Retroactive closing of minutes before the next meeting

[Guest Tom]

Hello, 

I have a question regarding Robert's Rules. At a recent committee meeting, a sensitive matter was discussed regarding suspected fraud. According to Robert's Rules, are the minutes regarding that discussion required to be read if front of the whole body at the next meeting? Can the minutes be retroactively closed between the meetings? What would be the best recourse if we do not want to read the minutes?

Thank you, 

Tom

[Bruce Lages]

Does your organization have a rule requiring committees to keep minutes of their meetings? Normally, committees do not keep minutes since their report to their parent body reflects the results of their work. In lieu of minutes, the committee chair usually makes and keeps notes of the committee's deliberations (RONR, 12th ed. 50:24). It seems to me that if this suspected fraud is to be mentioned to the whole body it would have to be as part of the committee's report.

 

[Guest Tom]

Sorry, "committee" was not the correct term. The body is actually a council and not subsidiary to any deliberative parent body. Parliamentary authority in the bylaws of the council refer exclusively to Robert's Rules. There are no other references to minutes requirements other than listing "Reading of Minutes" in the Order of Business for council meeting. 

[George Mervosh]

The rule in RONR is this:  " In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members."  RONR (12th ed.), 48:2

If this is followed, your problems disappear as the discussion will not appear in the minutes at all. 

Also, if by retroactively closed you mean treat the matter like it was held in executive session when it wasn't, no.

If this council is a governmental type entity, procedural rules in statute may apply which take precedence over the rules in RONR.

Edited April 18, 2022 at 08:47 PM by George Mervosh

[Richard Brown]

If the minutes of that meeting have not yet been approved, then, when the minutes are up for approval, it would be in order for a member to move to strike the discussion of the suspected fraud from the minutes.  Such discussion shouldn’t be in the minutes in the first place. It would require a majority vote (or unanimous consent) to strike the language from the minutes.