Guest S. A. Posted December 10, 2018 at 10:41 AM Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 at 10:41 AM Is it valid if the Secretary is sick and unable to come to a meeting, to have the the President record the meeting on a recorder, and then the Secretary can write the minutes using the audio recording and presidents notes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM 1 hour ago, Guest S. A. said: Is it valid if the Secretary is sick and unable to come to a meeting, to have the the President record the meeting on a recorder, and then the Secretary can write the minutes using the audio recording and presidents notes? Yes. RONR provides that when the secretary is absent, a secretary Pro Tem should be selected, but failure to do that is not critical. The minutes may be prepared and approved based upon whatever information is available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Grice Posted December 10, 2018 at 12:32 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 at 12:32 PM It might serve beneficial for you to check your bylaws. There may be requirements related to the secretary position at your meetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 10, 2018 at 02:15 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 at 02:15 PM 1 hour ago, Richard Brown said: Yes. RONR provides that when the secretary is absent, a secretary Pro Tem should be selected, but failure to do that is not critical. The minutes may be prepared and approved based upon whatever information is available. It is interesting to note, however, that RONR tells us that a secretary (or clerk) is one of the two minimum essential officers for the conduct of business in any deliberative assembly (RONR, 11th ed., p. 22, ll. 1-5; p. 447, ll. 3-5), and it has done so ever since 1970. I suspect that deliberate failure to have someone act as secretary during a meeting is, at best, a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 10, 2018 at 06:07 PM Report Share Posted December 10, 2018 at 06:07 PM 5 hours ago, Richard Brown said: Yes. RONR provides that when the secretary is absent, a secretary Pro Tem should be selected, but failure to do that is not critical. The minutes may be prepared and approved based upon whatever information is available. True, but failure to do that is still failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SLA Posted December 13, 2018 at 08:36 AM Report Share Posted December 13, 2018 at 08:36 AM On 12/10/2018 at 4:08 AM, Richard Brown said: Yes. RONR provides that when the secretary is absent, a secretary Pro Tem should be selected, but failure to do that is not critical. The minutes may be prepared and approved based upon whatever information is available. Do you know where I can find that information PRINTED in RONR? A Pro - Tem Secretary WAS selected. She took awful notes, did not know what she was doing. We kept asking her every month at the meeting if the minutes were done, NOPE. I offered to help her, NOPE. She said they were fine. The BOARD did not approve them. so FINALLy I took all the notes from the president and her sorry excuse for minutes, along with a recording from half the meeting, because the recorders battery died. so I did the minutes, they ere approved , Now some past president, who doesn't like me, because I served her with a restraining order, questions EVERYTHING I do. But I honestly believe that the minutes are valid. They were approved .Just because I wasn't physically there. I have a recording for almost the whole meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 13, 2018 at 02:02 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2018 at 02:02 PM 5 hours ago, Guest SLA said: Do you know where I can find that information PRINTED in RONR? I don't think there is a direct reference to it in RONR, but if you search this forum you will find many discussions on that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 13, 2018 at 02:09 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2018 at 02:09 PM 5 hours ago, Guest SLA said: Do you know where I can find that information PRINTED in RONR? A Pro - Tem Secretary WAS selected. She took awful notes, did not know what she was doing. We kept asking her every month at the meeting if the minutes were done, NOPE. I offered to help her, NOPE. She said they were fine. The BOARD did not approve them. so FINALLy I took all the notes from the president and her sorry excuse for minutes, along with a recording from half the meeting, because the recorders battery died. so I did the minutes, they ere approved , Now some past president, who doesn't like me, because I served her with a restraining order, questions EVERYTHING I do. But I honestly believe that the minutes are valid. They were approved .Just because I wasn't physically there. I have a recording for almost the whole meeting. If, as you say, these minutes have been approved, they now constitute the official record of the assembly's proceedings, and the only way to make any change in them (if one is necessary in order to correct any error) is by the adoption of a motion to amend them (see Sec. 35 in RONR for details). The manner in which they were prepared prior to their approval is completely irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 13, 2018 at 08:47 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2018 at 08:47 PM On 12/10/2018 at 9:15 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said: It is interesting to note, however, that RONR tells us that a secretary (or clerk) is one of the two minimum essential officers for the conduct of business in any deliberative assembly (RONR, 11th ed., p. 22, ll. 1-5; p. 447, ll. 3-5), and it has done so ever since 1970. I suspect that deliberate failure to have someone act as secretary during a meeting is, at best, a bad idea. I agree, but I recall there was a debate a while back about whether those two officers could be one person with two hats. I think not, but some folks cited the language saying that, absent a rule to the contrary, one person may hold two offices (presumably that includes pro-tempore offices). I believe that the "minimum essential" language should be viewed as a rule to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 13, 2018 at 11:03 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2018 at 11:03 PM (edited) 2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: I agree, but I recall there was a debate a while back about whether those two officers could be one person with two hats. I think not, but some folks cited the language saying that, absent a rule to the contrary, one person may hold two offices (presumably that includes pro-tempore offices). I believe that the "minimum essential" language should be viewed as a rule to the contrary. I don’t believe the words “minimum essential” change the fact that one person may hold multiple offices. As for the debate you recall, see this thread. Edited December 13, 2018 at 11:04 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts