Minutes of a meeting and the Recording Secretary

[wwdslovene]

We have a Robert's Rules organization in our small (70,000 people) city. Members of our Board

(an arts organization) have attended a number of its meetings. One of the points which was made

is that our Recording Secretary provides Minutes which are too detailed. To wit, the names of people who make motions and those who second them should not be recorded - just the fact that such and such motion was made and passed (or not). The discussion of a motion should not be entered in the Minutes. In other words Minutes should be as concise as possible.

The reason given is that in this litigious society it could happen that a law suit might be brought

against the person(s) making a motion down the road.

In re-reading old questions posted here, I see that the person seconding a motion should not be recorded in the Minutes. What about the person who makes the motion? Can that name be left unrecorded?

Obviously the names of officers of committees are to be included in the Minutes as are the names

of people elected to the board when balloting occurs. And the names of persons who resign from

the Board should become part of the record.

RONL does not appear to be in agreement with the advice we have been given. I would deeply appreciate thoughts from anyone on this list about the nature of Minutes provided by a recording secretary.

[Tim Wynn]

RONR is not in agreement with the advice that you report to have been given.

The name of the maker of a main motion belongs in the minutes, but not the name of the seconder.

Debate does not belong in the minutes (which has nothing to do with being sued)

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 468-473. That section is pretty straight forward about what belongs and what doesn't. It even has sample minutes for you to examine.