Caryn Ann Harlos Posted October 20, 2018 at 09:40 PM Report Share Posted October 20, 2018 at 09:40 PM I am just starting my term as national secretary for the LP - and in other minutes and organizations I have in formal minutes referred to non-officer members as Mr. X or Ms. X, but the officers as Chair Z, Vice-Chair Z, and Secretary Z (though for some reason I never did that with the Treasurer which is an odd blip on my part, perhaps because they don't participate in a way inherent to that position throughout the entire meeting). Is this incorrect? Is it just style preferences? Or should the titles only be used when acting in that capacity which is not always the case in my role for instance, a lot of things I do are irrelevant to the fact I am secretary but there are others which are... Thoughts? Being brand new and as the successor of a fantastic secretary, I have a critical audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted October 20, 2018 at 10:22 PM Report Share Posted October 20, 2018 at 10:22 PM I would keep to the style of this LP organization's minutes. Ask the president for his/her opinion and do that. If anyone complains then the president can take the heat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted October 20, 2018 at 10:55 PM Report Share Posted October 20, 2018 at 10:55 PM I always use honorifics for non-officers in formal minutes, according to their preference if I know it. Otherwise, I do not use surnames for the officers but refer to them by title only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 22, 2018 at 02:47 AM Report Share Posted October 22, 2018 at 02:47 AM On 10/20/2018 at 4:40 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said: I am just starting my term as national secretary for the LP - and in other minutes and organizations I have in formal minutes referred to non-officer members as Mr. X or Ms. X, but the officers as Chair Z, Vice-Chair Z, and Secretary Z (though for some reason I never did that with the Treasurer which is an odd blip on my part, perhaps because they don't participate in a way inherent to that position throughout the entire meeting). Is this incorrect? Is it just style preferences? Or should the titles only be used when acting in that capacity which is not always the case in my role for instance, a lot of things I do are irrelevant to the fact I am secretary but there are others which are... Thoughts? Being brand new and as the successor of a fantastic secretary, I have a critical audience. Caryn Ann, it seems the manner of recording names of members in the minutes is rather flexible and varies from one organization to another. Perhaps it boils down to a matter of personal preference.... and the custom of the organization. I would put the emphasis on the custom of the organization unless you as secretary believe the custom is problematic and should be changed. Or unless the membership directs you otherwise. A search of the forum might find some examples of preferred usage. I just did a VERY CURSORY search and came across this thread. It doesn't really answer your question.... at least not completely.... but it makes for interesting reading and shows that the RONR authorship team apparently intends its "rule" about the use of names in the minutes to be a "should rule", not a "must rule", and that each society has the freedom to customize the practice to suit its own needs. I'm confident that as far as RONR is concerned, it makes no difference how you refer to your members and officers. For members, "Mr. Brown", "member Brown", "Richard Brown" or even "Richard" are all apparently ok as long as the society is happy with it. What is important, I believe, is that enough detail be included so that members reading the minutes know who is being referred to. For someone reading the minutes a couple of months after the meeting, using either "Richard" or "Mr. Brown" is probably sufficient. But, someone doing research and reading the minutes 50 years from now would probably much prefer that both a first and last name be used, at least for members. For officers, I doubt that it mattes much whether you refer to the treasurer as "The Treasurer", "Treasurer Smith", "Treasurer John Smith", or "John Smith, Treasurer"..... and so on. Same with a committee chair (or member) making a report. I personally might say, "Jack Jones, chairman of the membership committee. . ." (or membership committee chairman Jack Jones. . .). At any rate, FWIW, here is a link to the thread I referred to. It does make for interesting reading. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25627-recording-an-amended-motion-in-the-minutes/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts