"Accept" vs. "Approve

[Guest Wanda]

A new board member recently made a point of advising that a certain motion be "accepted" rather than "approved".

What is the difference?

Is it appropriate for a member to call to "accept" the agenda but to "approve" the minutes, or vice versa, and does it matter?

Thank you.

[hmtcastle]

A new board member recently made a point of advising that a certain motion be "accepted" rather than "approved".

What is the difference?

Is it appropriate for a member to call to "accept" the agenda but to "approve" the minutes, or vice versa, and does it matter?

Motions are either "adopted" or "lost". Alternatively, you could say the motion passed or it failed but I prefer thinking of motions as adopted or lost. I guess I'd rather think of orphans than final exams.

Minutes are approved.

Reports are simply received, (not accepted, adopted, or approved). But see also this post.

See FAQ #14 for agendas.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A new board member recently made a point of advising that a certain motion be "accepted" rather than "approved".

What is the difference?

No difference.

See page 490.

EQUIVALENCE OF TERMS; INCORRECT MO-

TIONS. As applied to an assembly’s action with respect to

board or committee reports or any of their contents, the ex-

pressions adopt, accept, and agree to are all equivalent--that

is, the text adopted becomes in effect the act or statement of

the assembly. It is usually best to use the word adopt, how-

ever, since it is the least likely to be misunderstood.

A common error is to move that a report “be received”

after it has been read--apparently on the supposition that

such a motion is necessary in order for the report to be

taken under consideration or to be recorded as having been

made. In fact, this motion is meaningless, since the report

has already been received. Even before a report has been

read, a motion to receive it is unnecessary if the time for its

reception is established by the order of business, or if no

member objects (see also below).

Another error--less common, but dangerous--is to

move, after the report has been read (or even before the read-

ing) that it “be accepted,” when the actual intent is that of

the mistaken motion to receive, as just explained, or of a le-

gitimate motion to receive made “before” the report is read.

If a motion “to accept” made under any of these circum-

stances is adopted and is given its proper interpretation, it im-

plies that the assembly has endorsed the complete report.

Is it appropriate for a member to call to "accept" the agenda but to "approve" the minutes, or vice versa, and does it matter?

No!

See above, page 490.

[Gary Novosielski]

A new board member recently made a point of advising that a certain motion be "accepted" rather than "approved".

What is the difference?

Is it appropriate for a member to call to "accept" the agenda but to "approve" the minutes, or vice versa, and does it matter?

Thank you.

It's more customary than anything else.

Typically,

• Motions are "adopted".
• Amendments to motions are "agreed to".
• Minutes are "approved".
• Recommendations (from a committee, in movable form) are sometimes "accepted" but more often treated like any motion.

Although using the "wrong" word would have no negative effect whatever on the validity of the action, it's often clearer to someone who is familiar with the jargon to more quickly understand exactly what happened if the customary "term of art" is used.

Exceptions, as is their habit, abound.

[Guest Wanda]

"If a motion “to accept” made under any of these circum-

stances is adopted and is given its proper interpretation, it im-

plies that the assembly has endorsed the complete report."

So, if I'd like my report to be endorsed, I need a motion to accept. But, if I'm content to have my report simply acknowledged i.e., received, then no motion is made, it's simply a recorded acknowledgement of what took place.

Have I got it right?

Thanks, much appreciation!

[Josh Martin]

So, if I'd like my report to be endorsed, I need a motion to accept. But, if I'm content to have my report simply acknowledged i.e., received, then no motion is made, it's simply a recorded acknowledgement of what took place.

Have I got it right?

Pretty much, although a motion to "endorse" or "accept" a report should only be used when the intent is to make the complete text of the report an official document of the assembly. This is the usual practice for a Historian's Report, or an annual report of a board which is to be published. It is more common that the assembly only wishes to adopt the recommendations contained within a report, and in such cases, a motion should simply be made to adopt the recommendations.

You are certainly correct that if the report is for information only, no motion should be made at all. The report is simply received and put on file.

[Guest CuriosityCat]

When (if ever) should a treasurer's monthly report to the board be approved? There are no recommendations or action items in it, just the balance sheet & income statement, with oral explanations if needed.

[Guest Edgar]

When (if ever) should a treasurer's monthly report to the board be approved?

Never. And kudos for dredging up a topic from December, 2010, but see this more recent topic.

[Tim Wynn]

When (if ever) should a treasurer's monthly report to the board be approved? There are no recommendations or action items in it, just the balance sheet & income statement, with oral explanations if needed.

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 479, ll. 5-9, which reads, "No action of acceptance by the assembly is required--or proper-- on a financial report of the treasurer unless it is of sufficient importance, as an annual report, to be referred to auditors. In the latter case, it is the auditors' report which the assembly accepts."

Also, feel free to start a new topic next time, instead of dragging out a dusty old one. This will save us the shock of reliving the memory of H. Wm. Mountcastle.

[Tim Wynn]

Never. And kudos for dredging up a topic from December, 2010, but see this more recent topic.

It's possible that she was using a Windows operating system when she responded in December 2010 and the computer is just now getting around to weezing and coughing that electronic reply onto the Internet.

[Guest Edgar]

It's possible that she was using a Windows operating system when she responded in December 2010 and the computer is just now getting around to weezing and coughing that electronic reply onto the Internet.

Well, at least it gave us a chance to get a look at that dapper guy who posted second.

[Tim Wynn]

Well, at least it gave us a chance to get a look at that dapper guy who posted second.

He will be missed (sorta).

For a second, I thought he deleted one of his old posts so that he make a new addition.