Quest Posted December 13, 2023 at 05:08 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2023 at 05:08 PM Our secretary records a roll call of attendees, full names, at the start of the minutes. When motions are made he only references the first name which corresponds with the confirmed attendee. So Jane Doe is recorded present, and Jane made a motion is in the body. A member has stated our minutes are not in legal compliance because the full name is not stated in responses. I am not asking about the legal pov, just what Robert's Rules requires. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 13, 2023 at 05:53 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2023 at 05:53 PM RONR's sample minutes say Ms. Doe made a motion, rather than Jane. I'm not certain it is a requirement, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 13, 2023 at 06:14 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2023 at 06:14 PM I think it needs to absolutely clear who made the motion. I recommend using the full name if your group is not comfortable with the Mr/Mrs/Ms thing along with the last name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted December 13, 2023 at 06:30 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2023 at 06:30 PM On 12/13/2023 at 12:08 PM, Quest said: Jane Doe is recorded present, and Jane made a motion is in the body. On 12/13/2023 at 1:14 PM, George Mervosh said: it needs to absolutely clear who made the motion If there's only one Jane in attendance, their current practice would satisfy that need (similarly, so would Ms. Doe, as long as Jane's sister Jennifer isn't also in attendance). I agree that you want to be able to identify the particular individual, but however you do that, I'm not too fussed how that is done (eg: Jane, Ms. Doe, Owner of Unit 112, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quest Posted December 13, 2023 at 06:33 PM Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2023 at 06:33 PM On 12/13/2023 at 12:14 PM, George Mervosh said: I think it needs to absolutely clear who made the motion. I recommend using the full name if your group is not comfortable with the Mr/Mrs/Ms thing along with the last name. Sounds like recommended, but is it required? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 13, 2023 at 07:37 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2023 at 07:37 PM On 12/13/2023 at 1:14 PM, George Mervosh said: I think it needs to absolutely clear who made the motion. I recommend using the full name if your group is not comfortable with the Mr/Mrs/Ms thing along with the last name. On 12/13/2023 at 1:33 PM, Quest said: Sounds like recommended, but is it required? On 12/13/2023 at 12:08 PM, Quest said: Our secretary records a roll call of attendees, full names, at the start of the minutes. When motions are made he only references the first name which corresponds with the confirmed attendee. So Jane Doe is recorded present, and Jane made a motion is in the body. A member has stated our minutes are not in legal compliance because the full name is not stated in responses. I am not asking about the legal pov, just what Robert's Rules requires. Thank you Nothing in Robert's Rules requires that the full name of the mover of a motion be recorded in the minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted December 14, 2023 at 04:25 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2023 at 04:25 AM I agree with @George Mervosh. One hundred fifty years from now, who is going to know the meaning of just "George" or "Mr. Mervosh". By all means, resolve any ambiguity while the information is still available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 14, 2023 at 04:36 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2023 at 04:36 AM A hundred fifty years from now, who is going to care who moved any given motion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 14, 2023 at 03:23 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2023 at 03:23 PM On 12/13/2023 at 11:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said: A hundred fifty years from now, who is going to care who moved any given motion? Considering that I once cited, in 2001, the results of a vote of the Convocation of Canterbury on March 31, 1534, it is quite possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quest Posted December 14, 2023 at 03:25 PM Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2023 at 03:25 PM Thanks for all comments. My question was answered. The full name is not required. But it is good practice to assure the one who made the motion is clear. I reviewed some of our county commission minutes and they use title and last name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted December 14, 2023 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2023 at 06:16 PM On 12/14/2023 at 10:23 AM, J. J. said: Considering that I once cited, in 2001, the results of a vote of the Convocation of Canterbury on March 31, 1534, it is quite possible. Did you care who moved it, or just the motion as decided and the result? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted December 14, 2023 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2023 at 08:21 PM On 12/13/2023 at 1:30 PM, Atul Kapur said: I agree that you want to be able to identify the particular individual, but however you do that, I'm not too fussed how that is done (eg: Jane, Ms. Doe, Owner of Unit 112, etc). The rule in RONR 48:5 is that "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes…" "Owner of Unit 112" is probably not anyone's name. But I will concede that nothing in RONR says you should be too fussed if the maker of a motion is not identified by name in the minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 14, 2023 at 08:45 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2023 at 08:45 PM On 12/14/2023 at 1:16 PM, Atul Kapur said: Did you care who moved it, or just the motion as decided and the result? Actually, I wanted to know who voted "Doubtful." I suspect it was the Vicar of Bray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 15, 2023 at 02:11 AM Report Share Posted December 15, 2023 at 02:11 AM On 12/14/2023 at 10:23 AM, J. J. said: Considering that I once cited, in 2001, the results of a vote of the Convocation of Canterbury on March 31, 1534, it is quite possible. The results of the vote could certainly be of interest, but I wouldn't give a plugged nickel to know that the mover was "Keith" or whoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted December 15, 2023 at 04:56 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2023 at 04:56 PM Mr. Gerber has cited the rule. I think we know what our names are. And, I think we all know how to comply with the cited rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 15, 2023 at 08:53 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2023 at 08:53 PM There you go thinkin' again. That never ends well. 😇 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts