Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: a question about meeting minutes

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Muriel Kranowski <murielk [at] vt.edu> wrote:
> 
> I omit irrelevant and repetitive remarks and might simplify to a degree
> what each person said, but it's still a fairly detailed record of the
> meeting. My goal is that people not at the meeting, and people reading the
> minutes years later, will have a good understanding of the concerns and the
> issues and how they were addressed at that meeting, as well as the outcome
> if a decision was made.

I agree with Philip. I think the minutes should give a sense of the discussion 
— the issues — and the outcome. Insisting on recording a clear outcome also 
pushes the group to have an outcome — not just wander on to the next topic. 
This is partly the job of the person leading the meeting but secretaries can be 
greatly helpful in this because they have to write it down. What may be clear 
“In the air” may need to be specifically acknowledged in writing.

As secretary, I sometimes had one of our two people who take transcript-like 
notes of meetings on their laptops take the notes and I would format and 
process them. Sometimes I was also in the meeting. The comparison between 
reading the notes of the meetings I was in and those I was not, was remarkable. 
In one instance, the person had recorded exactly what was said but the outcome 
in words didn’t include _any_ decisions. If I hadn’t been there I wouldn’t have 
known what happened. The decisions were made but the person didn’t register 
them as important because — I’m not sure why. She only recorded discussion.

I’m sure, Muriel, that your recording is more sensible and with all your 
experience you also understand what statements “really” mean and can convey 
that. But for others it’s shaky ground. When people take transcript like notes, 
they often don’t “listen.” They aren’t converting words to meaning. 

Another problem with recording transcripts and comments is that they give equal 
weight to everything said but none to those things not said. If 2 people say 
the new trees will be a horrible problem in 10 years, that will be the only 
thing recorded because it was the only thing said. The other 30 people in the 
room who don’t agree don’t speak up because it doesn’t require a decision. This 
problem is one that probably increases according to the number of people in the 
room. Only those with strong feelings will speak up and others with strong 
feelings won’t.

A note that "of the 30 people present 2 had concerns about the effect of the 
trees in 10 years” gives a much clearer picture of the moment. Or "the two 
people present with knowledge of tree growth had concerns about the effect of 
the trees in 10 years.” Judgments are important to understanding and 
secretaries should be chosen for their ability to accurately interpret not just 
the words but the context. 

When I’ve been a junior member of organizations I often understood the meeting 
more clearly after I read the minutes because I didn’t understand the context 
of the discussion. Context is also important. 

The secretary is responsible for the administration of community records and 
proceedings. Tracking action items and planning. Knowing past decisions and 
spotting contradictions and lapses. In parliamentary bodies, the secretary is 
the parliamentarian in the absence of a formal parliamentarian. (Parliament 
always has at least one certified expert present.) It’s a leadership position, 
not a clerical position.

> My question is, for those of you who take those kinds of minutes, do you
> cite who said each comment, or just show the comments? (Or if you don't do
> it yourself, if it's done this way in your community.)

Our members like the kind of minutes you take. They love it. They want their 
comments recorded. But I’ve never felt that my comments reflected what I meant. 
Partly because of the translation between spoken and written language but also 
because the emphasis seems to get shifted putting the emphasis on the wrong 
sentence or word.

And few people comment. It isn’t a round where almost everyone speaks. Why 
should those three who speak be recorded unless they are making a comment that 
everyone or almost everyone seems to agree with?

The other issue is what do the minutes mean later? How can you find things? 
With long on and on transcripts, it is very hard to find decisions and relevant 
information. I have folders and folders of 16 years of minutes. I tried to 
start a decision log but the decisions are hard to find. I wanted a log because 
I find it frustrating that many people forget that there was even a discussion, 
much less a decision. Having a dated decision log can also be a table of 
contents to history.

I’m now trying to put the minutes on our website. In Wordpress, you can search 
topics. But when the minutes record so much information, a search brings up a 
lot of irrelevant results. So I’m trying to define keywords related to 
decisions to standardize the cataloging.

AN ALTERNATIVE

Recoding announcements (almost always irrelevant by the time minutes get 
published) and comments does give a flavor of the community at that time — like 
minutes from 1999 that focus on the color of countertops. But another way might 
be better. I’m working on website for Prairie Spruce Cohousing in Regina 
Saskatchewan. They have a blog that members write. Sometimes they are about a 
future event, sometimes a report on a past even, sometimes musings. I think 
that would be a great way to keep a record in a variety of voices that is more 
informal. Their website gives a sense of the community better than any I’ve 
seen, including ours.

(The site is rocky right now. I was asked to take over a poorly functioning 
site that was not designed using standard wordpress directories. As a result 
all the photo links were lost but you can see the captions. And the Prairie 
Spruce Lawn Bowling League is still there.)

> I have gone back and forth on this, sometimes thinking that the shyer
> people shouldn't feel constrained by knowing their name will be attached to
> all their remarks, and other times thinking that part of the record is who
> said what.

It’s a conundrum. And the middle, like compromise, doesn’t make anyone really 
happy. As above, I think it probably needs more solutions than putting 
everything in minutes.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org