Amending minutes after approval11/28/2023 ![]() ![]() I apologize if my original question wasn't clear, or I'm missing the obvious meaning of "in the text of the minutes". I would like to know what "in the text of the minutes" specifically means.ĭoes it mean that corrections are made as additional notations in the margins (and the original text is left intact) or does it mean that the actual original text is modified (meaning things are removed and never seen again.) "If corrections to minutes are made at the time when those minutes are originally submitted for approval, such corrections are made in the text of the minutes being approved" I did read that FAQ before I posted my inquiry. I wasn't sure how standard corrections were annotated, because it would seem that if expunging the minutes fails to delete parts of the document (seemingly a more extreme act) then deleting parts of the minutes during standard corrections appears counter intuitive to me. But, I also thought I had read that all corrections were made on top of the original draft of the minutes (possibly in the margins.) I understand that items that have been expunged from the minutes are not removed, but they are crossed out and a notation is made. What I mean to say is, if the grammar or spelling is corrected, or a sentence is removed, do the minutes retain the original text as a means to illustrate the changes? (For instance, the incorrect grammar is still intact, but a notation is made? Or the original sentence remains, but it is crossed out?) In this situation, whatever the assembly adopted, as amended, must certainly be either included in, or attached as an exhibit to, the minutes of the meeting at which it was adopted.When corrections are offered and accepted with respect to the minutes, are the changes made as additional notations, or is the original text changed and/or deleted (leaving no record of the former version?) (we have not released the full set of minutes yet) I have reservations about publishing what we know is incomplete. ![]() I chair the assembly committee, so I am responsible (along with the secretary) for ensuring the full set of minutes is as accurate as possible. Whatever the approval status of the minutes was immediately during our assembly, we do a formal approval of the full set of minutes at the next conference - in 2 years. Would it be improper to mark the minutes of that day revised and add a footnote indicating that the revisions to the handbook have been added to the minutes? The concern is that omitting the revisions to this handbook in the minutes (because the minutes of that day were already approved without them) will mean that the organization's members are not made aware of the actual changes (unless they compare the draft to the approved version once it is published). The full conference minutes are distributed to every chapter and posted on the organization's website by the assembly committee. It is a four day conference with daily minutes reviewed and approved the next morning, except for the last day. None of the revisions to the handbook were in the approved daily minutes but all other literature approved as amended at the assembly had the changes shown in the minutes. The minutes originally stated " Motion to approve the XYZ handbook, as amended - Passed". Revisions to the handbook were written during the conference and approved by the delegates and directors. The original motion was to adopt a handbook which had been previously distributed in draft form for review by every chapter of the organization. The debate continues as to the proper way to handle this. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |