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

[Max Tite (maxtite]

We have two documents per plenary meeting: a Minutes report and a Meeting
Notes report.

Minutes is the official record of the meeting; date, times, attendees
(directors, Affiliates, guests), along with actual proposals and outcomes
of any votes or decisions. Dissenting votes are recorded. The Minutes
report is published to our Gather Wiki (our community documents repository)
shortly after the meeting. It is read at the following month's meeting near
the start of the meeting and is then formally approved by all. Rarely are
changes brought forward, but this review serves as a good reminder of
recent decisions and events.

The Notes document is more of a longhand narrative of the meeting as it
transpires. Monterey Cohousing was formed in 1992, so in a quaint tribute
to the pre-digital age we still call these the Longhand Notes. It is not a
word-for-word transcript of what was said at the meeting, nor is it
considered an official record, but it does help to give color and
historical reference to each meeting's content and discussions. People's
stated reservations or comments about decisions may be recorded in the
longhand notes.  Sometimes a person puts forward an idea that doesn't get
taken up. We may record those ideas because sometimes we might want to come
go back to them later.

Various members volunteer to take down these records by signing up for the
two tasks. In addition to the two meeting recorders, we have one or
typically two facilitators, a timekeeper, and a stacker for discussion
queues at each meeting.

In preparation for each meeting, agendas are published in advance, with
specific proposal language included for review well prior to the meeting.

If discussion meetings about proposals are needed, a 4-day advance notice
of the meeting day and time is required so people can plan to attend if
they want to.

Max Tite
Monterey Cohousing Community
Minneapolis Minnesota US
texts to 626-MAX-TITE


On Tue, Aug 9, 2022, 2:59 PM Muriel Kranowski <murielk [at] vt.edu> wrote:

> I'm the primary minutes-taker for our plenary meetings. Near the top of the
> minutes, below the date and the list of those attending, I always have a
> "Meeting Summary" section that briefly lists each agenda item and (if it
> required a decision) its outcome. Then you get "Meeting Details." I think,
> if we adopt the idea of approving previous minutes, it could be useful for
> the facilitator to read the Summary aloud as a reminder of what they're
> approving.
>
> My greatest challenge with the minutes is deciding how much to include. It
> seems worthwhile to say what the major points were in a discussion, but
> there is definitely such a thing as too much detail. If I don't include the
> gist of someone's comment that they think was just as important as what I
> thought were the major points, or if I provide a very abbreviated version
> of it and they want a fuller version of what they said, am I obliged to
> revise the minutes when it comes down to their judgment vs mine? That's a
> tough one for me.
>    Muriel
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://L.cohousing.org/info
>
>
>
>