Roberts Rules of Order/ meeting question
- Thread starter Gentle Ben
- Start date
Have no idea huh? Imagine that. Keep by the phone, you don't want to miss his call.
Nah, I'll hear his DUCK CALL.
As for your request that I chime in as a Parliamentarian!
I have also sat on several Boards, some of which were so contentious that it seemed they were fucking a society of Parliamentarians! Losers. We had to hire one for two of the organizations to sit in on our meetings because a bunch of half-wit old fucks who would quote "Robertson's Rule of Order" and hod forth on their expertise on a code they didnt even know the proper name of.
So here is my understanding.
1. Minutes are taken to create a record of what was DONE. Usually limited to what was done by way of motion. Not as a record of who said what and when.
2. The Minutes produced can be as detailed or as brief as the organization desires provided they deal with what was done, rather than the conduct of individual members. Unless an individual member was censured through a properly raised and adopted motion, the conduct should not make it into the record.
3. If the member the OP spoke of was present for the vote, then he was present for the vote. Unless the Charter of the organization requires participation in the debate, his participation is irrelevant UNLESS a member makes a motion to record that he voted on a matter he was not present for the full debate on.
Read here for more
Robert's Rules of Order Article X Section 60. Minutes
Robert's Rules of Order tends to use rather obscure language, making it difficult to read and interpret.
For example, there were comments just above, citing a link to Roberts Article X Section 60, which clearly states that what was said in addressing a motion should be included in the minutes, either in abstract or completely. Yet the commenters, having linked that section, suggest not including any reference to the discussion.
The organization will decide over time what degree of completeness is required.
At a minimum, the minutes should include when and where the meeting took place, what organization it was a meeting of, who was present, and what motions were agreed to.
Some minutes will also include motions which did not pass, and this is a good idea, especially in larger organizations where the same issue might otherwise arise again.
Some minutes will include an abstract of the discussion on the motion, as it may be relevant to interpreting the intent of the words used in the motion.
Some minutes will also include motions which were moved but not seconded - which will not be discussed further according to the Rules of Order.
Different organizations follow Roberts Rules very formally, some follow more informally. Some are more selective about different parts (e.g. the meeting will be structured according to Roberts Rules, but the Order of Precedence of Motions might not be strictly followed.
Personally, I recommend following Sturgis, instead of Roberts. It's much more user-friendly and accomplishes the same goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Standard_Code_of_Parliamentary_Procedure
http://dnrc.mt.gov/cardd/ConservationDistricts/training/SturigsParlimentaryProcedures.pdf
For example, there were comments just above, citing a link to Roberts Article X Section 60, which clearly states that what was said in addressing a motion should be included in the minutes, either in abstract or completely. Yet the commenters, having linked that section, suggest not including any reference to the discussion.
The organization will decide over time what degree of completeness is required.
At a minimum, the minutes should include when and where the meeting took place, what organization it was a meeting of, who was present, and what motions were agreed to.
Some minutes will also include motions which did not pass, and this is a good idea, especially in larger organizations where the same issue might otherwise arise again.
Some minutes will include an abstract of the discussion on the motion, as it may be relevant to interpreting the intent of the words used in the motion.
Some minutes will also include motions which were moved but not seconded - which will not be discussed further according to the Rules of Order.
Different organizations follow Roberts Rules very formally, some follow more informally. Some are more selective about different parts (e.g. the meeting will be structured according to Roberts Rules, but the Order of Precedence of Motions might not be strictly followed.
Personally, I recommend following Sturgis, instead of Roberts. It's much more user-friendly and accomplishes the same goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Standard_Code_of_Parliamentary_Procedure
http://dnrc.mt.gov/cardd/ConservationDistricts/training/SturigsParlimentaryProcedures.pdf
Certainly there is no harm in so doing, but if I want to bring up the same resolution at every single meeting. . . .In fact there are a number of well known shareholders who are famous/infamous for doing so year after year at every annual meeting of the corporation (and in fact a number of such resolutions have eventually passed).
Robert's Rules is not law, it's a guideline for those that wish to follow them. Many of the rules have been bastardized by many organizations to fit the board's needs and likes. The OP's question is not clearly addressed in Robert's rules, however I've found the vast majority of companies, organizations and committees prefer documenting in the minutes the director's name and the time he/she arrived after quorum has been declared.
There are various ways to conduct a meeting and it's up to the Chairman how he/she prefers to run the meetings. Personally I liked an executive's approach to holding meetings in my early business career and his last name was Robertson, so I prefer Robertson's Rules of Order. :thumb:
