DrEntropy Posted January 18, 2016 at 04:35 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 04:35 PM I am looking for clarification of the rule on page 474 bottom: "When the next regular business session will not be held within a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90), and the session does not last longer than one day, or in an organization in which there will be a change or replacement of a portion of the membership, the executive board or a committee appointed for the purpose should be authorized to approve the minutes." Should this be read as "a significant portion" ? I mean every assembly has membership changes (new members join, people leave etc) from time to time, and I don't think this is meant to apply in those cases. Related question: For an executive board, what is the common practice? I have to admit every board I have been on does this wrong and lets the next board approve the previous board's minutes, even though often only a few members are in common between the two boards. I am thinking one approach is to appoint a committee of the board (perhaps the whole board) to meet directly after the board's last meeting and approve the minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 18, 2016 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 05:02 PM There are two parts to the rule: Part 1 - "When the next regular business session will not be held within a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90), and the session does not last longer than one day " Annual meetings fit this bill......some boards do as well. Part 2 - " or in an organization in which there will be a change or replacement of a portion of the membership" I think it has to mean, in practice, "significant portion". But significant often happens only with the officers/executive board. ---------------------------------------------------- In part 1, in practice a regular assembly that has an annual meeting often refers the minutes to it's board especially if they meet regularly, or they appoint a committee if the board doesn't meet regularly or if it's a board itself that meets infrequently. In part 2, I think it's always wise to appoint a committee at the outset of the meeting without fail, so I agree with your last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 18, 2016 at 07:27 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 07:27 PM 2 hours ago, DrEntropy said: I am looking for clarification of the rule on page 474 bottom: "When the next regular business session will not be held within a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90), and the session does not last longer than one day, or in an organization in which there will be a change or replacement of a portion of the membership, the executive board or a committee appointed for the purpose should be authorized to approve the minutes." Should this be read as "a significant portion" ? I mean every assembly has membership changes (new members join, people leave etc) from time to time, and I don't think this is meant to apply in those cases. My understanding is that the rule in question applies only when there is a periodic change in membership, due to the terms of some or all of the members of the assembly ending. It seems to me that the rule is based on the same principles as the rules stated on pg. 237 and pgs. 488-489, and those rules describe in more detail what is meant by a change in membership. I do not think that the number of members changing has anything to do with it. If the terms of some board members were ending, but it so happens that most (or all) of the incumbents were re-elected, the rule would still apply. 2 hours ago, DrEntropy said: Related question: For an executive board, what is the common practice? I have to admit every board I have been on does this wrong and lets the next board approve the previous board's minutes, even though often only a few members are in common between the two boards. I am thinking one approach is to appoint a committee of the board (perhaps the whole board) to meet directly after the board's last meeting and approve the minutes. In my experience, the common practice is exactly what you describe, but appointing a committee of the board to approve the minutes is what RONR suggests should happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrEntropy Posted January 18, 2016 at 11:18 PM Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 at 11:18 PM Thanks George and Josh, much appreciated ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrEntropy Posted May 30, 2016 at 09:11 PM Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 at 09:11 PM I hope folks don't mind me resurrecting this thread, but another question occurred to me since January. Stubborn neurons i guess. Anyway, my question is, when a committee is appointed to approve the minutes, how is the final approval recorded? Does the committee chair just inform the secretary of the results and then the secretary includes them in the official record? (With the notation "Approved by special committee" or some such?). Does the committee report to the new board the results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted May 30, 2016 at 09:21 PM Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 at 09:21 PM 4 minutes ago, DrEntropy said: (a.) When a committee is appointed to approve the minutes, how is the final approval recorded? (b.) Does the committee chair just inform the secretary of the results and then the secretary includes them in the official record? (With the notation "Approved by special committee" or some such?). (c.) Does the committee report to the new board the results? The answer is #c. The committee reports out to the parent assembly (the assembly who held the meeting which generated those minutes). The parent assembly hears the report. The Secretary notes that the minutes, as edited by the committee, will filed. The minute are assumed to be approved. No vote on the report is necessary, as the committee was empowered to execute the order. *** The committee report is not just blindly submitted to the secretary. That is improper. A committee report is to be presented in-meeting, like a real committee report. It's official business. You need a quorum present to officially "hear" the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrEntropy Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:19 PM Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:19 PM Thanks Kim, this makes sense. But could the board, in it's instructions to the committee, realize result #b instead? This might be handy also for assemblies (rather then boards) who actually don't plan to meet again, or conventions of delegates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.