rescinding something previously adopted

[jstackpo]

What do the board members not understand about "If there is no objection [pause], the association will....".

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, jstackpo said:

What do the board members not understand about "If there is no objection [pause], the association will....".

Well, it sounds like these words, or anything approximating them, may not have actually been said.

I agree that, in the event they were said, ignorance is not a valid defense.

[BabbsJohnson]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Well, it sounds like these words, or anything approximating them, may not have actually been said.

I agree that, in the event they were said, ignorance is not a valid defense.

 I gave you pretty much what was written exactly in the minutes so to me there’s no indication that there is even a number of people to make a majority to agree on a thing .

A discussion was had, and one person announced something.

 

 

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

Apparently the disconnect here is that the president's announcement did not reflect what was actually agreed to (or not) in executive session. 

So the president's announcement in open session was not correct, but nobody made an effort to correct it at the time.

The minutes were approved without correcting them, but apparently the minutes were an accurate record of the incorrect announcement, and so should not have been corrected.

Which raises a question: If an officer makes statements in a report that are known by some of those present to be incorrect, what is the proper way to bring that fact up?  I think it's clear that amending the minutes is not the way to go.

 

Edited June 27, 2019 at 11:43 PM by Gary Novosielski

[BabbsJohnson]

6 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Apparently the disconnect here is that the president's announcement did not reflect what was actually agreed to (or not) in executive session. 

So the president's announcement in open session was not correct, but nobody made an effort to correct it at the time.

The minutes were approved without correcting them, but apparently the minutes were an accurate record of the incorrect announcement, and so should not have been corrected.

Which raises a question: If an officer makes statements in a report that are known by some of those present to be incorrect, what is the proper way to bring that fact up?  I think it's clear that amending the minutes is not the way to go.

 

 I think part of the problem is that there is a missing detail about the discussion that stated or rather didn’t state whether or not everyone in the discussion (or a majority) agreed on the thing they were discussing.

It’s an implication,  which leaves the person looking at the minutes with an assumption to make,  knowing whether or not the implication or assumption is correct.

[J. J.]

9 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I disagree that this is sufficient for unanimous consent. The procedure for unanimous consent requires the chair to actually request unanimous consent or, at a minimum, to imply such a request by words such as “If there is no objection...” The chair simply making a statement is not a proper request for unanimous consent.

I didn't suggest that it was proper proper.  I suggested that it was valid.

If the chair does something, improperly, but no one objects, that is the will of the assembly.  Qui tacet consentire videtur, i.e. " he who is silent is taken to agree" is, unfortunately, a quite old principle.

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

 I gave you pretty much what was written exactly in the minutes so to me there’s no indication that there is even a number of people to make a majority to agree on a thing .

A discussion was had, and one person announced something.

Yes, I understand. As I have said previously, there is no doubt in my mind that if the minutes are accurate, what is described does not constitute unanimous consent.

The only reason I am hedging at all is because, given the society’s many other problems, it seems at least possible that something may have been missed when writing the minutes.

13 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

The minutes were approved without correcting them, but apparently the minutes were an accurate record of the incorrect announcement, and so should not have been corrected.

Announcements don’t belong in the minutes.

11 hours ago, J. J. said:

I didn't suggest that it was proper proper.  I suggested that it was valid.

If the chair does something, improperly, but no one objects, that is the will of the assembly.  Qui tacet consentire videtur, i.e. " he who is silent is taken to agree" is, unfortunately, a quite old principle.

If the chair merely says that something is happening, and makes no statement to the effect of “If there is no objection...” that does not mean the chair’s statement is now the act of the assembly.

[J. J.]

21 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

If the chair merely says that something is happening, and makes no statement to the effect of “If there is no objection...” that does not mean the chair’s statement is now the act of the assembly.

The failure to utter the phrase is "if there is no objection" or "the requested is granted" would be ground ruling an action void after the fact.  It would be a breach of a continuing nature. 

If I can cite an example from RONR, would you agree?

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, J. J. said:

The failure to utter the phrase is "if there is no objection" or "the requested is granted" would be ground ruling an action void after the fact.  It would be a breach of a continuing nature. 

If I can cite an example from RONR, would you agree?

I already agree, but you seem to have changed your position, so I wonder if you fell through a “not” hole.

[J. J.]

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I already agree, but you seem to have changed your position, so I wonder if you fell through a “not” hole.

Not hole.

 

There is an example in RONR where it is not necessary to note that the request is granted, nor to ask if there is objection.  The chair just orders the action taken.