taking minutes

[branflake81]

Is anyone else here responsible for taking minutes at meetings? I minute some fairly senior meetings where I work. The chair insists on seeing and editing my minutes prior to distribution. he often omits large chunks of "controversial" discussion meaning that what's left is just a skeletal outline of what really happened and not a true picture. Surely that defeats the whole purpose of minutes? Is this a common occurrence?

I trained as a secretary but thankfully never took minutes!. I thought the purpose of minutes was to have a note of all that's discussed. Seeing and editing minutes is one thing but it's a bit odd if "controversial" discussion is omitted. Have you asked the chair why bits are taken out?

Even if he/she edits them , they should be approved or not at the next meeting so other attendees will have a chance to voice any concerns. This is my experience anyway.

In my experience it's very common not to include any of the discussion. The norm that I have seen is just to include decisions made and actions agreed. Where I work I think people wouldn't want all teh discussion on record - partly in case they change their mind later. Also makes your job in taking the minutes much quicker and easier.

I take minutes (on ML at the moment though) and never wrote down anything too deep or controversial, as it could be released under Freedom of Information. But yes, it did mean the official minutes were not much more than a detailed agenda. It's part of my job I hate, deeply. Unless I get lucky enough to sit in on a full-on argument, they can be amusing.