As the Acting Recording Secretary for the St. Louis Convention, I know how
difficult it is to record what is said accurately while listening to the
tapes, which is why others review the transcript before it is submitted for
approval. At each meeting there are two tape recorders in operation so that
if one stops working, the other one will pick up the dialog. I don't think
anyone is disputing the need to correct typos, but to change the wording as it
is recorded on the tapes just to make something "grammatically" correct is
ludicrous. If we don't say it "grammatically" correct, who really cares? It
is recorded as it was said, as it is ON RECORD, which is why we keep the
tapes. To change something that was said is really a falsification, and do we
want to be known as an organization that does something like this, just to
make it "grammatically" correct?
Cheryl Deaton
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:45:25 -0400
To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
Subject: Re: [AISdiscuss] Approval of corrected minutes
From: 101d@rewrite.aisboard.org
We are all most grateful to have such a dedicated and unselfish person
serving in this important capacity for AIS. All the motions are
accurately recorded and the discussions, many times lengthy and
involved, are condensed correctly. No one realizes how many hours of
work this takes. Thank you, Susan, for this service to the Board and to
AIS. You know the importance of having names spelled correctly and
everything in order. Therefore, I'm sure you would not want any
typographical errors to appear in the Board Minutes online or anywhere.
This motion simply corrects the "minor" errors that for some reason
escaped notice in prior readings. No one questions any information
recorded in motions or recountings of reports or discussions. These
corrections would continue the reputation for accuracy that our
Recording Secretary has. The motion was made to assist with that accuracy.
Susan Grigg
On 6/24/2014 2:54 PM, Susan Boyce wrote:
Hi all,
Since I am the Recording Secretary, I feel that I must respond.
First, since I AM the Recording Secretary, I take great pride in the
work
that I do. I have served AIS for 8 plus years in this position, and I
have
done the board meeting minutes for 17 Board meetings. I strive to
honestly
and accurately report the conversations and events that take place at the
board meetings. When I work on the board meeting minutes, I follow the
tapes
very closely for what was said. I listen and re-listen to the tapes
several
times. At times I have re-listened to specific parts of the tapes 8 or 9
or
even 10 times to insure that I accurately type what was said. I was
taught
by Jeanne Clay Plank, who was a recording secretary for AIS for a couple
of
years, and she was taught by Claire Barr, who was also the recording
secretary
for the AIS for several years.
Second, after the Fall 2013 board meeting minutes were finished and
proof
read by 3 different people, I sent them to Jim Morris, who had them in
his
possession for 5 weeks, reading them and re-reading them for correctness
and
making corrections. He returned them to me, I made the corrections and
submitted them to be posted on the AIS Website. At the Spring 2014 Board
meeting, no corrections were made and Motion #3 "Approve Fall minutes as
published on the website", was passed by all. A couple of days after I
got
home from the convention, I was surprised to find an email from President
Morris with these new additional corrections. I have studied these new
additional corrections and I found only 2 minor typographical errors which
did
not change the meaning of the word, or the meaning of a sentence. The
other
corrections are what I consider "cosmetic corrections".
Third, in Susan Grigg's quotation of Robert's Rules of Order, "If the
existence of an error or material omission in the minutes becomes
reasonably
established after their approval -- even many years later -- the minutes
can
then be corrected by means of the motion.....". The 2013 Fall meeting
minutes did not have material omission errors, nor did they have any
errors of
information presented. These "cosmetic corrections" do not meet the
criteria
set forth in Robert's Rules of Order for meeting minutes to be corrected.
Therefore this motion under consideration is not valid under Robert's
Rules of
Order.
Susan Boyce
AIS Recording Secretary
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:48:18 -0400
To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
Subject: Re: [AISdiscuss] Approval of correxted minutes
From: 101d@rewrite.aisboard.org
Please note that Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised does allow for
correction of minutes, even years after their approval. See below:
" If the existence of an error or material omission in the minutes
becomes reasonably established after their approval -- even many years
later -- the minutes can then be corrected by means of the motion
to/Amend Something Previously Adopted/, which requires a two-thirds
vote, or a majority vote with notice, or the vote of a majority of the
entire membership, or unanimous consent."
I believe that ". . .the vote of a majority of the entire membership. .
."
in this case means the entire membership of the Board, not the entire
membership of the AIS.
If you will read carefully Secretary Snyder's attachment of 5/16/2014,
the changes to the Minutes of November 2013 are for spelling and grammar
and will not change any actions taken by the AIS Board. These changes
that President Morris and I hope to make are simply to present AIS in
the best possible light online. Since these Minutes represent AIS to the
membership and to visitors to our website, why not have them reflect the
professionalism of our organization?
If the Board prefers I will amend my motion to "That the Board Minutes
of November 2013 approved in April 2014 be amended to reflect the
corrections sent as an attachment by Secretary Snyder on 5/16/14."
Susan Grigg
On 6/23/2014 3:42 PM, Ron Killingsworth wrote:
Even if "Robert's Rules" states we can not amend the minutes once they
have been officially approved, we can still do it, the rules are
simply guidelines. They can be suspended at the will of the board.
It appears to be important that we get the minutes corrected and the
approved minutes were not entirely correct. The secretary could
attach or append and explanation of necessary.
I'm for getting the record straight even if "Robert's Rules" frowns on
such actions.
Ron Killingsworth, Director
On 6/23/2014 14:24, Michelle Snyder wrote:
Susan Grigg moved and Bob Pries seconded the below motion. As such
it is now out for discussion.
"That the corrected minutes sent as an attachment by Secretary Snyder
on 5/16/2014 be approved."
Michelle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/