Re: a question about meeting minutes | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com) | |
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:02:59 -0700 (PDT) |
> 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
- Re: a question about meeting minutes, (continued)
-
Re: a question about meeting minutes Muriel Kranowski, September 9 2015
- Re: a question about meeting minutes Sharon Villines, September 9 2015
- Re: a question about meeting minutes R Philip Dowds, September 9 2015
- What are membership meetings for? [ was: a question about meeting minutes Sharon Villines, September 10 2015
-
Re: a question about meeting minutes Muriel Kranowski, September 9 2015
-
Re: a question about meeting minutes R Philip Dowds, September 9 2015
- Re: a question about meeting minutes Elizabeth Magill, September 9 2015
- Language used in decisions Elizabeth Magill, September 9 2015
- Re: Language used in decisions Sharon Villines, September 10 2015
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.