Amend Something Previously Adopted (48:15) & (35)

[Davidtx175]

At our July meeting, our Chairman read a letter from our attorney to the Committee.  In August, when the minutes were approved, no one noticed that the letter was not included in the minutes.  We found out later that the Secretary requested the letter from the Chairman but he refused to submit the letter to be included in the minutes.  

We attempted to amend the minutes in our September meeting but the Parliamentarian said they could not be amended as that meeting, meaning August, had already approved and then adjourned, thus it couldn't be reopened.  

We attempted again at our just held October meeting Motioned Per 48:15, to Amend Something Previously Adopted.  The parliamentarian insists that that only applies if we had done it in the August meeting, after the minutes had been adopted.  Once that meeting had been adjourned, the minutes were permanent.  

I would like to tap the wisdom and experience of this Forum for your opinion on whether 48:15 is referring only to that August meeting or any meeting after.  It specifically says "- even many years later-" in it's description.  

Thank you

[George Mervosh]

On 10/22/2021 at 1:38 PM, Davidtx175 said:

At our July meeting, our Chairman read a letter from our attorney to the Committee.  In August, when the minutes were approved, no one noticed that the letter was not included in the minutes.  We found out later that the Secretary requested the letter from the Chairman but he refused to submit the letter to be included in the minutes.  

We attempted to amend the minutes in our September meeting but the Parliamentarian said they could not be amended as that meeting, meaning August, had already approved and then adjourned, thus it couldn't be reopened.  

We attempted again at our just held October meeting Motioned Per 48:15, to Amend Something Previously Adopted.  The parliamentarian insists that that only applies if we had done it in the August meeting, after the minutes had been adopted.  Once that meeting had been adjourned, the minutes were permanent.  

I would like to tap the wisdom and experience of this Forum for your opinion on whether 48:15 is referring only to that August meeting or any meeting after.  It specifically says "- even many years later-" in it's description.  

Thank you

The parliamentarian is clearly incorrect. Did he read 48:15?   That said, I don't think the letter should be included in the minutes.  It can certainly be filed with them.  The assembly can order that the entire letter go into them however (48:3).

[Davidtx175]

Thank you, Mr. Mervosh,

Thank you for confirming our opinion.  I am interested in why you don't think the letter should be included.  Is it more because the minutes should just record that it was read?  Thank you for any further clarification you are able to provide.  I see that is as a learning experience for us.  

[George Mervosh]

On 10/22/2021 at 2:01 PM, Davidtx175 said:

Thank you, Mr. Mervosh,

Thank you for confirming our opinion.  I am interested in why you don't think the letter should be included.  Is it more because the minutes should just record that it was read?  Thank you for any further clarification you are able to provide.  I see that is as a learning experience for us.  

Correspondence read to the assembly isn't something listed in 48:4-5. but again, the assembly can add it in this case per 48:3 if it feels it is that important to do so.  Any main motion arising out the correspondence would absolutely be included.

[Davidtx175]

Thank you for your wisdom and insight on this matter.  

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 10/22/2021 at 1:38 PM, Davidtx175 said:

I would like to tap the wisdom and experience of this Forum for your opinion on whether 48:15 is referring only to that August meeting or any meeting after.  It specifically says "- even many years later-" in it's description.

Supposing we all tell you, as Mr. Mervosh already has, that when the book says "even many years later", it means even many years later, but the parliamentarian still says it means "in August 2021." Are you any better off than before? 🙂

[Davidtx175]

Never mind.  I won't bother this forum again.  However, I will say that regardless of outcome, I am always looking for knowledge and insight, perhaps for next battle.  

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 10/22/2021 at 2:42 PM, Davidtx175 said:

Never mind.  I won't bother this forum again.  However, I will say that regardless of outcome, I am always looking for knowledge and insight, perhaps for next battle.  

Well, the parliamentarian was correct in one sense, that any corrections to approved minutes do not permanently erase anything that had appeared in the minute book, but rather are accumulated into the minutes of the meeting at which the correction is made. 

But I don't see that as the issue here.

[Tom Coronite]

On 10/22/2021 at 2:42 PM, Davidtx175 said:

Never mind.  I won't bother this forum again.  However, I will say that regardless of outcome, I am always looking for knowledge and insight, perhaps for next battle.  

Davidtx175, I’d encourage you to consider further the very important point I believe Mr. Gerber is getting at.