Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

voting on approval; of minutes when the board member was absent the last meeting


Guest sam

Recommended Posts

Your topic heading is misleading. A motion to adopt (approve) the minutes is not improper, but the chair never puts that question to a vote. Individual corrections withinn the minutes are normally approved by unanimous consent; but if there is disagreement they are handle as a motion to amend. As Dr. Stackpole has mentioned - whether the board member attended the prior meeting - is not relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suggestion to the authorship team:  Considering all of the questions we get in this forum about "approving the minutes", perhaps a somewhat more lengthy explanation in both RONR and RONR in Brief might be in order which explains a bit more directly that, contrary to common belief and practice, a motion to approve the minutes is not necessary and the assembly never actually votes on whether to approve the minutes.  I would estimate that in about 90 percent of the meetings I attend, the members actually vote on approving the minutes.

 

I know both books say it, but the misconception that minutes must be "approved" is so widespread that perhaps a bit more emphasis on that point would be beneficial.  Even the standard order of business heading, "Reading and APPROVAL of the minutes", suggests that an actual vote to approve the minutes is in order. 

 

If no approving is to be done, and if not approving the minutes is not an option, why is it even mentioned in the order of business?  Why not, say, "Reading and correction of the minutes" or some other language that removes the suggestion that a vote must be taken to approve the minutes?

 

One more point, while I'm on the subject:  Sometimes the draft minutes are a complete mess and don't come even close to being an accurate representation of what was done at the previous meeting.  Yet, if the members are seeing the deficient minutes for the first time, they quite likely don't have the ability or the time to essentially re-draft them at the meeting at which they are up for approval  Shouldn't RONR provide more clearly that, in such a case, the minutes can referred back to the secretary to try again to draft minutes which correctly reflect what happened at the previous meeting or to a committee to create a new draft.... or that approval be postponed to the next meeting so that the secretary or other members can work on corrections or a new draft?

 

In short, if the members are not happy with the draft minutes presented at a meeting, why should they not have the option of not approving them?  Why should inadequate minutes be approved automatically if the members clearly don't want them approved? 

 

OK, I'm stepping down from my soapbox and looking for my suit of armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair points, but isn't the misconception about what to do with minutes more from NOT reading RONR, rather than reading it and misunderstanding?

Yes, I agree.  But sometimes, if a misconception is as widespread as this one seems to be, it is necessary to hit people up beside the head with a 2 x 4 and bold print rather than a gentle nudge and small print.

 

And I do believe that RONR and RONR in Brief should better elaborate on options for those situations where the members are clearly not happy with the draft minutes that have been submitted for approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...