question about minutes content

[Trina]

It's clear that the name of the maker of a main motion goes into the minutes, but that the name of the person who seconds does not.

I find I'm much less clear on what information should be included about amendments. In describing what must be included, RONR pp. 452-453 says 'facts as to whether the motion may have been debated or amended before disposition being mentioned only parenthetically' (emphasis added).

In the sample minutes in RONR there is a section where the people moving amendments are mentioned by name (bottom of p. 455 to top of p. 456) -- where Mr. Gordon makes a motion, and Mrs. Thomas is mentioned as moving to amend the motion. So, apparently it is not improper to record the name of someone offering an amendment, even without knowing the eventual disposition of the amendment (Mr. Gordon's motion, with the pending amendment, is sent off to committee).

Certainly it seems sensible to mention the names of those proposing amendments, particularly in cases where an amendment is adopted which substantially changes the intent of the original motion maker. In the example on p. 131, where the motion to commend Officer George is amended into a motion to censure Officer George, it defies common sense to ascribe the transformed motion solely to the original motion maker when preparing the minutes. On the other hand, in a situation where there are a lot of proposed amendments, perhaps with none of them being seriously considered, let alone adopted by the assembly, would that all fall into the 'mentioned only parenthetically' category?

My question is, does RONR provide specific guidance on what is to be recorded regarding amendments, and those who propose them? I mean, something other than just the example in the sample minutes? Or is this up to the discretion and/or good sense of the secretary?

Maybe I'm missing an obvious citation somewhere...

[David A Foulkes]

In the sample minutes in RONR there is a section where the people moving amendments are mentioned by name (bottom of p. 455 to top of p. 456) -- where Mr. Gordon makes a motion, and Mrs. Thomas is mentioned as moving to amend the motion. So, apparently it is not improper to record the name of someone offering an amendment, even without knowing the eventual disposition of the amendment (Mr. Gordon's motion, with the pending amendment, is sent off to committee).

I would think Mr. Thomas' amendment is mentioned because it "adheres" to Mr. Gordon's motion (that is, it is still pending) on its way to the committee, which will consider both.

On the other hand, in a situation where there are a lot of proposed amendments, perhaps with none of them being seriously considered, let alone adopted by the assembly, would that all fall into the 'mentioned only parenthetically' category?

Here, I'd think that any amendments offered but not adopted would not be included.

Let's see what the rest of the gang has to say.

[hmtcastle]

My question is, does RONR provide specific guidance on what is to be recorded regarding amendments, and those who propose them? I mean, something other than just the example in the sample minutes? Or is this up to the discretion and/or good sense of the secretary?

Let's see what the rest of the gang has to say.

I think it's up to the secretary (following the custom of the society), subject to any pre-approval "corrections" by the assembly.

The sample minutes have evolved (i.e. grown) from the 6th edition (the only other edition I have), when the secretary was the mysterious "R.N.", to the current edition, where the secretary is our own Margaret Duffy. And I suspect the 11th edition is likely to be even more expansive.

When in doubt, I'd err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.

[jstackpo]

Trina sez: "It's clear that the name of the maker of a main motion goes into the minutes,..."

Even that is a bit problematic in RONR.

The "name in minutes" inclusion rule is intended for "important motions".

But who decides what is an "important motion"? In the absence of an explicit statement from the assembly (itself presumably in the form of a motion) stating that, say, "The motion just adopted on the topic of ... is 'important'" it would appear to be left up to the secretary to exercise his "discretion and/or good sense " (Trina's good words, again) as to what motions should be "named".

But, p. 451, lines 28-29, clearly instruct the secretary to offer NO "opinion, favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done.". Clearly labeling a motion "important", by including the mover's name, is offering an "opinion". So where do we go from here?

I'd suggest that RONR/11 drop the "naming the mover" suggestion altogether or the association rule that all motions are important. (That last suggestion doesn't solve Tria's problem, however, of an important amendment that substantially changes the important main motion.)

[Dan Honemann]

It's clear that the name of the maker of a main motion goes into the minutes, but that the name of the person who seconds does not.

I find I'm much less clear on what information should be included about amendments. In describing what must be included, RONR pp. 452-53 says 'facts as to whether the motion may have been debated or amended before disposition being mentioned only parenthetically' (emphasis added).

This is the citation which is significant.

In the sample minutes in RONR there is a section where the people moving amendments are mentioned by name (bottom of p. 455 to top of p. 456) -- where Mr. Gordon makes a motion, and Mrs. Thomas is mentioned as moving to amend the motion. So, apparently it is not improper to record the name of someone offering an amendment, even without knowing the eventual disposition of the amendment (Mr. Gordon's motion, with the pending amendment, is sent off to committee).

The minutes include this detail concerning the proposed amendment because the amendment was referred to a committee along with the main motion. In the usual case, the rule on pages 452-53 applies (as shown in the sample minutes on p. 455, l. 12-18, l. 27-32).

Certainly it seems sensible to mention the names of those proposing amendments, particularly in cases where an amendment is adopted which substantially changes the intent of the original motion maker. In the example on p. 131, where the motion to commend Officer George is amended into a motion to censure Officer George, it defies common sense to ascribe the transformed motion solely to the original motion maker when preparing the minutes. On the other hand, in a situation where there are a lot of proposed amendments, perhaps with none of them being seriously considered, let alone adopted by the assembly, would that all fall into the 'mentioned only parenthetically' category?

My question is, does RONR provide specific guidance on what is to be recorded regarding amendments, and those who propose them? I mean, something other than just the example in the sample minutes? Or is this up to the discretion and/or good sense of the secretary?

Maybe I'm missing an obvious citation somewhere...

See responses above.

[Trina]

....

The minutes include this detail concerning the proposed amendment because the amendment was referred to a committee along with the main motion.

I can understand why the text of the proposed amendment would be recorded in this case (just to keep track of what pending material was sent to the committee). Why is the name of the person proposing the amendment recorded? It seems like superfluous information, unless the names of those who propose amendments are to be recorded in general.

In the usual case, the rule on pages 452-53 applies (as shown in the sample minutes on p. 455, l. 12-18, l. 27-32).

So, going with this approach, if I understand correctly, the Officer George example might be recorded as:

'Mr. Smith made a motion, which after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows:

"That the City Council censure Officer George for his action in ..." '

So the fact that Mr. Smith's original motion was actually to commend Officer George (and the fact that Mr. Smith may well have argued strenuously against the amended motion) is not to be mentioned at all in the minutes?

If so, what exactly is the purpose of recording the name of the maker of a main motion?

I'd suggest that RONR/11 drop the "naming the mover" suggestion altogether...

In the above context (if the motion maker's name alone is to be recorded, regardless of whether the final wording of the motion has much resemblance to what the maker originally said), Mr. Stackpole's suggestion certainly sounds sensible to me.

[Dan Honemann]

I can understand why the text of the proposed amendment would be recorded in this case (just to keep track of what pending material was sent to the committee). Why is the name of the person proposing the amendment recorded? It seems like superfluous information, unless the names of those who propose amendments are to be recorded in general.

The name of the person proposing the amendment was included because it's a bit easier to write the minutes that way. No big deal one way or the other.

So, going with this approach, if I understand correctly, the Officer George example might be recorded as:

'Mr. Smith made a motion, which after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows:

"That the City Council censure Officer George for his action in ..." '

So the fact that Mr. Smith's original motion was actually to commend Officer George (and the fact that Mr. Smith may well have argued strenuously against the amended motion) is not to be mentioned at all in the minutes?

If so, what exactly is the purpose of recording the name of the maker of a main motion?

You understand the rule correctly. The assembly may decide to do otherwise in particular circumstances (or in all circumstances) if it wishes.

In the above context (if the motion maker's name alone is to be recorded, regardless of whether the final wording of the motion has much resemblance to what the maker originally said), Mr. Stackpole's suggestion certainly sounds sensible to me.

You may expect to see some change made in this connection, although I don't suppose it will be exactly what you are looking for.

[Trina]

The name of the person proposing the amendment was included because it's a bit easier to write the minutes that way. No big deal one way or the other.

You understand the rule correctly. The assembly may decide to do otherwise in particular circumstances (or in all circumstances) if it wishes.

You may expect to see some change made in this connection, although I don't suppose it will be exactly what you are looking for.

I will certainly be curious to see the changes.

As long-time secretary for a small board, whose meetings are run quite informally, I used to write something like:

"The board discussed issue A at length. Some key points made by various board members were: blah, blah, and blah [yes, I know, this is the dreaded 'what was said' , but the assembly does want some of this information in its minutes] . The board eventually voted to do XYZ." This was in part because we usually hash things out in informal discussion before someone forms a motion, and in part because I was unfamiliar with RONR's requirement that the name of the mover be included in the minutes.

Now, with the knowledge that the maker of a motion should be mentioned, I always include that information. However, when a motion is significantly amended during debate/discussion, I've felt the name of the person(s) proposing the amendment(s) should be included also. RONR didn't seem to back up that feeling, however, and you have confirmed that it doesn't.

In practice, this particular assembly wants more information, rather than less, in its minutes, so I will continue recording the names of 'amenders' (but realizing now that this information is included because the assembly wants it there, not because RONR requires it to be there).

This has left me with the impression that my older format (no mention of who made the motion, or of who proposed any amendments) was actually closer to the ideal goal of recording what was done, and not recording who said what along the way. If the mover's original idea can be dramatically modified along the way, without attribution in the minutes, it seems that including the mover's name may simply give an incorrect impression of who said what... and what is the value in that?

I remain curious whether there is a clear purpose for including the name of a motion maker in the minutes. Is the purpose known, or is this simply a long-standing practice under parliamentary law?

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, it is a practice of very long standing indeed. I'll ask the General its purpose if I see him (which I hope will not be too soon).

Since the fact that a motion was amended before its adoption is to be entered in the minutes, it is at least clear that the motion which was adopted is not the same motion as the motion made by Mr. X.

In any event, your organization (as well as all others) is free to include whatever names it wishes, or no names at all.