Refusal to approve minutes

[R.W.]

Good evening folks.  I have a great source of frustration to share and look for insights.

I have been taking minutes at church council meetings.  However, since I was elected in March only one set of minutes has been approved.  A second set, from the meeting 10 days before the new group was elected, was approved but with loud objections, folks saying that we had no right to approve the previous council's minutes.  

here is a synopsis of what I am facing:
-- Meeting with In Camera declared.  Never having done this before, I used advice gleaned here and wrote two sets of minutes, with and without the in camera portion.  Neither have been approved.  The following meeting, the same topic was discussed without calling for In Camera.  

-- The previous council preferred to decide via consensus, rather than by motion.  Our first meeting combined the old and new councils, and a key decision was made by consensus.  This was later deemed unacceptable, and although I have repeatedly worded things exactly to specifications, both in that meeting minutes and subsequent meeting minutes, every time it is deemed unacceptable.  The response fromthe chair is to table the entire set of minutes, meeting after meeting, without approval and occasionally without discussion. 

-- Three meetings were called in a 2 week period -- two of the meetings were nearly 3 hours long and one meeting flipped back and forth in two languages.  I was loudly criticized for not having all the minutes ready.  I am still waiting for the French translation of the bilingual meeting -- I wrote the minutes in English. 

-- A 3 hour meeting with lots of details to capture will produce a 10 page document.  (I do use a decent sized font.)   If you want any kind of meaningful detail,  and you have folks with the odd eloquent turn of phrase worth preserving, that's what you're gonna get.   [Please don't pick on me about this.  You can see I'm wordy.]

-- The chair is now complaining there are "too many minutes out there" and she is "confused."  But instead of approving any minutes at the recent  "emergency" meeting, including the ones I busted a hump for esepcially for that meeting, she cut the whoel emeting short so she could go to lunch at a restaurant and someone else could go to a birthday party. I BLEW UP which freaked out a few folks  and now they are probably secretly plotting how to get rid of me.  (The bylaws have no provision for, um, forced removal.  I have to resign or die.)  
 

I am being harassed into strange formatting requirements based on an archive document from who knows what century.  (Examples:  Margin sizes to accommodate book binding; calling for quorum when there is no definition for quorum, etc.) This is taken as gospel, while our bylaws are brushed off as "suggestions and guidelines." (Based on rulings last year, when I chaired the AGM and it was hijacked, they are definitely not.)

I am being harassed into delivering minutes on other people's schedules, without regards for whatever might be on my plate (within and outside church duties).  Prior to the last meeting, I was ordered to put everything aside to have the minutes done, only to be told they were unacceptable -- because the key motion she was looking for did not happen!  And I have the zoom recording to prove it.  

 I feel like I am wasting my time and effort.  The chair made snarky remarks more than once that if I can't handle the workload, I should give it to someone else.  But it's part of my job description.

Quitting this [volunteer] post also means quitting all the other duties of the position, e.g. newsletter, social media, etc.  Alternatively the post decription can be redefined to take away recording the minutes, but this requires a congregational meeting to amend the bylaws.

(deep breath)  OK I'm ready for your thoughts and suggestions.  I am doing my best to (1) make sure everyone follows the rules and (2) produce quality minutes, not just "Hi we were here, we talked about this, said a prayer, boom done."

p.s. if there is anything different with Bourinot's Rules vs Robert's Rules, the former would apply. 

Edited July 16, 2024 at 03:49 AM by R.W.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/15/2024 at 11:42 PM, R.W. said:

"Hi we were here, we talked about this, said a prayer, boom done."

Actually, those minutes are probably excessive.  "We talked about this" does not belong in the minutes.  Minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said.

 

On 7/15/2024 at 11:42 PM, R.W. said:

if there is anything different with Bourinot's Rules vs Robert's Rules, the former would apply. 

Well, there's your problem right there.

If the rules in RONR were to apply the following procedure would be used for approval of minutes.  Note that under RONR there is no way to vote No on approval of minutes.   Failing to approve the minutes is not an option.  But Bourinot's rules are less well written, and apparently allow for a No vote on approval.  

[RONR (12th ed.) §41]
41:9
1. Reading and Approval of Minutes. The chair says, “The Secretary will read the minutes.” However, in organizations where copies of the minutes of each previous meeting as prepared by the secretary are sent to all members in advance, the chair announces that this has been done, and the actual reading of them aloud is omitted unless any member then requests that they be read. (For “dispensing” with the reading of the minutes—that is, not reading them for approval at the regular time—see 48:11.) If for any reason there are minutes of other meetings in addition to the last meeting that have not been read previously, they are each read and approved first, in order of date from earliest to latest. In all but the smallest meetings, the secretary stands while reading the minutes.

41:10
A formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary, although such a motion is not out of order. After the minutes have been read (or after their reading has been omitted by unanimous consent as described in the previous paragraph), and whether or not a motion for approval has been offered, the chair asks, “Are there any corrections to the minutes?” and pauses. Corrections, when proposed, are usually handled by unanimous consent (4:58–63), but if any member objects to a proposed correction—which is, in effect, a subsidiary motion to Amend—the usual rules governing consideration of amendments to a main motion are applicable (see 12).

41:11
After any proposed corrections have been disposed of, and when there is no response to the chair’s inquiry, “Are there any corrections [or “further corrections”] to the minutes?” the chair says, “There being no corrections [or “no further corrections”] to the minutes, the minutes stand [or “are”] approved [or “approved as read,” or “approved as corrected”].” The minutes are thus approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made. The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary’s draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it.³ It should be noted that a member’s absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval.

[Josh Martin]

On 7/15/2024 at 10:42 PM, R.W. said:

A second set, from the meeting 10 days before the new group was elected, was approved but with loud objections, folks saying that we had no right to approve the previous council's minutes.  

The loud objections were incorrect.

Now, it would have been preferable if the previous members had approved the last set of minutes on the way out the door, but since that didn't happen, the minutes still must be approved.

"Exceptions to the rule that minutes are approved at the next regular meeting (or at the next meeting within the session) arise when the next meeting will not be held within a quarterly time interval, when the term of a specified portion of the membership will expire before the start of the next meeting, or when, as at the final meeting of a convention, the assembly will be dissolved at the close of the present meeting. In any of these cases, minutes that have not been approved previously should be approved before final adjournment, or the assembly should authorize the executive board or a special committee to approve the minutes. The fact that the minutes are not read for approval at the next meeting does not prevent a member from having a relevant excerpt read for information; nor does it prevent the assembly in such a case from making additional corrections, treating the minutes as having been previously approved (see 48:15)." RONR (12th ed.) 48:12

On 7/15/2024 at 10:42 PM, R.W. said:

-- A 3 hour meeting with lots of details to capture will produce a 10 page document.  (I do use a decent sized font.)   If you want any kind of meaningful detail,  and you have folks with the odd eloquent turn of phrase worth preserving, that's what you're gonna get.   [Please don't pick on me about this.  You can see I'm wordy.]

I think you're putting too much information in the minutes.

"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. The minutes must never reflect the secretary's opinion, favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done." RONR (12th ed.) 48:2, emphasis in original

On 7/15/2024 at 10:42 PM, R.W. said:

-- The previous council preferred to decide via consensus, rather than by motion.  Our first meeting combined the old and new councils, and a key decision was made by consensus.  This was later deemed unacceptable, and although I have repeatedly worded things exactly to specifications, both in that meeting minutes and subsequent meeting minutes, every time it is deemed unacceptable.  The response from the chair is to table the entire set of minutes, meeting after meeting, without approval and occasionally without discussion. 

I'm not entirely clear on what was believed to be "unacceptable." Is what was viewed as unacceptable the contents of the minutes, or what happened?

If their concern is with what happened, that's not your problem. The minutes should accurately record what was done, regardless of whether what happened was popular or even proper.

If the concern is with the minutes, I'm not entirely clear on what the concern is.

On 7/15/2024 at 10:42 PM, R.W. said:

(The bylaws have no provision for, um, forced removal.  I have to resign or die.)  

This is incorrect. If the bylaws are silent on removal of officers, RONR has procedures on that matter. See FAQ #20 and RONR (12th ed.) 62:16.

On 7/15/2024 at 10:42 PM, R.W. said:

calling for quorum when there is no definition for quorum

But there is, in fact, a definition for quorum even if your bylaws do not have one.

"Depending on the organization and the provision it adopts in this regard, the number of members constituting a quorum may vary. As discussed below, most voluntary societies should provide for a quorum in their bylaws, but where there is no such provision, the quorum, in accordance with the common parliamentary law, is as follows:

1) In a mass meeting, the quorum is simply the number of persons present at the time, since they constitute the entire membership at that time.
2) In organizations such as many churches or some societies in which there are no required or effective annual dues and the register of members is not generally reliable as a list of the bona-fide members, the quorum at any regular or properly called meeting consists of those who attend.
3) In a body of delegates, such as a convention, the quorum is a majority of the number who have been registered as attending, irrespective of whether some may have departed. This may differ greatly from the number elected or appointed.
4) In any other deliberative assembly with enrolled membership whose bylaws do not specify a quorum, the quorum is a majority of all the members." RONR (12th ed.) 40:2

On 7/15/2024 at 10:42 PM, R.W. said:

(2) produce quality minutes, not just "Hi we were here, we talked about this, said a prayer, boom done."

But quality minutes are brief minutes.

On 7/15/2024 at 10:42 PM, R.W. said:

p.s. if there is anything different with Bourinot's Rules vs Robert's Rules, the former would apply. 

I can't speak to that, as this is a forum regarding Robert's Rules of Order. I am not familiar with Bourinot's.

Edited July 16, 2024 at 12:28 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

On 7/15/2024 at 10:42 PM, R.W. said:

p.s. if there is anything different with Bourinot's Rules vs Robert's Rules, the former would apply. 

Where does that statement come from? Are  Bourinot’s Rules your organization’s official parliamentary authority? You never mentioned that. I had never even heard of Bourinot’s Rules of order, which appears to be based on the rules in the Canadian House of Commons,  but that’s beside the point. If your organization has officially adopted that rulebook as your parliamentary authority, then it is those rules you should be following, not Roberts Rules of Order.

I suggest that maybe you should be searching for a forum on Bourinot’s Rules — if one exists.  If  that is your parliamentary authority, I’m not sure how much we can help you in this forum. As Mr. Martin explained, this forum is about Roberts Rules of Order, particularly Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition.

BTW, I agree with my colleagues that it appears you are putting way too much information in your minutes, at least if RONR is your parliamentary authority.  I have no idea how much information Bourinot’s Rules call for.  RONR does provide that each society can decide for itself want to include in its minutes, but that should be done by the adoption of a special rule of order specifying what to include in the minutes. 

[Gary Novosielski]

Apparently Bourinot's Rules are waning in popularity.  Here is an article describing its deficiencies.  I had reviewed them briefly before reading this but I came away with the same impressions:    "giving too much authority to the Chair…, too much power to a minority to frustrate the majority, and … not sufficiently protecting the rights of minorities. 

https://michaelmouritsen.ca/blog/f/the-many-problems-with-bourinot’s-rules-of-order

[R.W.]

On 7/16/2024 at 1:04 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

under RONR there is no way to vote No on approval of minutes.   Failing to approve the minutes is not an option.  But Bourinot's rules are less well written,

I wanted to clarify on this point.  We aren't getting to vote on approval at all.    The approval is [most of the time] in the agenda, but one of these is happening:

-- Motion to table approval to the next meeting:  Move, second, carried.
-- Chair decides to table approval to the next meeting and there is a consensus to do so.

 

Edited July 16, 2024 at 02:32 PM by R.W.
clarify when to remove from table

[Weldon Merritt]

On 7/16/2024 at 8:27 AM, Richard Brown said:

Are  Bourinot’s Rules your organization’s official parliamentary authority?

I have the same question. Based on R.W.'S statement:

On 7/15/2024 at 10:42 PM, R.W. said:

if there is anything different with Bourinot's Rules vs Robert's Rules, the former would apply. 

it seems either that Bourinot's Rules are the organization's parliamentary authority or that they follow RONR except where Bousnot's differs. Either way, we can only answer questions about RONR. (Actually, I suspect that Atul Kapur or some of our other Canadian colleagues could. But since this is an RONR forum, whether they should is another question.)

[R.W.]

On 7/16/2024 at 8:27 AM, Josh Martin said:

The loud objections were incorrect.

I think you're putting too much information in the minutes.

I'm not entirely clear on what was believed to be "unacceptable." Is what was viewed as unacceptable the contents of the minutes, or what happened?

 

What is deemed unacceptable:

-- Not having draft minutes ready at the whim of the chairwoman or other council members.
-- Picking out the action items to put into a larger to-do spreadsheet (leftovers from previous council) and making that available while writing up the minutes.
-- Minutes that are recording accurately what happened (or didn't happen).
-- Any objections from me to anything  that is requested -- especially if I reference our bylaws as support.
-- Motions to approve minutes one meeting at a time, rather than one motion to cover the whole block of outstanding minutes.    [There have been 5 meetings so far.]

The big sticking point is about a decision to change signing officers at the bank.  Decision was made in April, by consensus.  Apparently the bank needs the actual minutes of the meeting where this decision t ook place.  REquest to include  all the titles of everyone at the meeting, and also who is being revoked.  Multiple complaints this isn't getting written up fast enough, and how important this is because "bills can't be paid."  (This was one of the 3 hour meetings.  And some of the signers are the same, so does not affect payments that badly.)  Minutes keep getting tabled without approval.  Treasurer refuses to take document to bank, saying what I wrote is "unacceptable" -- now she says it has to be a motion, not a consensus, and exact wording how it should appear.  Discussion at meeting got sidetracked by something else, and motion was never made.  (I checked the zoom video thoroughly. ) Pointed out gently by email ahead of the meeting -- no answer.  Wrote clearly in the minutes the exact wording desired, but that this topic got abandoned before voting.  "Emergency" meeting last week to get these minutes (with the missing motion) approved.  Minutes were tabled.   treasurer again says what I wrote is "unacceptable" and wants new wording, new efectve date -- pretty much mirroring what was available in April, and a motion to do so.  "oh maybe let's add this, Oh maybe that."  You had all that in April! Amending the motion. Treasurer told me, "I'll take it to the bank in December if i feel like it"  and instead of lsitening to what I had to say, tried to stomp off before the vote. Now there's an extract of the minutes written as a memo on church letterhead -- which I printed on my color printer and signed as secretary, to the objection of the treasurer.  Did the chair sign it yet?  Who knows.  What's next -- do we have to translate the memo into French?!

Contrary to popular belief, I am not writing verbatim minutes.  [Bourinot does point out there is a time when verbatim is necessary:  when someone is thrown out of a meeting by the chair and/or uses "unparliamentary language".  Hasn't happened yet.]  But I am providing certain details so that someone can pick up the thread and understand what went on.

As for "what was done" vs "what was said":  If there's a bunch of discussion and the action item is:  So-and-so will talk to Buddy Boy.  You need a certain amount of info about *why* So-and-so needs to talk to Buddy Boy, what brought this on, what folks need to know.  

And  if I am now being bullied at the meetings, I feel it's important to document that.

Edited July 16, 2024 at 03:57 PM by R.W.
another complaint to add

[R.W.]

 

On 7/16/2024 at 9:27 AM, Richard Brown said:

Are  Bourinot’s Rules your organization’s official parliamentary authority? [..]

I suggest that maybe you should be searching for a forum on Bourinot’s Rules — if one exists.

Yes they are, and no one does not.  This forum has been very educational, and helpful for me to figure out very specific things where Bourinot is silent.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/16/2024 at 10:30 AM, R.W. said:

I wanted to clarify on this point.  We aren't getting to vote on approval at all.    The approval is [most of the time] in the agenda, but one of these is happening:

-- Motion to table approval to the next meeting:  Move, second, carried.
-- Chair decides to table approval to the next meeting and there is a consensus to do so.

 

Sounds like someone should be objecting.  

[Richard Brown]

On 7/16/2024 at 12:28 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Sounds like someone should be objecting.  

And more particularly, raising a point of order that the minutes need to be approved. Even if the chair is going to find the Point of Order not well taken, people still need to raise it.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/16/2024 at 3:57 PM, Richard Brown said:

And more particularly, raising a point of order that the minutes need to be approved. Even if the chair is going to find the Point of Order not well taken, people still need to raise it.

Agreed.  And hope that this isn't one of Bourinot’s unappealable situations.

[Drake Savory]

On 7/16/2024 at 11:28 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Sounds like someone should be objecting.  

At the very least, object that Table is not the same thing as Postpone.  It would be interesting to have the debate on Postpone which is lost with the motion to Table.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 7/17/2024 at 1:52 PM, Drake Savory said:

At the very least, object that Table is not the same thing as Postpone.

Given that R.W. has said that their PA is Bourinot’s, tis might or might not be so. I have no idea how these motions are related in Bourinot’s, and I suspect most of the rest of us do not either (with the probable exception of our Canadian colleagues). So i'm noy at all ssure how helpful our responses may be.

We certainly can tell R.R. what RONR says. But that may or may not be relevant to a particualr situation under Bourinot’s .

 

[Josh Martin]

On 7/16/2024 at 8:48 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Apparently Bourinot's Rules are waning in popularity.  Here is an article describing its deficiencies.  I had reviewed them briefly before reading this but I came away with the same impressions:    "giving too much authority to the Chair…, too much power to a minority to frustrate the majority, and … not sufficiently protecting the rights of minorities. 

Impressive that it manages to pull off all of these at the same time.

On 7/16/2024 at 9:30 AM, R.W. said:

I wanted to clarify on this point.  We aren't getting to vote on approval at all.    The approval is [most of the time] in the agenda, but one of these is happening:

-- Motion to table approval to the next meeting:  Move, second, carried.
-- Chair decides to table approval to the next meeting and there is a consensus to do so.

For starters, (in Robert's Rules, at least), this is confusing the motion to Lay on the Table with the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time. See FAQ #12.

An organization is, of course, free to postpone the minutes if the assembly is not prepared to approve the minutes at that time. Generally, this is done because the minutes are not yet ready, or because the changes needed are so substantial that it would take too much time to fix them on the spot.

Certainly, however, the assembly cannot just keep doing this indefinitely, and the longer the assembly puts off approving the minutes, the more minutes the assembly will have to approve. Apparently, the assembly currently has five sets of minutes in its backlog. This is unusual.

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, R.W. said:

-- Not having draft minutes ready at the whim of the chairwoman or other council members.

I don't understand what is meant by this, but certainly it is correct that draft minutes need not be ready "at the whim" of any particular person. So far as RONR is concerned, the draft minutes must be prepared by the next regular meeting. An organization may, if it wishes, adopt rules requiring them to be completed and distributed earlier, but no individual member may demand this.

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, R.W. said:

-- Picking out the action items to put into a larger to-do spreadsheet (leftovers from previous council) and making that available while writing up the minutes.

This has nothing to do with the minutes. The assembly is free to have such a list prepared (or not) if it wishes, but this is separate and apart from the minutes.

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, R.W. said:

-- Minutes that are recording accurately what happened (or didn't happen).

It is certainly the case that the minutes must accurately record what happened - to the extent that something should be in the minutes at all.

For the contents of the minutes, see RONR (12th ed.) 48:2-8.

I would note that while I am not an attorney and cannot provide legal advice, I would note that it is my general understanding that the minutes are a legal record of the assembly's proceedings. So to the extent that the assembly were to falsify the contents of the minutes, that may well also cause legal problems for the society (not to mention parliamentary and practical problems). Further questions concerning this matter should, however, be directed to an attorney.

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, R.W. said:

-- Any objections from me to anything  that is requested -- especially if I reference our bylaws as support.

I don't fully understand what this is referring to.

I would note, again, that the minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said. So "objections" from you or anyone else generally should not be recorded in the minutes.

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, R.W. said:

-- Motions to approve minutes one meeting at a time, rather than one motion to cover the whole block of outstanding minutes.    [There have been 5 meetings so far.]

Well, to be clear, there should be no motions at all to approve the minutes.

Rather, what should happen is the following:

1.) Start with the oldest set of minutes.

2.) If the minutes have not been distributed in advance, the minutes must be read. If they have been distributed in advance, this step may be skipped if no member objects.

3.) The chair asks if there are any corrections to the minutes.

4.) Generally, corrections are handled by unanimous consent. If there is disagreement (for some reason), a majority vote settles the issue.

5.) After there are no further corrections, the chair declares the minutes approved.

6.) Move on to the next oldest set of minutes, and rinse and repeat the above steps until all sets of minutes are approved.

There should not be a blanket motion to approve all five sets of minutes. Members have a right to propose corrections.

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, R.W. said:

The big sticking point is about a decision to change signing officers at the bank....

Honestly, it seems to me this is an interpersonal problem between officers, not a parliamentary problem, and I have no advice for you.

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, R.W. said:

Contrary to popular belief, I am not writing verbatim minutes.  [Bourinot does point out there is a time when verbatim is necessary:  when someone is thrown out of a meeting by the chair and/or uses "unparliamentary language".  Hasn't happened yet.] 

This is largely consistent with Robert's.

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, R.W. said:

But I am providing certain details so that someone can pick up the thread and understand what went on.

As for "what was done" vs "what was said":  If there's a bunch of discussion and the action item is:  So-and-so will talk to Buddy Boy.  You need a certain amount of info about *why* So-and-so needs to talk to Buddy Boy, what brought this on, what folks need to know.  

It continues to be my view that you are putting too much information in the minutes. See what RONR says in RONR (12th ed.) 48:2-8.

But no one listens to RONR on this matter, so I suppose you are in good company. Most organizations put too much information in their minutes.

What I advise (although no one listens) is that to the extent more detailed notes are necessary, they should be kept in a separate document from the minutes.

On 7/16/2024 at 10:32 AM, R.W. said:

And  if I am now being bullied at the meetings, I feel it's important to document that.

It should not be documented unless it gets to the point of "naming" a member, as discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 61:12.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/17/2024 at 2:52 PM, Drake Savory said:

At the very least, object that Table is not the same thing as Postpone.  It would be interesting to have the debate on Postpone which is lost with the motion to Table.

I believe the proper motion would be to "Dispense with the reading of minutes" which is a postponement, but specific to the approval process of the minutes.  In any case it's misfeasance to allow them to pile up for months.

[Josh Martin]

On 7/17/2024 at 3:07 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I believe the proper motion would be to "Dispense with the reading of minutes" which is a postponement, but specific to the approval process of the minutes.  In any case it's misfeasance to allow them to pile up for months.

No, to "dispense with the reading of the minutes" is actually more similar to the motion to Lay on the Table. If it is desired to postpone the minutes to the next meeting, the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time is the correct motion.

"If the assembly does not wish to carry out the reading and approval of the minutes at the regular time, it may, by majority vote without debate, “dispense with the reading of the minutes.” The minutes can then be taken up by majority vote without debate at any later time during the meeting while no business is pending, under the same rules as those governing Take from the Table (34). If the minutes are not thus taken up before adjournment, they are read and approved at the following meeting, before the later minutes are taken up. A motion to “dispense with the reading of the minutes” is not a request to omit their reading altogether; it can be made at any time while the minutes are actually pending for approval regardless of whether the minutes have already been read or corrected in some respect." RONR (12th ed.) 48:11

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/17/2024 at 4:09 PM, Josh Martin said:

No, to "dispense with the reading of the minutes" is actually more similar to the motion to Lay on the Table. If it is desired to postpone the minutes to the next meeting, the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time is the correct motion.

"If the assembly does not wish to carry out the reading and approval of the minutes at the regular time, it may, by majority vote without debate, “dispense with the reading of the minutes.” The minutes can then be taken up by majority vote without debate at any later time during the meeting while no business is pending, under the same rules as those governing Take from the Table (34). If the minutes are not thus taken up before adjournment, they are read and approved at the following meeting, before the later minutes are taken up. A motion to “dispense with the reading of the minutes” is not a request to omit their reading altogether; it can be made at any time while the minutes are actually pending for approval regardless of whether the minutes have already been read or corrected in some respect." RONR (12th ed.) 48:11

I suppose so, but Dispense With apparently works in either case.  And it ensures that the matter will come up at the next meeting under Reading and Approval of Minutes rather than under General Orders or elsewhere.

[Josh Martin]

On 7/17/2024 at 3:18 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I suppose so, but Dispense With apparently works in either case.  And it ensures that the matter will come up at the next meeting under Reading and Approval of Minutes rather than under General Orders or elsewhere.

In my view, the minutes should be taken up under Reading and Approval of Minutes regardless of what happens with them. But I concur that the assembly could accomplish the same objective by using Dispense With and just never taking up the minutes during that meeting. If the assembly already knows that it wishes to postpone the minutes to the next meeting, however, it seems simpler to just use the motion intended for that purpose.

[Richard Brown]

On 7/17/2024 at 3:06 PM, Josh Martin said:

Well, to be clear, there should be no motions at all to approve the minutes.

Rather, what should happen is the following:

1.) Start with the oldest set of minutes.

2.) If the minutes have not been distributed in advance, the minutes must be read. If they have been distributed in advance, this step may be skipped if no member objects.

3.) The chair asks if there are any corrections to the minutes.

4.) Generally, corrections are handled by unanimous consent. If there is disagreement (for some reason), a majority vote settles the issue.

5.) After there are no further corrections, the chair declares the minutes approved.

6.) Move on to the next oldest set of minutes, and rinse and repeat the above steps until all sets of minutes are approved.

There should not be a blanket motion to approve all five sets of minutes. Members have a right to propose corrections.

Well, actually, to be clear, those are the rules and procedure for approval of the minutes under Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition. We do not know what the rules or the procedure are in Bourinot’s Rules.  They might be quite different.

[R.W.]

Hi thought you folks might appreciate an update.

At yesterday's council meeting, 5 out of 6 documents were approved.  The only one that was not was the one with the in-camera portion, that was ordered to be destroyed.  

I was also subject to two prolonged rounds of bullying during the meeting (led by the chair); one moment where the chair abruptly walked out the room while I was answering her (and unlike her, I was being polite); and one person's idea of "helping" in that she took minutes at the same time I did, and I will have to spend several hours at her house to work on the minutes "with her".  I had to ask three times for the meeting to get back on track for approval of the minutes.  (I could not "call for the question" because there was no motion at the time.)

I now have 12 pages of notes to transcribe from yet another 3 hour meeting.  Sigh.

 

[Rob Elsman]

Well, you might have all this junk on your plate, but not because RONR (12th ed.) says so. Have you ever just firmly and politely said "no"? Let's practice together: "No." 💪

[R.W.]

On 7/29/2024 at 9:05 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Have you ever just firmly and politely said "no"? Let's practice together: "No." 💪

Yes I did.  And that's where I get brushed off, where our bylaws and the Rules of Order [pick your product] are ridiculed.  When I asserted myself at the last meeting, the chair refused to discuss the matter and decided it was more important she go to lunch.  Offline I was accused of being "threatening."  HA!  All I did was stand up for myself, to people literally old enough to be my mother who won't even give me eye contact.  You want threatening, I can make a hurricane look like a drop in the ocean....  but no I have respect for the house of God.

Edited July 29, 2024 at 01:40 PM by R.W.

[Dan Honemann]

On 7/29/2024 at 9:36 AM, R.W. said:

Yes I did.  And that's where I get brushed off, where our bylaws and the Rules of Order [pick your product] are ridiculed.  When I asserted myself at the last meeting, the chair refused to discuss the matter and decided it was more important she go to lunch.  Offline I was accused of being "threatening."  HA!  All I did was stand up for myself, to people literally old enough to be my mother who won't even give me eye contact.

Do you have any further questions concerning the rules in RONR?

[R.W.]

no please close the thread