Revising Meeting Minutes

[LER]

A motion to table was voted on and received an 8-6 approval, but a board member announced he would like to change his vote, making it a 7-7 vote which defeated the motion to table.  The minutes only reflect the 7-7 vote.  (The motion in question ended up unanimously passing.)  At the following month’s meeting, the board member who initially sponsored the table motion wants the minutes to reflect the 8-6 vote, the member changing his vote, and the concluding 7-7 vote.  I don’t see the point of including all this information.  The final vote was 7-7, and the motion was defeated.   Is all the detail leading up to the final vote necessary?  Appropriate?  

[Joshua Katz]

No, but there's more here. A motion to lay on the table is a subsidiary motion. When a subsidiary motion fails, it should not be included at all. If it carries, it is included only if necessary to completeness or clarity. 

[Richard Brown]

47 minutes ago, LER said:

A motion to table was voted on and received an 8-6 approval, but a board member announced he would like to change his vote, making it a 7-7 vote which defeated the motion to table.

 

43 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

A motion to lay on the table is a subsidiary motion When a subsidiary motion fails, it should not be included at all. If it carries, it is included only if necessary to completeness or clarity. 

I agree, but I think the original poster was most likely referring to a motion to postpone rather than a motion to lay on the table, even though he called it a motion “to table“.  They are both subsidiary motions, however, and should be treated the same way in the minutes.

[LER]

Thank you both.  Your responses are VERY helpful.  Yes, the motion was to postpone to the following month (although the term “table” was used).  But if I am interpreting correctly what you’ve both said:  Since the motion was not on the agenda, it is considered a “subsidiary” motion and since it failed, there should be NO mention of the motion in the minutes period.  Is that correct?

[Joshua Katz]

9 minutes ago, LER said:

Since the motion was not on the agenda, it is considered a “subsidiary” motion and since it failed, there should be NO mention of the motion in the minutes period.  Is that correct?

Not exactly. It is a subsidiary motion because, as RONR says, it "assists the assembly in treating or disposing of a main motion (and sometimes other motions)." That's a characteristic of the motion and unconnected to anything having to do with agendas. And as a consequence, it does not go in the minutes.

Main motions - proposals that the assembly take some action - go in the minutes. Other motions typically do not, unless they passed and you need to include them to explain how something happened.