Hello Dan et al; Please change in Minute 45). EMC Committeeassignments "Mr. Mark Stefka, WW8MS" to"Dr. Mark Stefka, WW8MS". I regret having missedthat in the first release. Thank You Kermit Carlson W9XA From: "Henderson, Dan N1ND" <dhenderson@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 6:58 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:27012] Final Minutes - ARRL Annual Board Meeting January 2018 At the direction of the Secretary, please find attached a PDF of the final minutes along with the information below. A call for a vote of the Directors will come Thursday. Thanks and 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND Assistant Secretary, the American Radio Relay League, Inc. Regulatory Information Manager ARRL - the national association for Amateur Radio Phone: 860-594-0236 ________________________________________________________________ Several pertinent parts of Robert’s Rules of Order should be cited: Using Robert’s Rules of Order (11th edition) §48 reads in part: "In an ordinary meeting, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members. The minutes should never reflect the secretary’s opinion, favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done." §48 further states in part that: "The body of the minutes should contain a separate paragraph for each subject matter, and should show: (6) all main motions or motions to bring a main question again before the assembly that were make or taken up – except, normally, any that were withdrawn*…” The footnote cited above regarding a withdrawn motion reads: "There may be certain instances in which a main motion is withdrawn under circumstances that require some mention in the minutes. In such a case, only as much information should be included in the minutes as is needed to reflect the necessary details clearly. For example, if, at one meeting, a main motion was made the special order for the next meeting (p.371), or a main motion was postponed after lengthy consideration to a meeting at which it was withdrawn by consent, action at the first meeting should always be recorded, and the withdrawal at the second meeting should be stated for completeness of the minutes." In Robert’s Rules §48.C you will find "After a motion has been withdrawn, the situation is as though it had never been made…" In reviewing Vice-Director Stratton’s proposed edit of the minutes to include both Director Abernethy’s motion, the review of the recording clearly shows the motion was withdraw, hence §48.C applies and the minutes should not reflect its introduction or discussion. The withdrawn motion does not appear to meet the requirements cited in the asterisked note above to §48 – it was not part of a motion from one meeting being carried over to a later meeting for the purpose of considering that specific issue. Again, the motion not appearing in the minutes is consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order. As part of the review of the recording, we looked at Mr. Abernethy’s statement regarding the motion. Since the motion was withdrawn, no discussion of it would appear in the minutes. This has been the standard procedures used by the ARRL for many years and is consistent with the rules of procedure. In addition during the discussion of his motion, Mr. Abernethy said the statement he read was for him to be sure he didn’t overlook pertinent comments he wished to make. Mr. Boehner queried whether his statement would be entered into the record to which Mr. Abernethy directly answered: “I could make it part of the minutes but I hadn’t planned on that, it was just kind of a statement.” President Roderick also questioned whether the statement should be in the minutes, at which Mr. Boehner withdrew his query about its inclusion in the minutes. At no time during the discussions did the Chair or the Board direct that the Abernethy statement be included in the minutes, so it does not appear. The question will be asked as to why the two motions that Mr. Norris brought forward from the EC but were withdrawn are included in the minutes. The two motions did receive action by the Board, though not put to a vote. The first was referred back to the Executive Committee for further discussions to include General Counsel and ARRL Connecticut Corporate counsel. The second was referred for the Administration and Finance Committee for further consideration. Both actions were taken without objection. Therefore, both are included in the minutes since some action on them was taken at the meeting. The question will also be asked as to why the Norris statement read after the two motions were referred to committees is included in the minutes. The answer is that Mr. Roderick, without objection from the Board, directed that it be included. All of the above has been verified with the recording of the meeting. A final proposed addition to the minutes was that a series of motions circulated to the Board before the meeting by Mr. Lisenco should be acknowledged in the minutes and added as an appendix to the minutes. The motions in question were never introduced for consideration by the Board nor were they discussed. Since they were not brought forward at the meeting, they should not be included in the record, as they did not meet the standard of §48, that is, there was nothing done at the meeting addressing those items. _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv