Guest veronica Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:32 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:32 PM During a hotly debated issue we noticed that the minute taker was recording the views of one side correctly and the views of the other incorrectly. (Our institute has chosen to record discussions leading to motions.) When we asked to have the wording amended, a vote was taken to see which was correct. As a result of the vote, words were attributed to a member when he insisted he did not say them. Is this legal? What recourse does the member have? Shouldn't the final arbitrator be the person who spoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:37 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:37 PM During a hotly debated issue we noticed that the minute taker was recording the views of one side correctly and the views of the other incorrectly. (Our institute has chosen to record discussions leading to motions.) When we asked to have the wording amended, a vote was taken to see which was correct. As a result of the vote, words were attributed to a member when he insisted he did not say them. Is this legal? What recourse does the member have? Shouldn't the final arbitrator be the person who spoke?This is a splendid illustration of why the minutes should be a record of what was done, not what was said. Since your organization has chosen to ignore that practical advice and include extraneous material, the organziation will have to figure out what to do about this sort of problem. RONR has very little advice about how to do what it advises not to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry4000 Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:38 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:38 PM During a hotly debated issue we noticed that the minute taker was recording the views of one side correctly and the views of the other incorrectly. (Our institute has chosen to record discussions leading to motions.) When we asked to have the wording amended, a vote was taken to see which was correct. As a result of the vote, words were attributed to a member when he insisted he did not say them. Is this legal? What recourse does the member have? Shouldn't the final arbitrator be the person who spoke?The minutes should reflect what was done and not what was said. Get a Secretary who does proper minutes according to RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:39 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:39 PM During a hotly debated issue we noticed that the minute taker was recording the views of one side correctly and the views of the other incorrectly. (Our institute has chosen to record discussions leading to motions.) When we asked to have the wording amended, a vote was taken to see which was correct. As a result of the vote, words were attributed to a member when he insisted he did not say them. Is this legal? What recourse does the member have? Shouldn't the final arbitrator be the person who spoke?You're on your own, and you're beginning to see the reasons why RONR has left these details in the hands of any organization that inadvisably adopts such a rule. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:40 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:40 PM Veronica is getting one reply per minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:43 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:43 PM The minutes should reflect what was done and not what was said. Get a Secretary who does proper minutes according to RONR.According to veronica's original posting, it is the organziation itself that has "chosen to record discussions leading to motions." For all we know, the secretary may be perfectly willing to prepare the minutes as RONR advises. Granted, veronica does say they are "biased," but since we were not there for the meeting, we have no way of knowing how biased they actually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:46 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:46 PM During a hotly debated issue we noticed that the minute taker was recording the views of one side correctly and the views of the other incorrectly. (Our institute has chosen to record discussions leading to motions.) Yup. That is one reason why the minutes should only reflect what was done and not what was said. I suggest you all take minutes the way RONR suggests.When we asked to have the wording amended, a vote was taken to see which was correct. As a result of the vote, words were attributed to a member when he insisted he did not say them. Is this legal? We don't do legal here. That is one reason why the minutes should only reflect what was done and not what was said.What recourse does the member have? None under RONR besides moving to Amend Something Previously Adopted to have the minutes accurately reflect what was said. But it would be better to have the minutes function as they are supposed to by reflecting what was done at the meeting and not what was said. If someone wants a record of what was said they should keep a journal and leave the irrelevant details out of the minutes (are future members really going to give a fig about what a member said or will they only care about what the body decided to do on a particular question?).Shouldn't the final arbitrator be the person who spoke?Guess not. Again, this is one reason why the minutes should only reflect what was done and not what was said. [Whew, glad my computer has the ability to copy-and-paste]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:54 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 at 09:54 PM Imagine all the time being wasted on debate over how the minutes reflect what someone said when such reflection in the minutes has no bearing on the disposition of any motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.