Minutes record a meeting truthfully or the truth?

[jandal]

Should meeting minutes record truthfully what happened at the meeting or should they record the truth?

Our Committee has an ongoing issue.  For example: at a Committeee meeting there is a discussion and a vote based on the "facts" presented during the discussion. After the meeting someone disputes the "facts" outlined as the discussion points in the minutes and seeks to rewrite the minutes.

My concern is the "facts" that informed my vote at the meeting are 1. incorrect and 2. the vote stands despite the facts changing,

Where "facts" are misrepresented or incorrect at a meeting, and a member wishes to correct them, what is the procedure for doing this and how does it effect the decision at the meeting?

thank you

[Benjamin Geiger]

Minutes should record what was done, not what was said. So, in the vast majority of cases, the facts presented during debate shouldn't be recorded in the minutes in the first place.

Edited August 19, 2018 at 11:19 PM by Benjamin Geiger
This forum doesn't do Markdown.

[Benjamin Geiger]

That said, if enough people are upset by the incorrect facts, you could presumably move to Amend/Rescind Something Previously Adopted. It takes a 2/3 vote (or majority with prior notice or majority of the entire membership) to do, but if it's generated enough outrage (or you can whip up enough outrage), it could be done.

[Atul Kapur]

If the minutes are recording the discussion, they should record the discussion that actually happened. That is, the information that was provided at the meeting.

 

It would be incorrect to try to amend the minutes to change the information.

 

However, at this meeying if you wish to change the motion that was adopted at the last meeting - based on this updated information that you are hearing today - then Mr. Geiger's answer regarding the motion Amend/Rescind Something Previously Adopted

can be applied to the motion from the last meeting.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

36 minutes ago, jandal said:

Our Committee has an ongoing issue. 

Note that RONR does not require committees to keep minutes.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Mr. Huynh, here is what RONR says about committee "minutes" on page 500:

"COMMITTEE PROCEDURE. In small committees, the chairman usually acts as secretary, but in large ones and many standing committees, a secretary may be chosen to keep a brief memorandum in the nature of minutes for the use of the committee. "

[Joshua Katz]

38 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

If the minutes are recording the discussion, they should record the discussion that actually happened. That is, the information that was provided at the meeting.

 

Agreed, but in this scenario, the easiest answer is to move to amend by striking all of the discussion.

[jandal]

Thank you for your replies.

Quote

Minutes should record what was done, not what was said. 

Yes, however often what is done is in large part determined by what is said, i.e. a vote will be influenced by the supporting information provided.

The problem is that a particular member wishes to control the content of the minuted discussion points; he submits edits to the Secretary based on what he thinks should be reported rather than on what actually was discussed at the meeting. The Secretary makes the changes and we are running into constant conflict regarding the accuracy of the minutes. 

This member is also changing his vote after, and outside of, the meeting and the Secretary is actioning this change in the minutes of the meeting.

Thank you for the suggestion of Amend /Rescind Something Previously Adopted, very useful.

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, jandal said:

Yes, however often what is done is in large part determined by what is said, i.e. a vote will be influenced by the supporting information provided.

 

Yes, people vote based on the debate. But that doesn't change the fact that minutes are meant for recording the decisions of the assembly, not what individuals said. The real need in 10 years is to know what was decided, not which of many potentially conflicting reasons was the basis.

3 minutes ago, jandal said:

 The problem is that a particular member wishes to control the content of the minuted discussion points; he submits edits to the Secretary based on what he thinks should be reported rather than on what actually was discussed at the meeting. The Secretary makes the changes and we are running into constant conflict regarding the accuracy of the minutes. 

 

Well, the Secretary could not do that. Until the minutes are approved, they are just the Secretary's notes. Given that the Secretary makes the changes, though, you can move to amend the pending minutes to cut out all the things that don't belong there.

3 minutes ago, jandal said:

 This member is also changing his vote after, and outside of, the meeting and the Secretary is actioning this change in the minutes of the meeting.

 

No, the member is exercising his vocal cords or fingers in a manner that resembles changing his vote after the meeting. What he's not doing is actually changing his vote. Unless you are voting by roll call, though, how he voted doesn't belong in the minutes, either. If the Secretary is changing the outcome of a vote based on this supposed vote-changing, then move to amend the minutes to correctly state if the motion was adopted or not based on what the meeting decided.

4 minutes ago, jandal said:

 Thank you for the suggestion of Amend /Rescind Something Previously Adopted, very useful.

I agree it is very helpful in this instance. For the future, though, Amend, before the minutes are approved (I personally like to say adopted, but everyone here jumps on me for saying it, despite the fact that we're all in agreement that the way to amend approved minutes is A/R SP Adopted), can be done by a majority vote, as opposed to the higher threshold or notice requirement of A/R SPA.

[Benjamin Geiger]

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

For the future, though, Amend, before the minutes are approved (I personally like to say adopted, but everyone here jumps on me for saying it, despite the fact that we're all in agreement that the way to amend approved minutes is A/R SP Adopted), can be done by a majority vote, as opposed to the higher threshold or notice requirement of A/R SPA.

Just to clarify: when I suggested it, I intended for it to be used on the motion in question, not on the minutes.

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Just to clarify: when I suggested it, I intended for it to be used on the motion in question, not on the minutes.

Ah, gotcha.

[Richard Brown]

46 minutes ago, jandal said:

Thank you for your replies.

Yes, however often what is done is in large part determined by what is said, i.e. a vote will be influenced by the supporting information provided.

The problem is that a particular member wishes to control the content of the minuted discussion points; he submits edits to the Secretary based on what he thinks should be reported rather than on what actually was discussed at the meeting. The Secretary makes the changes and we are running into constant conflict regarding the accuracy of the minutes. 

This member is also changing his vote after, and outside of, the meeting and the Secretary is actioning this change in the minutes of the meeting. . . . . 

All of the part that I bolded is quite improper.  As already pointed out, the minutes are a record of what was DONE at a meeting, not what was said.  Debate does not belong in the minutes. 

Certain other information can be included in the minutes by direction of the assembly, but this should be rare and should be the exception, not the norm.  Debate simply does not belong in the minutes.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

1 hour ago, jandal said:

The problem is that a particular member wishes to control the content of the minuted discussion points; he submits edits to the Secretary based on what he thinks should be reported rather than on what actually was discussed at the meeting. The Secretary makes the changes and we are running into constant conflict regarding the accuracy of the minutes.

I agree with the others that no, your actual problem is insisting on treating the minutes like lecture notes. Let the members take their own notes if they must have memoranda, or appoint someone to do it as a separate task. But limit the official minutes to the decisions made and the actions taken and you will no longer waste time arguing over who said what.

[jandal]

Quote

For the future, though, Amend, before the minutes are approved (I personally like to say adopted, but everyone here jumps on me for saying it, despite the fact that we're all in agreement that the way to amend approved minutes is A/R SP Adopted), can be done by a majority vote, as opposed to the higher threshold or notice requirement of A/R SPA.

Is there a correct way to submit an amendment to minutes before they are approved?

Quote

No, the member is exercising his vocal cords or fingers in a manner that resembles changing his vote after the meeting. What he's not doing is actually changing his vote. Unless you are voting by roll call, though, how he voted doesn't belong in the minutes, either. If the Secretary is changing the outcome of a vote based on this supposed vote-changing, then move to amend the minutes to correctly state if the motion was adopted or not based on what the meeting decided.

I don't understand. Are you saying that a member can change a vote they made in a meeting, after and outside of that meeting e.g. by emailing the Secretary the following day, and that their changed vote e.g. from Yes to No can be refected in the minutes prior to them being approved and without submitting an amendment to the Committee? 

Surely this change of vote couldn't just happen outside of a meeting without it been brought to the attention of other members in someway e.g. by submitting an ammendment prior to approval or an Amend /Rescind Something Previously Adopted?

[Richard Brown]

36 minutes ago, jandal said:

Is there a correct way to submit an amendment to minutes before they are approved?

Usually it is done informally and by unanimous consent.  A member suggests, for example, "That the minutes be corrected to show that George Smith, rather than Cooter Brown, made the motion to buy a new laptop for the secretary".  Or, "that the minutes be corrected to show that George's motion was amended to put a limit of $600 on the price of a new laptop for the secretary and that the minutes should be amended to add "at a cost not to exceed $600" at the end of the sentence.  If there is no objection, the chair announces that the minutes will be corrected to show add "at a cost not to exceed $600" at the end of the sentence about the purchase of the laptop.  If there is an objection, then the chair puts the proposed correction to a vote. it requires a majority vote to make the correction.  The motion to make the correction is debatable.

48 minutes ago, jandal said:

I don't understand. Are you saying that a member can change a vote they made in a meeting, after and outside of that meeting e.g. by emailing the Secretary the following day, and that their changed vote e.g. from Yes to No can be refected in the minutes prior to them being approved and without submitting an amendment to the Committee? 

No.  I think that what Mr. Katz meant is that that sounds like what the member was trying to do.  It would not be at all proper.

[Joshua Katz]

57 minutes ago, jandal said:

Is there a correct way to submit an amendment to minutes before they are approved?

Quote

When the minutes are pending for approval, the chair should ask for corrections. You can move at that point to amend by any of the usual means. Such motions are often handled by unanimous consent, but if it is lacking, it takes a majority vote.

58 minutes ago, jandal said:

I don't understand. Are you saying that a member can change a vote they made in a meeting, after and outside of that meeting e.g. by emailing the Secretary the following day, and that their changed vote e.g. from Yes to No can be refected in the minutes prior to them being approved and without submitting an amendment to the Committee? 

 Surely this change of vote couldn't just happen outside of a meeting without it been brought to the attention of other members in someway e.g. by submitting an ammendment prior to approval or an Amend /Rescind Something Previously Adopted?

No, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying a member can flap his gums and/or fingers, but cannot change the vote he cast at the meeting. If he regrets his vote, a motion to rescind at a later session, or to reconsider at the same session, may be appropriate.

As for the minutes, they shouldn't show how any individual votes in the first place, unless the vote was by roll call. They should say if the motion carried or not. Regardless, no one can change his vote outside the meeting.

[jandal]

Thank you both for clarifying and for the advice, it is very helpful and appreciated.