Jamies Posted May 17, 2017 at 03:01 PM Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 03:01 PM Can anyone point me in the direction of a sample of minutes that have been amended after previously being adopted? I'm looking for examples of formatting on how the amendment was recorded (ie - text strikethrough, heading indicating those specific minutes were amended, etc). Thank you, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted May 17, 2017 at 03:03 PM Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 03:03 PM 1 minute ago, Jamies said: Can anyone point me in the direction of a sample of minutes that have been amended after previously being adopted? I'm looking for examples of formatting on how the amendment was recorded (ie - text strikethrough, heading indicating those specific minutes were amended, etc). Thank you, You're operating on some false assumptions. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Goodwiller, PRP Posted May 17, 2017 at 03:57 PM Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 03:57 PM I actually don't think FAQ #16 fully answers the question being asked, nor do I find a plain answer in RONR itself. While RONR is clear that when previously adopted minutes are corrected at a later meeting, the content of what is corrected is to be included in the minutes of the meeting at which the correction is made (in the form of a motion to amend something previously adopted), it doesn't seem to me to say how (or if) that amendment should be written back in the minutes to which the correction was made. If there is no change made to the previously adopted minutes, then I fail to see how the body effectively amended them, since if I go back and read them years later, there would be no way for me to know that what I was reading was corrected at some future time (unless of course I read all of the organization's minutes). At the very least, I think a footnote should be added to the corrected minutes either where the word "Approved" is written, or at the point in the minutes where the correction was later adopted. But I concede that RONR doesn't state that anywhere that I can find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted May 17, 2017 at 04:00 PM Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 04:00 PM My recollection of past threads on this subject indicate that most of us agree some marginal notation should be placed in the corrected minutes indicating that they were amended (perhaps adding the actual date they were amended), so that the reader can look up the changes made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Goodwiller, PRP Posted May 17, 2017 at 04:37 PM Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 04:37 PM Thanks. Glad to know I'm not out in left field on that one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamies Posted May 17, 2017 at 06:40 PM Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 06:40 PM Greg Goodwiller, you conveyed my thoughts exactly. Thank you. In my situation, it was the misspelling of a name that needed to be corrected and was only one occurrence that was not in an actual motion. I understand the issue of minutes being a reflection of what was done and not said, but unfortunately, that is what I am dealing with at the moment. It certainly seems odd to me that you would not make the actual correction to the occurrence in the previous months minutes that you motioned to do in this months (in my case) minutes. Thank you, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted May 17, 2017 at 06:48 PM Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 06:48 PM "Any correction approved by the assembly is made in the text of the minutes being approved; the minutes of the meeting making the correction merely state that the minutes were approved 'as corrected,' without specifying what the correction was." [emphasis added] RONR (11th ed.), p.469, ll. 4–8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 17, 2017 at 07:36 PM Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 07:36 PM 46 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: "Any correction approved by the assembly is made in the text of the minutes being approved; the minutes of the meeting making the correction merely state that the minutes were approved 'as corrected,' without specifying what the correction was." [emphasis added] RONR (11th ed.), p.469, ll. 4–8 This relates to corrections made when the minutes are first presented for approval, not to corrections made after the minutes have been approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted May 17, 2017 at 09:40 PM Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 09:40 PM Perhaps I'm crazy, but it would seem to me that if the motion is to amend something previously adopted, and what is previously adopted is the, say, July minutes, then once that motion carries, the thing previously adopted - the July minutes - should be so amended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted May 17, 2017 at 10:12 PM Report Share Posted May 17, 2017 at 10:12 PM Once time passes beyond the original presentation of minutes, there is no workaround that the secretary (or some authorized party) will have to duplicate the language, namely: (a.) once in the minutes were the motion was made, because it is a main motion (and, assuming it was adopted); (b) once in the document targeted. This would apply to committee reports, as well -- any document which is to be edited well-after the original date of presentation. -- A month? A year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted May 18, 2017 at 08:19 AM Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 at 08:19 AM 10 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: Perhaps I'm crazy, but it would seem to me that if the motion is to amend something previously adopted, and what is previously adopted is the, say, July minutes, then once that motion carries, the thing previously adopted - the July minutes - should be so amended. The problem with that is it would render inaccurate the statement in the (say) August minutes that says "The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved," as there would no longer be any record of what was actually then approved. So you'd be correcting the July minutes as to their own content, but "incorrecting" them as to the next meeting's content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 18, 2017 at 12:34 PM Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 at 12:34 PM 3 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said: The problem with that is it would render inaccurate the statement in the (say) August minutes that says "The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved," as there would no longer be any record of what was actually then approved. So you'd be correcting the July minutes as to their own content, but "incorrecting" them as to the next meeting's content. This is exactly right. The minutes of the July meeting are an essential part of the minutes of the August meeting in that they reflect (or should reflect) exactly what was approved when the minutes were approved at the August meeting. A subsequent amendment of the approved minutes of the July meeting doesn't change what the assembly approved in August. This is no different from what happens whenever a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is adopted. The minutes reflecting what was previously adopted remain unchanged. Approved minutes are never to be defaced or changed in any way except on those rare occasions when the assembly adopts a motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes (RONR, 11th ed., p. 310), and even on such occasions anyone reading those minutes must be able to see exactly what it was that was expunged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts