non agenda items

[Guest Fouts]

Except for issues or topics raised during "new business" or "miscellanous" topis which generally ocurr at the conclusion of a meeting, how can one block discussion and a vote on an itme/topic that was brought up without prior or proper notice?

The situation was; a board member asked that a letter he authored be entered into the minutes. There were comments made and eventually a majority vote taken authorizing it. The letter had, among poor grammmer, mis stated facts. This was conducted shortly before I arrived ( I was late....my fault). My second question is; The next monthly Board meeting we usually start off by voting on the previous montly Board meeting minutes to make them offical. Obviously I will contest this but wanted help/advice in how I can accomplish this successfully on roberts's rules.

Thanks.

Fouts

[Tim Wynn]

Except for issues or topics raised during "new business" or "miscellanous" topis which generally ocurr at the conclusion of a meeting, how can one block discussion and a vote on an itme/topic that was brought up without prior or proper notice?

The situation was; a board member asked that a letter he authored be entered into the minutes. There were comments made and eventually a majority vote taken authorizing it. The letter had, among poor grammmer, mis stated facts. This was conducted shortly before I arrived ( I was late....my fault). My second question is; The next monthly Board meeting we usually start off by voting on the previous montly Board meeting minutes to make them offical. Obviously I will contest this but wanted help/advice in how I can accomplish this successfully on roberts's rules.

Thanks.

Fouts

Read RONR(10th ed.), p. 451, l. 20-29, and quote it in the meeting. The letter does not belong in the minutes.

[Robert B Fish]

The letter does not belong in the minutes.

There could be some valid reasons for having a letter placed in the minutes. It could be a formal statement of the organization to be issued in some manner. It could be a report being made to the board for its approval. In either case, the full text of the letter should be in the minutes.

The post says he plans to protest the letter during the approval of the minutes at the next meeting. That's not correct. If what he says happened is what actually happened, then the minutes are correct. You cannot use the approval of the minutes to undo history. (Apparently your minutes contain extraneous comments about the debate. The minutes should contain a record of what was done at the meeting and not what was said by the members.)

If you wish to rescind or amend the report that was adopted, you can make that motion. The required vote is 2/3 vote without notice, majority vote with notice, or a majority of the entire membership.

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

It could be a report being made to the board for its approval. In either case, the full text of the letter should be in the minutes.

Reports aren't typically approved and they don't belong in the minutes either, only the fact that the report was received. As in, "The report of the Program Committee was received and was placed on file".

Of course the minutes can contain whatever the assembly wants them to contain, but that's not the same as what RONR says they should (and, therefore, should not) contain.

[Tim Wynn]

There were comments made and eventually a majority vote taken authorizing it.

I noticed this sentence when I read your post, again. If the assembly orders it, it goes in... even if it doesn't belong there.

[hmtcastle]

If the assembly orders it, it goes in... even if it doesn't belong there.

How about this scenario:

An assembly orders a letter included in the minutes. At the next meeting, the assembly rescinds the motion to include the letter in the minutes before approving the minutes. Since the minutes aren't the minutes until they're approved, can the letter be omitted?

[Tim Wynn]

How about this scenario:

An assembly orders a letter included in the minutes. At the next meeting, the assembly rescinds the motion to include the letter in the minutes before approving the minutes. Since the minutes aren't the minutes until they're approved, can the letter be omitted?

In that circumstance, I think it can properly be omitted, if the motion to rescind is taken up and adopted before the minutes are approved (out of the normal order), though the motion that ordered the letter to be included should still be in the minutes.

[Gary Novosielski]

Reports aren't typically approved and they don't belong in the minutes either, only the fact that the report was received. As in, "The report of the Program Committee was received and was placed on file".

Of course the minutes can contain whatever the assembly wants them to contain, but that's not the same as what RONR says they should (and, therefore, should not) contain.

If it was moved and seconded to adopt a resolution such as: RESOLVED that the following letter be included in the minutes: "Dear A., having a wonderful time, wish you were here. Love and kisses, B.", then regardless of the vote, the letter will appear in the minutes.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... how can one block discussion and a vote on an item/topic that was brought up without prior or proper notice?

See the motion, "Object to Consideration".

See the motion, "Postpone Indefinitely".

[Gary Novosielski]

See the motion, "Object to Consideration".

See the motion, "Postpone Indefinitely".

What about a simple Point of Order?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

What about a simple Point of Order?

Yeah. - What about it?

What is the violation?

Review:

The situation was:

• A board member asked that a letter he authored be entered into the minutes.

• There were comments made.

• Eventually a majority vote taken authorizing it.

And the parliamentary rule which was violated was ... what?

[Gary Novosielski]

And the parliamentary rule which was violated was ... what?

The question was:

... how can one block discussion and a vote on an item/topic that was brought up without prior or proper notice?

If, in fact the motion required prior notice and it was not properly given, then the consideration of that motion would violate a rule, yes?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The question was:

If, in fact the motion required prior notice and it was not properly given, then the consideration of that motion would violate a rule, yes?

Hmmmmm.

I'll bite.

Q. How does opinion/commentary, entered in the minutes, classify as something which requires PREVIOUS NOTICE?

Can't that be done via AMEND SOMETHING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED, in the worst case scenario?

[hmtcastle]

If it was moved and seconded to adopt a resolution such as: RESOLVED that the following letter be included in the minutes: "Dear A., having a wonderful time, wish you were here. Love and kisses, B.", then regardless of the vote, the letter will appear in the minutes.

Well, the same words that were in the letter will appear in the minutes, but that's not the same thing as the letter itself. The map is not the territory.

Though that does bring up the tactic of including language in a motion that would normally be unacceptable in the minutes but gets recorded anyway because the motion itself is recorded (even if defeated). Is there some parliamentary antidote for this? Can the chair rule such a motion out of order and (therefore?) not to be included in the minutes? I think not but I'm uncomfortable with the loophole.

[Gary Novosielski]

Hmmmmm.

I'll bite.

Q. How does opinion/commentary, entered in the minutes, classify as something which requires PREVIOUS NOTICE?

Can't that be done via AMEND SOMETHING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED, in the worst case scenario?

I think we're talking about two different questions. Or something.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, the same words that were in the letter will appear in the minutes, but that's not the same thing as the letter itself. The map is not the territory.

In the case of a letter, it's a distinction without a difference. In the case of a letter, the words are the letter. If the motion passed and the letter was included, it would be the words of the letter that were included, not the physical paper.

Though that does bring up the tactic of including language in a motion that would normally be unacceptable in the minutes but gets recorded anyway because the motion itself is recorded (even if defeated). Is there some parliamentary antidote for this? Can the chair rule such a motion out of order and (therefore?) not to be included in the minutes? I think not but I'm uncomfortable with the loophole.

I think not too, and I'm equally uncomfortable, but I'm not sure how to prevent it.

[Josh Martin]

Well, the same words that were in the letter will appear in the minutes, but that's not the same thing as the letter itself. The map is not the territory.

Though that does bring up the tactic of including language in a motion that would normally be unacceptable in the minutes but gets recorded anyway because the motion itself is recorded (even if defeated). Is there some parliamentary antidote for this? Can the chair rule such a motion out of order and (therefore?) not to be included in the minutes? I think not but I'm uncomfortable with the loophole.

Well, one has to consider whether a request to enter something in the minutes is a main motion. Considering that some incidental motions (such as many of the Requests and Inquiries) are incidental even when no motion is pending, that may well be the case for a Request for Any Other Privilege, which would seem to be the appropriate motion here. If this is the case, the motion would not be recorded in the minutes.

[hmtcastle]

Well, one has to consider whether a request to enter something in the minutes is a main motion.

But I'm not talking about a request to enter something in the minutes, I'm talking about an ordinary main motion, the sole intent of which is to get the text of the motion entered into to the minutes; language that would otherwise not be recorded. Even if properly ruled out of order, doesn't the motion get recorded?

[Josh Martin]

But I'm not talking about a request to enter something in the minutes, I'm talking about an ordinary main motion, the sole intent of which is to get the text of the motion entered into to the minutes; language that would otherwise not be recorded. Even if properly ruled out of order, doesn't the motion get recorded?

Ah. Yes. There's really no way around that one.

[Gary Novosielski]

But I'm not talking about a request to enter something in the minutes, I'm talking about an ordinary main motion, the sole intent of which is to get the text of the motion entered into to the minutes; language that would otherwise not be recorded. Even if properly ruled out of order, doesn't the motion get recorded?

Yeah, I guess it does, with the one saving grace that right below it is recorded the ruling that it is out of order.

[Tim Wynn]

Ah. Yes. There's really no way around that one.

I suppose the chair could rule that, since the motion is a clear misuse of parliamentary forms just for the purpose of getting content into the minutes, such content does not belong in the minutes. Upon appeal, the assembly could decide.