recording of motions

[Guest Lili]

When taking minutes of a meeting, should the person putting forth a motion (or seconding) be named in the minutes? Some groups advocate NOT naming people due to liability, but how could a motion be verified at a later date if no name is attached?

[Gary Novosielski]

When taking minutes of a meeting, should the person putting forth a motion (or seconding) be named in the minutes? Some groups advocate NOT naming people due to liability, but how could a motion be verified at a later date if no name is attached?

The mover should be recorded. The seconder, no.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... how could a motion be verified at a later date if no name is attached?

There is no "verification."

Minutes are APPROVED (i.e., read aloud, and approved via unanimous consent) by the BODY WHO GENERATED THOSE MINUTES.

Having a name attached has nothing to do with verification.

[Tim Wynn]

When taking minutes of a meeting, should the person putting forth a motion (or seconding) be named in the minutes?

Yes (no).

Some groups advocate NOT naming people due to liability,

I don't see the liability angle. RONR advocates in the opposite direction.

but how could a motion be verified at a later date if no name is attached?

I'm not familiar with this concept of "verifying" a motion.

[Josh Martin]

When taking minutes of a meeting, should the person putting forth a motion (or seconding) be named in the minutes?

The motion maker's name should be recorded for all "important" motions. The seconder's name should only be recorded if ordered by the assembly.

Some groups advocate NOT naming people due to liability,

There is no parliamentary reason for such a concern. If there are legal concerns involved, consult a lawyer.

but how could a motion be verified at a later date if no name is attached?

I have no idea what you're talking about or why the name of the motion maker would be of assistance in this regard.