BETTER
PRACTICES
Should Movers and
Seconders be Recorded in Minutes?
With
the principle of objectivity in mind, minutes of
meetings should have a collective focus
and not a personal focus. It is
therefore important to record the group's collective
actions and - if needed - an objective point-form
summary of the discussion (without attributing specific
comments to individuals). With objectivity in mind, here
is a piece of advice that may shock you at first, but
will hopefully delight you as you read on: Names of
movers and seconders should not be recorded in
minutes…
Did
I get your attention? Good... Now that I've done that,
I'd better give you some compelling reasons for this
seemingly revolutionary and outrageous proposal.
To
start, let me tell you what the most commonly used book
on parliamentary procedure, Robert's Rules of Order
Newly Revised (10th edition), says on
recording movers and seconders in minutes.
On
page 453 Robert says: "The name of the seconder
of a motion should not be entered in the minutes unless
ordered by the assembly". What might be the
reason for this? Well, the individual seconding a motion
does so only to get the motion debated, and not
necessarily because he or she favors it. In fact, a
person may second a motion because he or she opposes it
and would like to see it formally rejected. Recording
his or her name next to the motion would give a false
impression. Also, seconding a motion is not a
significant step in parliamentary procedure. If a motion
is debated and voted on without ever being seconded, the
lack of a second becomes immaterial (Robert page 35).
As
to the name of the mover, Robert page 452 says that the
mover's name is recorded "in the case of
important motions". This provision is vague
and problematic, since someone needs to figure out what
is an important motion and what is not an important
motion. You can already hear the arguments…
The
solution? I suggest that your group adopt a special rule
to remove both the names of the mover and the seconder
from the minutes. Make this new rule well known and easy
to find, without having to sift through a 600 plus page
book on parliamentary procedure. It should be understood
that your group's special rules of order supersede
Robert or any other book on rules of order.
Below
are a few more reasons for removing names of movers and
seconders from the minutes.
Recording
the mover's name in the minutes is bound to be
misleading. Yes, the mover is generally presumed to be
in favor of the motion when he or she moves it, but the
mover is entitled to change his or her mind and vote
against the motion. This is the essence of a healthy
debate, where people truly listen to one another, keep
an open mind, and can be persuaded to change their views
(otherwise why have a meeting?) Another situation where
the mover may end up voting against his or her motion is
when it is amended against the mover's wishes. With the
above scenarios in mind, it should be clear that
recording the mover's name in the minutes can give false
impressions.
Then
there is the question of ownership. Recording the mover
and seconder gives the false impression that the two own
the motion forever and have exclusive control over it,
when - in fact - nothing could be further from the
truth. I say this despite the fact that you may have you
heard a presiding officer ask the mover and seconder if
they agree to amend or withdraw "their"
motion. Despite this common (and incorrect) practice,
neither the mover nor the seconder own the motion once
debate on it begins. Ownership then shifts to the group.
From this point onwards decisions to amend or withdraw
the motion are to be made by the group, collectively,
and not unilaterally by the mover and seconder. The fact
that senseless practices are followed everywhere does
not make them correct.
The
issue of who owns the motion is more than just a
technicality. I never cease to be amazed at how the
false idea that the mover and seconder own the motion in
perpetuity paralyzes a governing body and subjects it to
"the tyranny of the minority". On several
occasions, I have found Boards and Councils thinking
that they cannot rescind or amend a previously adopted
motion because the mover and seconder are absent or do
not agree to rescind or amend it. So much for "the
majority rules"…
Another
negative outcome of recording movers and seconders is
that it personalizes and politicizes the decision making
process. Individuals rush to make motions to get their
names in the minutes and be personally credited for
"having done something" for the community
(thereby "increasing their chances of being
re-elected"). Others are afraid to move and second
motions because they want to avoid public attention.
Under such conditions, the focus is on individuals, and
objectivity is compromised.
There
is also the question of FOI (freedom of information)
legislation, under which minutes are a public record
(with the exception of minutes of closed, or
"in-camera" meetings). With FOI in mind, the
less names go in the minutes the better. Several clients
have asked me what they needed to do to remove those
names from minutes. My answer has been simple: Just
adopt a rule or bylaw to take them out.
Here
is my final reason for taking names of movers and
seconders out of minutes. Many meetings are run
informally and proposals are made, discussed and voted
on without being moved and seconded. In principle, there
is nothing wrong with this practice, as long as
proposals are clearly articulated, opened for
discussion, and voted on by the group. But whom do you
record as having "moved and seconded motions"
in such cases? How about "the floor moved and the
ceiling seconded"? All of this anxiety will be
avoided if names of movers and seconders are not
recorded in minutes.
So
how about letting go of this unnecessary and
counter-productive tradition?
 Eli
Mina, M.Sc., is a Vancouver-based consultant, meeting
facilitator, mentor and coach. He has led a number of
workshops for AXI on meetings and minute taking. He can
be reached at 604-730-0377 or by e-mail at eli@elimina.com
and his web site is http://www.elimina.com. Reprinted
with permission from Eli’s Deliberations
newsletter.
The practices
described in this area are described as Better
Practices for a very good reason. We have a great
deal of difficulty with the term best practices
used in any other context than to refer to the results
of benchmarking exercises involving real and relevant
organizations with tangible results. We offer
Better Practices related to areas where we feel that
change is needed in associations. The Better Practices
are intended to provoke thought, and to encourage
organizations to think about what they are doing and how
they are doing it.
|
