Points of order and minutes

[Guest Willie Watson]

Our assembly Bylaws says that duties of officers are as stated in RONR. Further, RONR says that points of order, along with the Chair’s ruling on them are to be recorded in the minutes. I pointed out that a point of order raised in a previous meeting had not been recorded in our meeting minutes. The President then put it to a vote whether to amend the minutes (that had been previously adopted) to include that point of order.

 

Don’t we have to follow our Bylaws (via RONR) and include points of order in our minutes? Was the President supposed to  put this to a vote?

[Edgar Guest]

The motion to Amend Something Previous Adopted (ASPA) requires either a two-thirds vote, the affirmative vote of a majority of the (entire) membership, or, with previous notice, a majority vote. The fact that the amendment is correcting an alleged error doesn't alter the vote required.

 

I suppose that, if there was no objection, the chair could have declared the proposed amendment adopted by unanimous consent but putting it to a vote was certainly not improper.

 

Note, too, that the text of the previously approved minutes should not be altered. Rather, a note in the margin can direct readers to the minutes of the meeting where the minutes were subsequently amended.

[Timothy]

Our assembly Bylaws says that duties of officers are as stated in RONR. Further, RONR says that points of order, along with the Chair’s ruling on them are to be recorded in the minutes. I pointed out that a point of order raised in a previous meeting had not been recorded in our meeting minutes. The President then put it to a vote whether to amend the minutes (that had been previously adopted) to include that point of order.

 

Don’t we have to follow our Bylaws (via RONR) and include points of order in our minutes? Was the President supposed to  put this to a vote?

 

Normally, corrections to the minutes are handled directly after the reading of the minutes. They are usually handled by unanimous consent, but if someone objects, then it is handled like an amendment to a motion. If the minutes were already approved, then it would be handled with a motion to amend something previously adopted. But a president wouldn't have to ask for unanimous consent before putting it to a vote, and he probably wouldn't if he expected some would oppose the correction or if he himself opposed it.

[George Mervosh]

Don’t we have to follow our Bylaws (via RONR) and include points of order in our minutes?

 

Yes, the point of order and the ruling go into the minutes.

[Richard Brown]

Don’t we have to follow our Bylaws (via RONR) and include points of order in our minutes? Was the President supposed to  put this to a vote?

Well, points of order are supposed to be included in the minutes.  But, if a point of order was omitted from the minutes and nobody caught the mistake until after the minutes were approved, it does take a motion to amend something previously adopted to change the minutes.   That can be done by unanimous consent if there is no objection.   I don't think the president can unilaterally order that it be done even if someone raises a new point of order about the error.

 

From page 475 of RONR:

 

"If the existence of an error or material omission in the minutes becomes reasonably established after their approval—even many years later—the minutes can then be corrected by means of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), which requires a two-thirds vote, or a majority vote with notice, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent."

[Guest Sir Nancelot]

...   That can be done by unanimous consent if there is no objection.   I don't think the president can unilaterally order that it be done even if someone raises a new point of order about the error....

 

I don't see a problem, either, with the chair's assuming the motion in the first place, assuming it's not controversial (cf. "small controversy"), and hastily back-pedalling if any objection or controversy.  (Although I suspect it's absurd to propose that not one member would be willing to even make the motion, since it proposes something that is required and has been neglected.)

 

However, I suppose that, to the uninitiated, it might look as if the chair has arrogated to himself the authority to handle the entire matter unilaterally.  It might look like the dreaded even the very appearance[ of impropriety.  But if we're running our lives with that as a guidepost, we never get anything done, and we make pusillanimity our supreme moral imperative.  And what would Oliver North say to that?

[Shmuel Gerber]

I don't see a problem, either, with the chair's assuming the motion in the first place, assuming it's not controversial (cf. "small controversy"), and hastily back-pedalling if any objection or controversy. (Although I suspect it's absurd to propose that not one member would be willing to even make the motion, since it proposes something that is required and has been neglected.)

However, I suppose that, to the uninitiated, it might look as if the chair has arrogated to himself the authority to handle the entire matter unilaterally. It might look like the dreaded even the very appearance[ of impropriety. But if we're running our lives with that as a guidepost, we never get anything done, and we make pusillanimity our supreme moral imperative. And what would Oliver North say to that?

This post is quite ridiculous.