Removing a motion from minutes before they are posted

[Philip]

On our non profit board, we made a motion that at the time, and given the information we had, was what we believed to be the right decision.  Since that time, new information has come to light that changes things and that previous motion, which has not yet been acted on, is no longer the best way to proceed.  The minutes of that meeting have not been approved yet, and the posting of said minutes with said motion could cause damage to the reputation of the board and far more importantly, the organization as a whole.  Is there a proper way to address changing/removing the motion to reflect the new information that we have available, without having to post the original, now damaging motion? 

I apologize if that all comes across as confusing or convoluted.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

Is there a proper way to address changing/removing the motion to reflect the new information that we have available, without having to post the original, now damaging motion

No.

The motion can be amended or rescinded at a future meeting, but that doesn’t change history. The minutes of the original meeting must remain the same. The motion was adopted at that meeting, and that must be recorded in the minutes.

Edited February 15, 2020 at 06:52 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

I think Mr. Martin got the impression the motion had been adopted, but the poster, Philip, says no action has been taken. I agree with Mr. Martin that the motion must remain in the minutes; however, there are three ways to dispose of the motion at the next meeting: 1) any member of the board can make an incidental motion to Request for Permission to Withdraw a Motion [with the maker's agreement], RONR (11th ed.), pp. 295-298; 2) any member can make a subsidiary motion to Postpone Indefinitely, RONR (11th ed.), pp. 126-130; and, 3) the board can directly reject the motion, RONR (11th ed.), p. 32.

All of these subsequent actions will be recorded in the minutes for completeness, and any of them will permanently record that the board did not think that what the motion proposed to do was advisable.

 

[Guest Zev]

Since the minutes of the first meeting with the so-called "inappropriate motion" have not yet been approved, would it be possible for the meeting that rescinds the "inappropriate motion" to also amend the previous meeting's minutes to add a parenthetical note, something like "(This motion was subsequently rescinded. See the minutes for the meeting of Month/Year.")? In this fashion a person reading the minutes would also take notice of the fact that it was subsequently rescinded and possibly soften the political fallout of its having been enacted.

[Rob Elsman]

Guest Zev, no.

[Guest Zev]

No? Even in the case a member gains the floor and makes a motion "...to amend the minutes of meeting MONTH/YEAR and add the parenthetical notation that 'This motion was subsequently rescinded. See the minutes for the meeting of Month/Year.')"?

[Rob Elsman]

Some kind of document containing these kinds of cross references can be maintained (perhaps by the society's historian) for historical purposes, but the cross references and other annotations should not be included in the minutes, except as required by the rules.

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I think Mr. Martin got the impression the motion had been adopted, but the poster, Philip, says no action has been taken.

My impression was that “no action has been taken” meant that the motion was adopted, but that no action has yet been taken to carry out the motion. I agree with your analysis if the motion has not yet been adopted.

Edited February 16, 2020 at 12:46 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

4 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Some kind of document containing these kinds of cross references can be maintained (perhaps by the society's historian) for historical purposes, but the cross references and other annotations should not be included in the minutes, except as required by the rules.

My argument was that an assembly could include in its previous minutes a parenthetical note, and if I understand your posting correctly, you are saying that this is not possible except by way of a previously-existing rule, which incidentally even a unanimous vote in the current case would be unable to overcome. This does not sound right, or did I miss something?

[Rob Elsman]

No, I didn't say any such thing.

[Richard Brown]

On 2/15/2020 at 2:18 PM, Guest Zev said:

Since the minutes of the first meeting with the so-called "inappropriate motion" have not yet been approved, would it be possible for the meeting that rescinds the "inappropriate motion" to also amend the previous meeting's minutes to add a parenthetical note, something like "(This motion was subsequently rescinded. See the minutes for the meeting of Month/Year.")? In this fashion a person reading the minutes would also take notice of the fact that it was subsequently rescinded and possibly soften the political fallout of its having been enacted.

 

On 2/15/2020 at 3:51 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Guest Zev, no.

I disagree and I'm surprised there wasn't more discussion about Guest Zev's question. I would have commented days ago, but I was out of state for five days at a convention and I'm just now catching up. I think what Guest Zev suggested is not only possible but might actually be the better procedure.  

There are several reasons for my opinion.  First, every society may determine what is in its minutes.  If the society wants its minutes of a previous meeting to reflect that a motion which was adopted at that meeting was later rescinded, it is free to do so.  Making the addition to those minutes makes it MUCH easier to determine whether the motion is still in force or has been subsequently amended or rescinded. Whether it would require a majority or a two thirds vote to do that is a separate issue from the question of WHETHER it can be done.

Second, the provisions in RONR for the minutes (call if a rule if insist) are, at most,  rules of order which can be suspended by a two thirds vote. So, certainly by a two thirds vote, the assembly could direct the secretary to make the desired notation in the  minutes of the previous meeting.  This seems to me to be essentially the same as making a margin entry in the minutes as Dan Honemann suggested in this thread: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/28860-minutes-correction-of-a-past-meeting/ 

I see nothing in RONR which prohibits suspending the rules to permit the assembly to order that the minutes of a previous meeting... especially minutes which have not yet been approved... contain a notation that an adopted motion was subsequently rescinded.  It is certainly not listed as a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

Third, since the minutes at issue have not yet been approved, this is not even a matter of amending something previously adopted as would otherwise be required for amending the minutes. It is simply a matter of the assembly making a decision... perhaps by way of correcting the minutes... to reflect what the assembly wants them to say.   Whether we like this or not is a separate issue of whether the assembly has the RIGHT to do it.

Fourth, as I mentioned earlier, this notation does not in any way alter the record of what actually happened at the previous meeting.  It simply adds an explanatory note.... much like a margin entry.... that a particular motion was subsequently rescinded. 

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the minutes of the prior  meeting could be "corrected" (or "amended", if you prefer) with a notation that a certain motion which was adopted at that meeting was subsequently rescinded and providing the date of the meeting at which the motion was rescinded.

Edited to add:  I neglected to mention that General Robert, in his answer to Question 248 in Parliamentary Law, says, "Anything that the rules require to be in the minutes cannot be struck out, except by a two thirds vote."  So, it seems that adding something to the minutes, if you consider the type notation being discussed as being an addition to the  minutes, would, AT MOST, require a two thirds vote.

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2020 at 09:03 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph with reference to Parliamentary Law.

[Atul Kapur]

I concur with Guest Zev and Mr. Brown.