Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: approval of plenary minutes

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> On Aug 8, 2022, at 9:30 PM, Muriel Kranowski <murielk [at] vt.edu> wrote:
> 
> Now someone is saying this is not good practice and we should treat the
> minutes as a draft that is subject to revision and approval at the next
> plenary meeting. This is indeed standard practice on Boards of Directors
> I've been involved with, but it's always been a pro forma motion in the
> context of an organization that is much more Robert's-Rules-ish than we
> are.

To actually read the minutes and approve them was standard practice in 
parliamentary procedure but it was adopted when there was no other means of 
communication between members/attendees — paper was expensive and copies had to 
be done by hand. There was no email or website. Now that it is economically and 
physically possible to distribute minutes, Roberts no longer requires them to 
be read in the next meeting. They are either distributed before hand on paper, 
email, etc., and only approved in the meeting unless someone asks that they be 
read. The approval is noted in the minutes.

The important part is that a final version of the minutes is approved as 
correct, however they get that way. Roberts also allows minutes to be corrected 
at any later point when they are found to be inaccurate. 

> How do you handle this aspect of your governance? Do you approve (after
> possibly revising) the previous minutes at the next meeting before
> considering them final? If so, does that usually go pretty quickly or can
> it bog down the meeting or lead to disagreements about what to include? I
> can imagine some members wanting to wordsmith or add their preferred
> content if given the opportunity.

Our minutes are circulated as a draft for corrections via email, any 
corrections made, and a final draft posted on email and on the website. For 
membership meetings the draft is circulated to all members via the members 
email list for corrections and final version posted a few days later if there 
are no corrections or a final corrected version posted if there are. People do 
request corrections, additions, wording changes, etc. (Secretaries who have 
lived in the community a long time are more likely not to need correction or 
reminders.)

Smaller meetings (teams, working groups, pods, etc.) do “notes” that are 
circulated first via email to those who were in attendance. Any corrections or 
additions made and the final posted to the all members email list.

As at Shadowlake, a few years ago a member said she felt that we needed a sense 
of closure or at least confirmation that the minutes of the last meeting had 
been posted. So the facilitator now asks at the beginning of the meeting if the 
minutes are up to date and have been approved online and the secretary reports 
yes or no or but… It’s quick and it is a good check in to be sure the secretary 
is on their toes. Not all have been.

When there is correction or a challenge to the wording, the secretary resolves 
the issue by contacting the persons involved. To do this in the meeting 
everyone would have to have a copy or have the minutes read. By sitting there 
not raising an objection is evidence that they are approving the minutes when 
in fact most probably have no memory of them a month later.

One issue that comes up is whether to record false or outdated information. 
This seems totally counterproductive. Just because someone said something 
doesn’t make it true and recording it for posterity without correction can 
later be used as “proof” that a decision was made when it wasn’t, for example, 
or  a person did this who didn’t. When a problem with the parking gate, for 
example, is recorded that is resolved even before the draft minutes are posted, 
the minutes should note this. Otherwise it can be understood as a new instance 
of a previous problem. These “out of meeting” corrections are put in [  ] 
brackets often with a date to show that this was an error or that the problem 
was subsequently resolved. That leaves a record of what happened in the meeting 
but a corrected record for history.

Some secretaries have refused to use [ ] this because they think the minutes 
should record what happened like a court transcript. Robert’s and other guides 
are very clear that minutes are records of what was done/decided in the 
meeting, not what was said. A summary of the discussion is included so the 
decision is understood on context.

What we don’t have agreement on is how much teams and small groups should 
include in notes. Some notes are so vague that all you know is they met and 
discussed a list these topics. Neither the discussion points, decisions, nor 
their responses are included. The same with drafts of policies. Drafts are 
reviewed but no one other than the people in the room knows what the draft said 
because it is not attached.

Notes are published to everyone but we haven’t discussed what that is supposed 
to acccomplish? Who are they written for?

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