Minutes Incorrectly Amended

[Fran Williams]

Our County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) voted to amend the minutes for the previous month's meeting. The original minutes read: "On motion made by Mrs. Cooper and seconded by Mr. Brown, it was moved to postpone action on ..., at the applicant’s request, until the September 2, 2010 meeting, with the public hearing left open." But, Mr. Brown did not recall having seconded the motion, so they amended it to: "On motion made by Mr. Russell and seconded by Mrs. Cooper, it was moved to postpone action on ..., at the applicant’s request, until the September 2, 2010 meeting, with the public hearing left open."

However, upon reviewing the recording, the originally submitted minutes were correct. How should this be handled? Thank you!!

[Robert B Fish]

Our County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) voted to amend the minutes for the previous month's meeting. The original minutes read: "On motion made by Mrs. Cooper and seconded by Mr. Brown, it was moved to postpone action on ..., at the applicant’s request, until the September 2, 2010 meeting, with the public hearing left open." But, Mr. Brown did not recall having seconded the motion, so they amended it to: "On motion made by Mr. Russell and seconded by Mrs. Cooper, it was moved to postpone action on ..., at the applicant’s request, until the September 2, 2010 meeting, with the public hearing left open."

However, upon reviewing the recording, the originally submitted minutes were correct. How should this be handled? Thank you!!

At the next meeting, move to amend the minutes to strike the errant phrase and insert the correct one.

-Bob

p.s. RONR says that recording the name of the person who seconded a motion is not required. However, your rules might vary.

[Trina]

Our County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) voted to amend the minutes for the previous month's meeting. The original minutes read: "On motion made by Mrs. Cooper and seconded by Mr. Brown, it was moved to postpone action on ..., at the applicant’s request, until the September 2, 2010 meeting, with the public hearing left open." But, Mr. Brown did not recall having seconded the motion, so they amended it to: "On motion made by Mr. Russell and seconded by Mrs. Cooper, it was moved to postpone action on ..., at the applicant’s request, until the September 2, 2010 meeting, with the public hearing left open."

However, upon reviewing the recording, the originally submitted minutes were correct. How should this be handled? Thank you!!

If your description meant that a correction was made before the minutes of the previous month's meeting were approved, the process for fixing the (now approved) minutes is a bit different than the correction process before approval. As Mr. Fish said, you can amend the previously approved minutes -- this is a form of the motion to amend something previously adopted (see RONR pp. 293-299 for details). In general, amending something previously adopted takes a higher vote threshold than a plain vanilla motion, but, if you are making a factual correction that everyone (or pretty much everyone) thinks is proper, that shouldn't be a problem.

Unlike corrections to not-yet-approved minutes (which corrections are made directly in the body of those minutes), I believe an after-the-fact amendment of approved minutes would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting where the motion to amend something previously adopted was made and passed. In other words, it's not proper to go back and erase evidence of the error from the previously approved minutes. See RONR p. 299 where the motion to 'rescind and expunge from the minutes' is described -- even in that case, the material to be expunged is left intact, with a line drawn through it, but it does NOT simply disappear without a trace.

I think it might be helpful (to future readers of the minutes) to add a footnote to those earlier minutes regarding the later correction, but, check back in case there are other opinions on this point from other posters.

[Dan Honemann]

I think it might be helpful (to future readers of the minutes) to add a footnote to those earlier minutes regarding the later correction, but, check back in case there are other opinions on this point from other posters.

A marginal notation is fine. A footnote actually inserted into the text is not.

[Guest Nancy N.]

A marginal notation is fine. A footnote actually inserted into the text is not.

I personally prefer fearing the footnotes of Dan. But I grew up in the '50's, when he was a DI of light attack craft (LAC; read "light-armoured forward-arrayed doilies" between the lines) pilots, so my obtusions are distended.

[hmtcastle]

my obtusions are distended.

I just knew there had to be an anatomical explanation.

[Gary Novosielski]

... my obtusions are distended.

Are you bragging, or complaining?

[Tim Wynn]

Are you bragging, or complaining?

It's best not to ask too many questions of Nancy... for fear of the answers.