Guest Ken Brown Posted January 9, 2011 at 01:20 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 01:20 PM In the minutes for a board meeting must the names of the people that made the motion and seconded the motion be documented, or can the minutes just state a motion was made and seconded to ............. motion carried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 9, 2011 at 01:24 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 01:24 PM In the minutes for a board meeting must the names of the people that made the motion and seconded the motion be documented, or can the minutes just state a motion was made and seconded to ............. motion carried?The maker, yes, the seconder, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 9, 2011 at 01:33 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 01:33 PM More precisely, the maker's name is not required, but "should" be there for "all important motions".The association can decide what it considers "important". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 9, 2011 at 01:36 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 01:36 PM An additional thought: the sample bylaws in RONR suggest also that if the original motion by Mr. X is amended by Mr. Y, such that the wording Mr. X used is different, the minutes should also include Mr. Y's name as well. See the bottom of page 455 for this example. Just thought I'd mention that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 9, 2011 at 02:12 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 02:12 PM Agreed... all of which suggests - to me anyway - that including maker's names at all is rather superfluous ego-stroking: the association, collectively, decides what it wants to do, not the individual, and every voter on the prevailing side takes responsibility for the action (p. 2.)I wonder how many members would like their name (forever) attached to a motion that the assembly resoundingly defeated. Especially if that happened frequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted January 9, 2011 at 07:05 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 07:05 PM Also, while RONR does not require a motion's seconder to be named in the Minutes, an organization may have a standing rule to do so for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 9, 2011 at 07:27 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 07:27 PM Also, while RONR does not require a motion's seconder to be named in the Minutes, an organization may have a standing rule to do so for whatever reason.Absent a standing rule, I think this could also be ordered by the assembly at the time, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 9, 2011 at 09:06 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 09:06 PM An additional thought: the sample bylaws in RONR suggest also that if the original motion by Mr. X is amended by Mr. Y, such that the wording Mr. X used is different, the minutes should also include Mr. Y's name as well. See the bottom of page 455 for this example. Just thought I'd mention that.The sample minutes suggest nothing of the sort. The reason the amendment is included in the example you are citing is because it was pending when the motion was temporarily disposed of by the motion to Commit. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 453, lines 3-6). If the amendment had already been adopted the fact that the motion was amended would be mentioned only parenthetically. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 452, line 24 - pg. 453, line 2)Absent a standing rule, I think this could also be ordered by the assembly at the time, yes?Yes. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 453, lines 29-30) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 9, 2011 at 10:16 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 10:16 PM The sample minutes suggest nothing of the sort. The reason the amendment is included in the example you are citing is because it was pending when the motion was temporarily disposed of by the motion to Commit. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 453, lines 3-6). If the amendment had already been adopted the fact that the motion was amended would be mentioned only parenthetically. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 452, line 24 - pg. 453, line 2)Fair enough, but I'm unclear on the reason for including the name of the mover of the amendment in the minutes for a motion being referred, but not for a motion being adopted. Why one and not the other? Or why either? Is there some importance or relevance in knowing who moved the amendment for the committee to consider it? Just trying to understand the complexities involved here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted January 9, 2011 at 10:33 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 10:33 PM Fair enough, but I'm unclear on the reason for including the name of the mover of the amendment in the minutes for a motion being referred, but not for a motion being adopted. Why one and not the other? Or why either? Is there some importance or relevance in knowing who moved the amendment for the committee to consider it? Just trying to understand the complexities involved here.The name of the mover of the pending motion to Amend must be entered on the minutes, since the mover has the privilege of requesting later that the motion be withdrawn. RONR (10th ed.), p. 284, l. 25, through p. 285, l. 23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM The name of the mover of the pending motion to Amend must be entered on the minutes, since the mover has the privilege of requesting later that the motion be withdrawn. RONR (10th ed.), p. 284, l. 25, through p. 285, l. 23.So, just to be clear, when the committee rises to report, and let's say it recommends adopting the original main motion (made by Mr. X) as amended (made by Mr. Y), both motions are placed again before the assembly which (in a manner of speaking, if you will) picks up where it left off when the motion to Commit was adopted, and at that moment Mr. Y could request leave to withdraw his amendment. Am I close? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 10, 2011 at 01:04 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 01:04 AM So, just to be clear, when the committee rises to report, and let's say it recommends adopting the original main motion (made by Mr. X) as amended (made by Mr. Y), both motions are placed again before the assembly which (in a manner of speaking, if you will) picks up where it left off when the motion to Commit was adopted, and at that moment Mr. Y could request leave to withdraw his amendment. Am I close?Sounds right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted January 10, 2011 at 01:25 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 01:25 AM So, just to be clear, when the committee rises to report, and let's say it recommends adopting the original main motion (made by Mr. X) as amended (made by Mr. Y), both motions are placed again before the assembly which (in a manner of speaking, if you will) picks up where it left off when the motion to Commit was adopted, and at that moment Mr. Y could request leave to withdraw his amendment. Am I close?Well, the reporting member would have preference in recognition to open the debate. Also, the primary amendment might not be the immediately pending question, depending on what the committee recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.