Three (3) readers of general meeting minutes?

[Handyman]

A respected, well-known, and very influential member of the organization in question insists that three (3) readers are required to review the minutes after the annual general meeting of the membership,  and sign off on them until approved by members at the next annual meeting. This person wields considerable influence and serves as a parliamentarian (though has passed only the first of the three levels for NAP), and so now I'm dealing with a number of members who are speaking out in favor of or against the idea. I've reviewed the organization's bylaws (nothing in there about this), and looking through the RONR (11th edition) I don't find anything either. Am I not seeing something in RONR, or is this person's notion baseless or a matter of interpretation of an existing rule? 

 

[Richard Brown]

There is nothing in RONR about having three readers or any other number of readers to review the minutes before they are approved by the assembly. The influential member does not get that from RONR. 

Perhaps he is thinking of the provision in RONR which says that if an assembly meets less often than quarterly, it is best to appoint a committee or to authorize the board to approve the minutes of those meetings and of the annual meeting to avoid having to wait until the next annual meeting.

Edited April 29, 2018 at 09:47 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[jstackpo]

He may be "respected, well-known, and very influential" but until he can produce documentation for his "3 readers" rule he is also ignoreable.   As you noted, he won't find the documentation in RONR (it ain't there), and if your search was thorough it won't be in your association rules, either.  Did you look in your "Standing Rules" (if you have any)? Don't you go to the trouble.  Let your well-known friend do the looking.  (I'll bet he comes up empty.)

[Richard Brown]

Handyman, does the organization perhaps have a custom of doing what the rspected, well-known, influential  member is insisting upon?

Edited to add: if it does, it should abandon that custom and start authorizing the board or appointing a committee to actually approve the minutes of its meetings which are separated by more than a quarterly time interval.

Edited April 29, 2018 at 10:01 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph and made typographical corrections

[Richard Brown]

Handyman, this is what RONR says on pages 474-475 about appointing a committee or authorizing the board to approve the minutes when there is more than a quarterly time interval between meetings:

"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 [page 475] purpose should be authorized to approve the minutes. The fact that the minutes are not then read for approval at the next meeting does not prevent a member from having a relevant excerpt read for information; nor does it prevent the assembly in such a case from making additional corrections, treating the minutes as having been previously approved (see third paragraph below)."

And this is what it says about approval of the minutes of the annual meting on pages 94-95:  "The minutes of the previous regular meeting are read and approved as usual at the annual meeting, and the [page 95] minutes of the annual meeting are read and approved at the next regular meeting. Minutes of one annual meeting should not be held for action until the next one a year later."  

I suspect your respected, well-known, very influential member is thinking about one or both of those sections but is confused as to what they actually say.