Correct Wording and Recording of Motions

[Guest Art]

Hi:

Is there a correct way to word motions and record them in the minutes? In the minutes I wrote

Moved and seconded by XXXXX and YYYY "That this board approve the expenditure of a maximum amount of xxx for .......................

From another board member I was told that I should have written "That the board approve the expenditure up to xxx for the purpose of ..........

 

[Weldon Merritt]

The correct way to word a motion in the minutes is with the exact wording the chair used in putting the motion to a vote. No paraphrasing, correcting grammer grammar, or any other editing.

 

[Edited to corerct spelling.]

[Edgar Guest]

No paraphrasing, correcting grammer, or any other editing.

 

And no correcting spelling.

 

Well, maybe.

[Weldon Merritt]

And no correcting spelling.

 

Well, maybe.

 

Oops!   

 

But that brings up a point. If the motion is presented in writing, and it contains spelling errors, should they be corrected in the minutes? I would think so, since that would not affect the substance of the motion, while other corrections might.

[Edgar Guest]

But that brings up a point. If the motion is presented in writing, and it contains spelling errors, should they be corrected in the minutes? I would think so, since that would not affect the substance of the motion, while other corrections might.

 

Well, there are spelling errors and then there are spelling errors. I'm sure the cleverer members of this forum can come up with examples of where "correcting" the spelling of a word changes its meaning.

[Weldon Merritt]

Well, there are spelling errors and then there are spelling errors. I'm sure the cleverer members of this forum can come up with examples of where "correcting" the spelling of a word changes its meaning.

 

True, although the instances probably would be rare. I do recall one story of a man who was ticketed for stopping in a zone that had a sign saying "No Stoping," and he successfully chalenged challenged the ticket on the ground that he was not "stoping."

 

[Edited to correct spelling.]

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . he successfully chalenged the ticket on the ground that he was not "stoping."

 

But did he challenge the ticket?

[Josh Martin]

But that brings up a point. If the motion is presented in writing, and it contains spelling errors, should they be corrected in the minutes? I would think so, since that would not affect the substance of the motion, while other corrections might.

 

The rule is that the motion is included in the minutes as stated by the chair, so it would seem to me that unless the error in spelling was apparent when it was read aloud, it could be corrected.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . .  it would seem to me that unless the error in spelling was apparent when it was read aloud, it could be corrected.

 

How is an error in spelling apparent when read aloud? An example would be helpful.

 

And don't you mean to say that unless the error was apparent it could not be corrected?

[Josh Martin]

How is an error in spelling apparent when read aloud? An example would be helpful.

 

And don't you mean to say that unless the error was apparent it could not be corrected?

 

What I'm trying to get at is that the wording which is to be recorded in the minutes is the wording used by the chair when he puts the question. So if the motion maker spells "grammar" as "grammer" when writing the motion, this is immaterial, because they will sound the same when the motion is read. The Secretary is free to spell the word correctly, even although the motion maker did not do so.

 

I'm having a hard time thinking of a realistic example of a situation where a word would be misspelled and the word would sound different when pronounced by the chair, with no one catching the error before it's too late.

[Weldon Merritt]

But did he challenge the ticket?

 

Well, I never claimed to be a good speller.

[Shmuel Gerber]

But that brings up a point. If the motion is presented in writing, and it contains spelling errors, should they be corrected in the minutes? I would think so, since that would not affect the substance of the motion, while other corrections might.

The rule is that the motion is included in the minutes as stated by the chair, so it would seem to me that unless the error in spelling was apparent when it was read aloud, it could be corrected.

 

This does raise some interesting questions. I think that the written form of a motion may have some standing as to what the correct version of the motion is, especially if it was distributed to all the members in advance -- and even more especially if the motion was then adopted without its being read by the chair.

And whatever that standing is, I don't think it becomes diminished simply because the chair has read parts (or all) of the motion aloud, unless the chair's version clearly differs from the written version.

On the other hand, one could argue that if the written motion has a misspelled word that the chair read as the intended word, then what the chair read obviously does differ from what was written, and therefore the actual word (i.e., with the correct spelling) should be used.