[Vision2020] Board of Trustee Minutes--l
keely emerinemix
kjajmix1 at msn.com
Sun May 1 16:11:04 PDT 2005
I appreciate Mike's usual clear-headedness on the subject of meeting
minutes. One clarification, though:
The FPC does not have a clerk or secretary at the meetings, and early on we
decided to have one person record meeting notes as extensively as possible
for posting on the website. We called these simply "meeting notes," and
they are not approved or read at the following meeting -- they're simply a
resource for the public, absent FPC'ers, and a good record of what we've
been doing. The best record of what we've been doing continues to be the
cavalcade of documents distributed at public meetings and posted to the
website. As for the April 11 meeting, well, it was what it was -- a "so how
are you feeling about the campaign?"-time of discussion, no more -- but I'm
quite sure that that explanation won't satisfy some folks.
Having just spent the weekend on retreat, I hesitate to start in again, but
I would remind folks that the "People First!" openness-in-government award
the committee was just given is simply confirmation of what I and many
others know -- we didn't win, but we played fairly, openly, honestly and
sincerely.
Nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of, and ready for whatever's next
--
keely
From: "Michael Curley" <curley at turbonet.com>
Reply-To: curley at turbonet.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com, Shelly <CJs at turbonet.com>, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Board of Trustee Minutes--reply to Phil
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 15:50:41 -0700
Donovan:
I guess if an organization intends to use its minutes as an
information tool, then I agree with you--it probably needs to
expedite an "unofficial" approval process and get the minutes posted
even before the next meeting, subject to official approval at the
next meeting.
But, as I said in an earlier post, I think one of the big problems
with the bond issue was the failure of District leadership to provide
a consisitent, rapid-response information source for questions and
issues that arose once the bond was announced. I should also
acknowledge that the District received an award for its openness to
public participation and comment during the entire process--and yet
there were still questions that deserved answers.
I can certainly understand why someone would want to read the
minutes, but it really isn't that unusual for an organization to take
60 days to even approve minutes, let alone get them posted. You will
note the minutes of the April 11 meeting (and I believe there was
also an April 19 special meeting) are not yet posted either--whether
they have been approved or not.
Certainly the "next time" the District is fairly warned that some
members of the public would like more immediate posting of
significant information.
Mike
On 1 May 2005 at 12:16, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Mr. Curley,
>
> There was a meeting between March 10, 2005 and April
> 26, 2005. It was on April 11, 2005. So the minutes
> should have been reviewed, edited, and approved at
> that time.
>
> MSD has 400+ employees. There is no reason why the
> minutes for the meeting should not have been written
> up and posted.
>
> I have never seen it take 60 days to print up minutes
> and post them on a website. Even college and high
> school student governments are faster. Now if 18 year
> olds can do it, I would tend to think so could adults
> with Masters degrees. If not, they have access to over
> 500 students that probably could.
>
> I do not see any point in having minutes if you are
> going to wait 8 weeks. It might as well be 8 years.
> Minutes are so you can go back and look and see what
> happened at a meeting.
>
> As to whether the minutes actually had any value to
> the public regarding their vote on April 26, that is
> up to each voter. But they cannot make that judgment
> if they do not have access to the information.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Take Care,
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Michael Curley <curley at turbonet.com> wrote:
> > Phil:
> > Unfortuately for some reason unknown to me, I cannot
> > retain the
> > string of your conversation with Keely about the
> > March 10 school
> > board meeting minutes being posted on the website.
> > (see
> >
> www.sd281.k12.id.us/Board_of_Trustees/minutes/05-03-10Spec.pdf,
> > if
> > you're interested). You suggested that it was the
> > "content" of the
> > meeting minutes that caused it to be posted in a
> > less timely manner
> > than other minutes, but Keely said "no" and you
> > asked "why then."
> >
> > Not to answer for Keely, but let me review a couple
> > of things before
> > she does so that you have some information from
> > which to evaluate her
> > answer--and future postings.
> >
> > Minutes of meetings are pesky things. They aren't
> > really minutes
> > until they are approved at the NEXT meeting of the
> > group. They are
> > prepared and circulated for review and CORRECTION
> > prior to the
> > meeting, and they MAY be approved in exactly the
> > form in which they
> > are circulated, but they also may contain absolutely
> > incorrect
> > information. I'm sure you'd be very upset if you
> > were a board,
> > commission or committee member and minutes were
> > posted BEFORE you had
> > a chance at the next meeting to amend them that
> > said: "Phil Roderick
> > said he favored proposition x" if indeed you said
> > you did NOT favor
> > proposition x and the secretary/minute-taker had
> > erred.
> >
> > Perhaps the point is, thus, that "official" meeting
> > minutes should
> > not be used as an informational tool when the public
> > needs or wants
> > answers immediately. Of course, concomitantly, the
> > public should not
> > look for the answers there either. Additionally,
> > minutes are not
> > really supposed to contain DETAILS of discussion at
> > a meeting. They
> > should NOT for example say: "Mr. Roderick said that
> > he thought xyz
> > about resolution 05-123." We may all THINK that's
> > what minutes are
> > about, but they aren't (you want the cite to Roberts
> > Rules of Order,
> > post me offline). They SHOULD give the details of a
> > motion or
> > resolution that is presented, that "discussion
> > ensued," and then the
> > vote was taken--and the results.
> >
> > It is laudable the District posts its Board minutes
> > on its website.
> > I doubt they intended the particular minutes to be
> > the "information
> > sheet" on the bond or any other issue, and it isn't
> > the place where
> > any of us should look for TIMELY information about
> > them.
> >
> > And, then, there is the question about who has the
> > technical
> > knowledge to post the minutes (yes, some students
> > are quite capable,
> > but they require supervision, so in the past it has
> > been an employee
> > who has needed to do it--who is also responsible for
> > keeping the
> > computer system running for the entire district--and
> > there are at
> > least EIGHT separate buildings in which the system
> > operates. Ah,
> > minutes, they seem sooo simple at first glance.
> >
> > Hope this helps a bit, whatever the underlying issue
> > might be.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Apr 2005 at 11:37, Shelly wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _____________________________________________________
> > List services made available by First Step
> > Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >
> > http://www.fsr.net
> >
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list