On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
2008/12/14 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:49 AM, effe iets
anders
<effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
> From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have
board
> minutes approved only on the next board
meeting. In practice that means
a
> delay of several months. In a quickly
changing world as ours, that is
quite
a long
time span.
That's a fairly standard practice. How would you approve the minutes
without holding a meeting? (Sure, you could do it using a unanimous
consent
resolution, but that's certainly not
typical.)
It's also not typical to have a large group of very committed and
interested volunteers wanting to know what's going on.
Maybe not typical, but it's fairly common. Of course, organizations with
volunteers that are very committed and interested are usually membership
organizations, and members are invited to the meetings.
Approving the
minutes by email would seem perfectly practical to me.
Publishing a
draft of the minutes (or an informal summary of the meeting)
would be one thing. Approving the official minutes is quite another.
Are the meetings considered confidential? If not, there's nothing
stopping
any board member from providing a summary at any
time. If so, well, then
why publish the minutes in the first place?
It may not be wise to publish unapproved minutes - if there are
mistakes, the consequences could be rather unfortunate.
Yeah, an informal summary would be better. Or just record the whole thing
(minus any "closed session" portions) and put it on the Internet.