minutes

[Guest June Donofrio]

We are having many discussions on how the minutes of our meeting should be recorded / changed

1) Should the minutes reflect everything that is said or discussed in the meeting, if different people have comments, should all comments be recorded or just a summary of comments? Exp: Joe, John & Jeff comments were similar & in agreement with each other, & bob & Barry had different opinion from Joe, John & Jeff. How should that be recorded, each individual comment or summarize together the similar comments.

2) If there is a written report but it is not read as written, can written report be put into the minutes as written? I think it should be noted it was a written report. I think it is a problem if points are not reviewed out loud at the meeting but then the written report is put into minutes, it looks like it was actually reviewed in the meeting.

3) Is it proper for one of the officers of the club to make changes to the minutes before they are distributed to the board for approval, without anyone's knowledge they were changed?

4) What is the proper procedure for making corrections to the minutes? Should the minutes be submitted to the board for approval, then if anyone on the board wants to correct what was said or delete what was said, should it be voted on before the minutes can be changed.

5) Is it proper to delete from minutes conversation that took place at a meeting regarding moneys spent, in order to not have problems later with IRS & Non profit status.

[Trina]

We are having many discussions on how the minutes of our meeting should be recorded / changed

1) Should the minutes reflect everything that is said or discussed in the meeting, if different people have comments, should all comments be recorded or just a summary of comments? Exp: Joe, John & Jeff comments were similar & in agreement with each other, & bob & Barry had different opinion from Joe, John & Jeff. How should that be recorded, each individual comment or summarize together the similar comments.

The minutes are supposed to be a record of what was DONE at the meeting. None of this conversation/discussion/comment stuff should be in there at all.

2) If there is a written report but it is not read as written, can written report be put into the minutes as written? I think it should be noted it was a written report. I think it is a problem if points are not reviewed out loud at the meeting but then the written report is put into minutes, it looks like it was actually reviewed in the meeting.

Reports submitted to the assembly (e.g. monthly treasurer's report) are filed, not made part of the minutes. The minutes would simply note that the report was presented.

3) Is it proper for one of the officers of the club to make changes to the minutes before they are distributed to the board for approval, without anyone's knowledge they were changed?

Normally the secretary prepares draft minutes, although other members theoretically could do so also. No one else can demand the right to change the secretary's draft before the meeting. I don't understand why 'without anyone's knowledge' matters -- the members, at the meeting, deal with whatever draft was presented to them.

4) What is the proper procedure for making corrections to the minutes? Should the minutes be submitted to the board for approval, then if anyone on the board wants to correct what was said or delete what was said, should it be voted on before the minutes can be changed.

Members offer corrections to the draft minutes at a meeting. Usually corrections are accepted by unanimous consent, but a vote can be taken if there is disagreement on a correction. Again, 'what was said' shouldn't be in there in the first place.

5) Is it proper to delete from minutes conversation that took place at a meeting regarding moneys spent, in order to not have problems later with IRS & Non profit status.

Conversations should not be in the minutes -- deleting that stuff prior to approving the minutes is fine. If you're talking about deleting parts of older, already approved minutes, no -- that is not proper. To be clear, you can amend approved minutes (if they are inaccurate, for example), but you can't go back and physically delete/erase material in the older minutes as a result of such amendment.

[Guest Paul Kiteley]

Do minutes require the full name of the mover and seconder, or is it appropriate to merely indicate that the motion was properly made, duly seconded and depending on the vote, declare whether the motion was carried or defeated?

[hmtcastle]

Do minutes require the full name of the mover and seconder, or is it appropriate to merely indicate that the motion was properly made, duly seconded and depending on the vote, declare whether the motion was carried or defeated?

The name of the maker of the motion, but not the seconder, should be recorded. You needn't record the fact that it was seconded.

[Gary Novosielski]

The name of the maker of the motion, but not the seconder, should be recorded. You needn't record the fact that it was seconded.

But you would record the fact that it failed for lack of a second, if that should happen.

[hmtcastle]

But you would record the fact that it failed for lack of a second, if that should happen.

You can add a touch of drama by recording that it died for lack of a second. That fits in with the whole Father Flanagan theme of motions that are either adopted or lost.

[Guest guest - Frustrated]

The minutes are supposed to be a record of what was DONE at the meeting. None of this conversation/discussion/comment stuff should be in there at all.

 

No disrespect to Trina, I'M confident in her answer, but our club has this same problem of some members, including the Secretary, wanting what is said or discussed entered into the minutes.  So, I guess I'm looking for an opinion from one of the Registered Parliamentarians - hoping it will carry more weight with some of our members.   Is it proper to even record that 'such and such' was discussed, when there is no action taken on the discussion?  Or is it okay to note that 'such and such' was discussed and leave it at that - no comments just the topic discussed?  Hoping to one day get our club to record minutes properly.

[Josh Martin]

Is it proper to even record that 'such and such' was discussed, when there is no action taken on the discussion? Or is it okay to note that 'such and such' was discussed and leave it at that - no comments just the topic discussed? 

 

No to both questions. For that matter, you probably shouldn't be having those discussions in the first place. Debate is only in order when a motion is pending.

 

So, I guess I'm looking for an opinion from one of the Registered Parliamentarians - hoping it will carry more weight with some of our members.

 

Well, I should hope the book itself will carry even more weight with your members than my opinion, but you can tell them you have the opinion of a Professional Registered Parliamentarian if they're the sort of people who are impressed by titles. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 386, lines 6-8; pg. 468, lines 16-18 to get the answers straight from the source.

 

For future reference, please post a new question as a new topic, even if an existing topic seems similar.

[Guest guest - Frustrated]

Many thanks.  If the book carried the weight it should, I wouldn't have to be writing.

[g40]

Many thanks.  If the book carried the weight it should, I wouldn't have to be writing.

it is indeed "difficult" when fellow board members believe they "know it all" (AND more than the eleven editions of Robert's Rules AND the generations of Roberts!). I face similar issues with a Board Chairman (although not with the minutes).