Wording of the minutes of a decision do not reflect the decision of the meeting

Question

At a previous meeting, a proposal was discussed regarding various funding and reserve balances, the final conclusion was to partially use a particular reserve and to ring fence the residue of the reserve for future projects. The minutes were agreed at the following meeting (I did not attend) but they actually state the balance of the reserve is ring fenced not just the residual figure agreed. The Clerk and others don't appear to be phased by this, but I believe the minutes are the legal definition of what has been ring fenced, meaning the original partial fund is no longer available without another proposal being tabled. I raised the issue before the minutes were actually signed but the Chair did not agree with my conclusion. Am I right to be concerned?

Answer 1

It’s the perennial problem.
You believe A to be true, somebody else believes B to be true and in the middle are a bunch of others that don’t care.
The process to amend endorsed minutes is by tabling a resolution detailing the error / omission / inaccuracy, debate it and put it to a vote.
If it gains a majority it’ll be the authority to amend the minutes, if it doesn’t you’ll have to move on.
Can you gather a groundswell of support or present such logical and compelling argument to make it inevitable?

Comments

I believe I have, I disassembled the minutes and detailed the meanings and "tenses" of the words used. Financially there is a significant difference between what was believed to be agreed and what has been written. My English is by no means perfect, but the errors are startling. It appears the analysis will need a proposal and a vote. Thank you

---

It is SO common for minutes to be endorsed without anyone actually paying due and proper attention to the details.
I played a little game at our last PC meeting.
The clerk is obviously having trouble re-writing over existing minute templates as a short cut but is not saving the original and the update as separate documents - I know, basic word processing.
Anyway, 2 sets of minutes forwarded for Cllr review by email ahead of the meeting - all good so far.
Click on 1 link which shows the relevant date and it opens the minutes for that date. Click on the other link marked as the other date and it opens the previous copy of the minutes.
OK a simple admin error which I ‘could’ have easily highlighted and hoped for correction except…..

This is not the first time, it happened at the last meeting so why am I wasting my breath trying to fix stupid and, perhaps more importantly, why am I the only person to notice this?  The answer to that is that no other Cllr even bothered to open the links and read the draft minutes ahead of the meeting - not even the chair who looked a complete lemon trying to work out why he had 2 copies of the same minutes.
I waited until he asked for any comments prior to a vote to accept, nobody spoke, I waited, then pointed out that, since the draft minutes had NOT been circulated, they could not be endorsed.
Yep, clerk puffed up like a bantam a declared they HAD distributed the minutes by email in advance of the meeting.
I fully expected this reaction which has become depressingly common so took some pleasure in pointing out that the admin was flawed AND that even if it hadn’t been, nobody has bothered to read it anyway.
You’d think that would be an embarrassment to the whole council but no, they just shrug it off and carry on…..

---

I must admit, I laughted. The very last sentence sums it all up.

Answer 2

Once again it proves the necessity of recording the meeting

It also highlights sloppy procedure which is par for most Parish Councils

All motions should be clearly worded, read back before the vote and accurately recorded in the minutes
All too often proposal are  vague and not properly recorded

I also believe most if not all motions should have a date by which they should be carried out and put back on the agenda if they aren’t
One time I was at a Parish Council meeting where a member of the public pointed out that there were eight motions that appeared to have vanished

Comments

Yes, absolutely agree, there is often no back checking.

With a clerk recently dismissed gross misconduct it is now coming to light that - as well as multiple motions not being enacted - invoicing and payment receipts have not been actioned.

There absolutely must be a follow-up action process which is especially important where there is a sub optimal or overly dominant clerk combined with inadequate Cllrs.

Too often and especially in poorly performing PCs, the 'next' disaster occurs before the previous one has even been properly acknowledged, absorbed and analysed hence a perpetuation of one disaster follow then next until the whole thing catches up with itself and the repeat cycle of previous disasters reoccurs.

---

The meeting has been audio recorded by another councillor and I believe I can work with them to try to correct the issue but I have to convince them first.

---

I certainly can't disagree with your answer. Thank you