembly to do so.)

[Dan Honemann]

I also still would guess that in such extreme cases -- where the member who originally made a motion would adamantly oppose it in its amended form -- the originating member would usually want the motion withdrawn on principle, and not solely because of what the minutes might say. (And in reality the member most often might simply attempt to withdraw it, without knowing or caring that it requires permission of the assembly to do so.)

 

I agree with this as well. There are certainly more than just one or two ways to avoid the perceived problem.

[Edgar Guest]

In an extreme case such as the one presented in post #5, I think that a secretary need not be hesitant to omit from his draft the name of the maker of the motion, particularly if he knows that the maker wishes that he do so.

 

Well, Margaret Duffy might take issue with your use of "he" but, that aside, I have to say I'm surprised by the degree of discretion you're willing to grant the secretary.

 

So the proposed minutes would say something like, "After debate and amendment, a motion was adopted as follows: "That the treasurer be censured for the job he's done".

 

Why even mention debate and amendment? Who cares? How about, "A motion "That the treasurer be censured for the job he's done" was adopted".?

 

Come to think of it, since it's immaterial, why should the minutes record the name of the maker of any motion? 

[Weldon Merritt]

 

Come to think of it, since it's immaterial, why should the minutes record the name of the maker of any motion? 

 

A question I have often had as well.

[George Mervosh]

 

Come to think of it, since it's immaterial, why should the minutes record the name of the maker of any motion? 

 

 

A question I have often had as well.

 

Probably because it's been that way for over 100 years and provides further clarity as to what happened at the meeting, but it's really not hard adopt a special rule of order that would supersede the rule in RONR. 

[Edgar Guest]

Probably because it's been that way for over 100 years and provides further clarity as to what happened at the meeting . . .

 

If the adopted motion varies substantially from the motion that was made, I don't see how recording the name of the maker of what was a very different motion "provides further clarity".

 

Perhaps the 12th Edition will include sample minutes that just record the motions that were adopted, the motions that were lost, and the motions that were otherwise disposed of, without any mention of who made the motion. In other words, what was done, not what was said.

 

Perhaps not.

[Dan Honemann]

Come to think of it, since it's immaterial, why should the minutes record the name of the maker of any motion? 

 

Because experience has shown that this is what deliberative assemblies usually want to have recorded. 

 

About 100 years ago it was recognized that the names of the makers of "very important main motions" were usually recorded in the minutes, but tender sensibilities (such as those expressed in this thread) prompted the change to what is customary today. Nobody wanted his motion to be regarded as unimportant.

[Edgar Guest]

Because experience has shown that this is what deliberative assemblies usually want to have recorded. 

 

Okay. I might have thought it was because RONR told deliberative assemblies that that's what should be recorded.

[Dan Honemann]

Okay. I might have thought it was because RONR told deliberative assemblies that that's what should be recorded.

 

You're right, RONR does tell deliberative assemblies what should be recorded in their minutes.

 

When you asked "why should the minutes record the name of the maker of any motion?", George and I both assumed you were asking why RONR says that they should. Now that we know better, we'll just respond by saying "because RONR says so."

[Dan Honemann]

Perhaps the 12th Edition will include sample minutes that just record the motions that were adopted, the motions that were lost, and the motions that were otherwise disposed of, without any mention of who made the motion. In other words, what was done, not what was said.

 

Perhaps not.

 

Well, I suggest you invite Dan Seabold and Shmuel Gerber to the next meeting of the Rosendale Historical Society (or whatever) since they're not too far away, and show 'em how things ought to be done. That should produce the desired result. I'd like to visit the place myself, but its a job getting my boat up into that little canal.

[George Mervosh]

You're right, RONR does tell deliberative assemblies what should be recorded in their minutes.

 

When you asked "why should the minutes record the name of the maker of any motion?", George and I both assumed you were asking why RONR says that they should. Now that we know better, we'll just respond by saying "because RONR says so."

 

Quite often, as Mr. Honemann documents in post #19, it seems a great deal of what is in RONR traces its roots back to statements made in Parliamentary Law.  It's the best source of information for what is in the rules today, at least in my view.

[Gary Novosielski]

It's interesting that, in the case of a motion referred to a committee, quite a bit more information may need to be recorded in the minutes in order to capture the exact parliamentary status at the point it was committed than would usually be required if it had been passed (or rejected).  

[Ann Rempel]

It's interesting that, in the case of a motion referred to a committee, quite a bit more information may need to be recorded in the minutes in order to capture the exact parliamentary status at the point it was committed than would usually be required if it had been passed (or rejected).  

 

The assembly will need all that information when the question is again before the assembly. The inclusion is quite logical.