Minutes recording of meeting start time

[paulmcclintock]

Do the minutes reflect the time the meeting was supposed to start, or when it did start?

Granted, "It is the duty of the presiding officer of an assembly...To open the meeting at the appointed time by taking the chair and calling the meeting to order, having ascertained that a quorum is present" (RONR, p.433 ).

But, from RONR pp. 337-338, "Before the presiding officer calls a meeting to order, it is his duty to determine, although he need not announce, that a quorum is present. If a quorum is not present, the chair waits until there is one, or until, after a reasonable time, there appears to be no prospect that a quorum will assemble. If a quorum cannot be obtained, the chair calls the meeting to order, announces the absence of a quorum, and entertains a motion to adjourn or one of the other motions allowed, as described above."

RONR pp. 452-453 say the minutes should contain "the date and time of the meeting" and "the hour of adjournment." Is the "time of the meeting" the time in the meeting notice, or the time it was called to order?

The model minutes read "The regular monthly meeting of the L.M. Society was held on Thursday, January 4, 20__, at 8:30 P.M." (RONR, p. 454), and do not say, "was called to order at 8:30 P.M."

It seems to me that the wording in both the rule and the model could be referring to either when the meeting was scheduled or when the meeting was called to order.

I lean toward putting the time it was called to order and using the "called to order" language in the minutes. But I don't know if others would agree.

[hmtcastle]

Do the minutes reflect the time the meeting was supposed to start, or when it did start?

The minutes are a record of what was done. Not what could have been done, should have been done, might have been done, or was scheduled to be done. As discussed in a recent topic, a meeting begins when it is properly called to order. And I too, with apologies to Margaret Duffy, prefer "was called to order" to "was held".

[Guest dan]

Since the minutes should reflect what was "done" and not what was said, I say the actual time shpuld be in the minutes.

[Rev Ed]

My personal preference is "the meeting was called to order at ____". RONR provides a good example of a set of Minutes, but these Minutes are not set in stone. As long as the Minutes are acceptable to the group, and contain the information required by RONR (and perhaps by the group), and are approved then the Minutes are official.

[Guest Nancy N.]

If the meeting were scheduled to begin at 8:30 PM, but nothing except dithering -- which cannot be official, until the meeting begins -- or, I guess, until the meeting is called to order, I used to forget which is which but now I guess that's what we're deciding -- occurred until 8:40, then nothing about it was held in those frightfully uneventful ten minutes.

[Ann Rempel]

It's not a meeting until it's called to order.

[Shmuel Gerber]

It's not a meeting until it's called to order.

Then why does the chair say, "The meeting will come to order"? Hmmm....

[hmtcastle]

Then why does the chair say, "The meeting will come to order"?

I think that's analogous to saying,"the meeting will now begin". It does not imply the prior existence of the meeting.

[Tim Wynn]

Do the minutes reflect the time the meeting was supposed to start, or when it did start?

Like most things, it depends on the factors.

RONR pp. 452-453 say the minutes should contain "the date and time of the meeting" and "the hour of adjournment." Is the "time of the meeting" the time in the meeting notice, or the time it was called to order?

Only when those two are notably different would it matter. In such situations, an additional entry in the minutes to explain the gap may be advisable. Also, I would point out that the "hour of adjournment" may be set in advance and the same principle would apply to it, as well.

The model minutes read "The regular monthly meeting of the L.M. Society was held on Thursday, January 4, 20__, at 8:30 P.M." (RONR, p. 454), and do not say, "was called to order at 8:30 P.M."

I believe this is a case where RONR isn't creating a hard and fast rule; instead it is giving an example, and the actual form should be flexible enough to adapt to the situation. An alternative could read, "The regular monthly meeting of the L.M. Society, scheduled for 8:30 P.M., was called to order at 8:53 P.M., after an unexpected delay from a power outage." I would think it prudent to provide enough information to give a clear picture of what transpired. Otherwise, one might have the wrong impression of the presiding officer, upon reading the minutes. Also, a year later, a member may recall that the January meeting didn't happen, due to a power outage. While they will swear to the inaccuracy of minutes that say, "was held at 8:30," they may be enlightened by a record that includes the called-to-order time of 8:53.

It seems to me that the wording in both the rule and the model could be referring to either when the meeting was scheduled or when the meeting was called to order.

It should be seen that in most cases, these two will be the same or nearly indistinguishably similar, and in almost all cases, any difference would be completely immaterial. In such cases, no distinction should be made, as the minutes should not be cluttered with such details, and I believe the example assumes this. However, when clarity would be added by including addition information, it should be included.

I lean toward putting the time it was called to order and using the "called to order" language in the minutes. But I don't know if others would agree.

That's fine with me. If you put that it was "called to order," one can surmise that it was held, and if you put that it was "held," one can assume that it was called to order. One looks to the minutes as a concise and complete resource of fact, compiling the essential, while omitting the unnecessary. So long as this is accomplished, I see plenty of room for flexibility.

[Josh Martin]

Only when those two are notably different would it matter. In such situations, an additional entry in the minutes to explain the gap may be advisable.

You seem to be suggesting that the minutes should contain a record of something which happened prior to the meeting. I don't follow your reasoning.

Also, I would point out that the "hour of adjournment" may be set in advance and the same principle would apply to it, as well.

Why? For the purposes of recording the minutes, does it really matter when the meeting was "supposed to" begin or end?

While they will swear to the inaccuracy of minutes that say, "was held at 8:30," they may be enlightened by a record that includes the called-to-order time of 8:53.

I agree with you here, but I don't see how the power outage has any parliamentary significance.

[Tim Wynn]

You seem to be suggesting that the minutes should contain a record of something which happened prior to the meeting. I don't follow your reasoning.

Yes, in a specific situation I think the minutes should contain information that relates to a meeting but doesn't relate to what was done in a meeting. Members look to the minutes as a record of what happened. Absent members would be scratching their heads when they read that a meeting was held "at Gina's Pizza Shack," when it is always held at the public library. The next step would certainly be to contact a member who attended to ask what happened, and even to verify the validity of the meeting. Other than making calls trying to find an answer, wouldn't it be better for the minutes to simply say, "As the library was closed due to flooding, the meeting was held next door at Gina's Pizza Shack?" Just as parliamentary forms should not be used to thwart the transaction of business, the rules relating to the form of the minutes should not be used to defeat the purpose of the minutes, which is to provide an accurate record of what occurred in the meeting. Sometimes for the sake of accuracy, including information about what happened immediately before a meeting may be necessary, to give a clear picture of action taken in the meeting.

Why? For the purposes of recording the minutes, does it really matter when the meeting was "supposed to" begin or end?

Perhaps, I didn't point this out specifically enough the first time around. My thought is that it would be required if there were a need to identify the meeting. Such a situation would not generally arise, but I can imagine it might be possible, if meetings were so close together that there could be confusion. Additionally, it could be included under circumstances that tend to add confusion or doubt. If, for example an organization straddles a time zone divide, a meeting scheduled for 8:15 that is reported to have started at 9:15 might be corrected at the next meeting, thinking that the wrong time zone was used, but if it read, "the meeting scheduled for 8:00 was called to order at 9:00," I think that confusion could be sidestepped, by allowing the minutes to reflect, without outside explanation, that the meeting was late.

I agree with you here, but I don't see how the power outage has any parliamentary significance.

It's included so that the minutes are self-explanatory. This way hearsay is replaced with an approved record. It seems better than adopting a statement to inform the absentees of what happened, and it seems better than leaving them in the dark. I would say it's a proper application of parliamentary principles.

[hmtcastle]

If, for example an organization straddles a time zone divide . . .

Are those zebras I hear?

Clearly, an organization is free to put whatever it wants in its minutes. I'd probably like a brief weather report. It might explain, to future readers, why the turnout was so low. Or why controversial motions that never had a chance before were adopted by the members with snowmobiles.

And what secretary could resist beginning the minutes with, "It was a dark and stormy night when the meeting of the L.M. Society was called to order".

[Tim Wynn]

Are those zebras I hear?

Clearly, an organization is free to put whatever it wants in its minutes. I'd probably like a brief weather report. It might explain, to future readers, why the turnout was so low. Or why controversial motions that never had a chance before were adopted by the members with snowmobiles.

And what secretary could resist beginning the minutes with, "It was a dark and stormy night when the meeting of the L.M. Society was called to order".

You make a persuasive point.

[Ann Rempel]

I especially liked Josh's pointing out that a power outage sheds no light on the parliamentary situation.