[Magdalen] Private-ish repository for vestry documents?

[James Oppenheimer-Crawford]

Actually, it is useful to know if one person came up with the idea or if
someone felt it would be "too expensive."
And you are actually suggesting two reports. I don't think that's really a
good idea either. The body can excise the trivia when they review the
minutes. I want those names too.  Without accountability, what's the point
in having minutes at all?  The question "What WERE we thinking?" can only
be answered if the facts are on record.  If one can't tell how you got to a
decision, one can't see why or how it happened.

James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
*“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved,
except in memory. LLAP**”  -- *Leonard Nimoy

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Scott Knitter <scottknitter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Maybe it's just the way I think, but I like Robert's view of the
> purpose of the minutes as a record of the meeting having been held and
> what its outcomes are, not the details of how the outcomes were
> arrived at. I'd like it to be the finished sausage, not a rundown of
> the processes used to make the sausage. :)
>
> Then, however, if there are outcomes likely to be controversial, or if
> parishioners have asked what led to a decision, there could be
> statements attached, written by advocates of the winning decision,
> explaining what was done; perhaps opposing statements could be
> published as well if the decision was hotly contested. The minutes
> would remain the bare record of the meeting.
>
> What I don't like is when the minutes tend toward being a transcript,
> especially when there's a lot of junk like "Tom Johnson felt the
> project would be too expensive."
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:00 PM, James Oppenheimer-Crawford
> <oppenheimerjw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think a record of the summary of the discussion is not a bad idea. It
> is
> > important to know how one gets to a decision almost as much as the
> content
> > of the decision itself. Whoever updates Roberts' dropped the ball on that
> > one, imho.
> >
> > I can see the reasoning: the all-business attitude is indeed just the
> > facts: what was actually done.  However, some people want to know what
> > actually happened in the meeting. What to do? Write up two different
> > reports?
> >
> > James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
> > *“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved,
> > except in memory. LLAP**”  -- *Leonard Nimoy
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Scott Knitter <scottknitter at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Regarding Vestry minutes:
> >>
> >> I contend they should follow Robert's Rules and be not a transcript of
> >> what was said but a concise record of the meeting and actions taken:
> >>
> >> "The most frequent mistakes are trying to summarize the reports
> >> offered and arguments made in debate, and including all of the
> >> amendments and other secondary motions, In fact, in standard form, the
> >> minutes should generally include only what was *done*, not what was
> >> *said*."
> >>
> >> I tried this when I was appointed clerk of the vestry in a previous
> >> parish; this was deemed not acceptable, and I had to add notes on the
> >> content of discussions.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Jo Craddock <jocraddock at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > I can understand not plastering a front page with them; most are
> boring
> >> and
> >> > very poorly written.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Scott R. Knitter
> >> Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois USA
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Scott R. Knitter
> Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois USA
>