Correcting a treasurer's report after the adoption of the auditors' report

[Nic Rosenau]

An error in the treasurer’s report was discovered after the auditors’ report was adopted at the last meeting. An accounting error was discovered after the auditors’ report was adopted at the last meeting.

What is the correct procedure for correcting the treasurer’s report? What is the correct procedure for correcting the record? 

My instinct is that this is a motion along the lines of “Motion that the ‘[DATE] Treasurer's [Auditors’|Financial] Report’ be corrected to change the amount of ‘[CATEGORY]’ from ‘[$X]’ to ‘[$Y]’.”

This also changes totals, so should the correction to the total be assumed, noted as an “and” in the motion, or a separate motion? 

What if there was more than one correction? Would each correction need to be a separate motion? 

Obviously, the Treasurer and Auditors would like to explain the circumstances that resulted in the error. I assume they may do so after the chair asks if there is any discussion of the motion, but should (a brief version of) the explanation be included in either the agenda or the minutes? 

What about the record book? Should I discard the erroneous report, should I draw an X through it and write a note to refer to the corrected report, or should I write the corrections on the report? 

Thank you in advance for your assistance. 

Edited October 26, 2023 at 02:52 PM by Nic Rosenau

[Josh Martin]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:19 AM, Nic Rosenau said:

An error in the treasurer’s report was discovered after the auditors’ report was adopted at the last meeting. 

What is the correct procedure for correcting the treasurer’s report? 

My instinct is that this is a motion along the lines of “Motion that the ‘[DATE] Treasurer's Report’ be corrected to change the amount of ‘[CATEGORY]’ from ‘[$X]’ to ‘[$Y]’.”

This also changes totals, so should the correction to the total be assumed, noted as an “and” in the motion, or a separate motion? 

What if there was more than one correction? Would each correction need to be a separate motion? 

Obviously, the Treasurer and Auditors would like to explain the circumstances that resulted in the error. I assume they may do so after the chair asks if there is any discussion of the motion, but should (a brief version of) the explanation be included in either the agenda or the minutes? 

What about the record book? Should I discard the erroneous report, should I draw an X through it and write a note to refer to the corrected report, or should I write the corrections on the report? 

Thank you in advance for your assistance. 

Under the rules in RONR, the treasurer's report itself is not adopted. It is presented for information only. As a result, there is certainly no need to amend the Treasurer's Report.

I think the better question is what is done with the auditors' report. I am frankly not entirely certain. RONR does not address this matter.

Generally, I am inclined to think that the auditors would present a supplemental report, which would be adopted by the assembly. I do not think each correction would need to be adopted separately.

I do not think the original reports should be altered in such a manner that they would conceal what was originally reported, and certainly the original reports should not be discarded. Rather, I think that at most, a notation could be made indicating that a supplemental report with corrections was adopted on X date.

The minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said, so I do not think an explanation should be included in the minutes. Certainly no explanation should be included in the agenda.

[Gary Novosielski]

The audit report is the only one that is properly adopted by the assembly.  If corrections to the treasurer's records are necessary, they should be made, of course, but if there is no error in the auditor's report, no additional votes are required.

Presumably the auditor's report already contains a remark concerning the error.  If not, I'd have questions about the audit.

But in any case, in the future, although the treasurer's report should be delivered as usual, the assembly should not accept, adopt, or otherwise approve of these periodic reports.  On what basis could they certify them to be error-free?  

[Nic Rosenau]

I apologize for my uninformed word choice, but I don't want my inexperience to distract from my question.

The treasurer read out the auditors’ certification as she concluded the presentation of her own report. After the treasurer made her report, the board adopted the auditors’ report. (RONR (12th ed.) 48:25) The Treasurer's Report was audited but it was neither adopted, accepted, nor approved. 

An accounting error was discovered after the auditors’ report was adopted at the last meeting. What is the correct procedure for correcting the record? 

[Gary Novosielski]

I'd agree with @Josh Martin's reply, posted some seconds before mine, that RONR does not directly address accounting errors.  I would suggest asking the auditors what the accepted process is, and whether and how a supplement to their report would be available.  I do not think it would be in order to move to amend the original auditor's report.  I suppose you could rescind the adoption, but you can't properly make changes to their signed report.

[Nic Rosenau]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:32 AM, Josh Martin said:

Under the rules in RONR, the treasurer's report itself is not adopted. It is presented for information only. As a result, there is certainly no need to amend the Treasurer's Report.

I think the better question is what is done with the auditors' report. I am frankly not entirely certain. RONR does not address this matter.

Generally, I am inclined to think that the auditors would present a supplemental report, which would be adopted by the assembly. I do not think each correction would need to be adopted separately.

I do not think the original reports should be altered in such a manner that they would conceal what was originally reported, and certainly the original reports should not be discarded. Rather, I think that at most, a notation could be made indicating that a supplemental report with corrections was adopted on X date.

The minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said, so I do not think an explanation should be included in the minutes. Certainly no explanation should be included in the agenda.

Just to be sure I understand your advice (which I very much appreciate): 

On the agenda for the next meeting, under “Reports of Officers and Standing Committees,” I will add “Supplemental Auditors‘ Report.” 

Am I correct in assuming that one of the auditors should present this report and not our (new) Treasurer? 

In the record book, after our next meeting where the supplemental report will presumably be adopted," I will write a note on the existing report (that does not obscure any text) that a supplemental report with corrections was adopted on [the date of that meeting].

[Josh Martin]

On 10/26/2023 at 10:11 AM, Nic Rosenau said:

Just to be sure I understand your advice (which I very much appreciate): 

On the agenda for the next meeting, under “Reports of Officers and Standing Committees,” I will add “Supplemental Auditors‘ Report.” 

Yes, this is correct.

On 10/26/2023 at 10:11 AM, Nic Rosenau said:

Am I correct in assuming that one of the auditors should present this report and not our (new) Treasurer? 

Yes.

On 10/26/2023 at 10:11 AM, Nic Rosenau said:

In the record book, after our next meeting where the supplemental report will presumably be adopted," I will write a note on the existing report (that does not obscure any text) that a supplemental report with corrections was adopted on [the date of that meeting].

Yes.