[MassHistPres] Minute-taking

[Dennis De Witt]

As a practical matter, it seems to me that the greater risk, in terms of likelihood of occurrence, is not lawsuits (Brookline's Preservation Commission has never had a meaningful one) but rather the occasional person who will troll the records, perhaps going back years, to find comments that can be used politically -- one outrageously vitriolic blogger comes immediately to mind -- or to otherwise beat the commission over the head.  So I would suggest that completeness of the record should be tempered by great care with respect to any commissioner's less than well considered remarks.  

Dennis De Witt


On Apr 13, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Sullivan, Charles M. wrote:

> I received the following query about minute-taking from an historic preservation commissioner in another state:
>  
> “I am Treasurer for the West Whiteland Historical Commission in Exton, PA. We have a tiny group, but at least three of us are dedicated to preserving historical structures in our area.
>  
> “My questions to you involve minute taking. I noticed that most of yours posted online are quite detailed; you mention members' names and your record keeping is impressive.
>  
> “Our township manager and staff have asked that our minutes be much briefer with less accountability, ostensibly to avoid lawsuits. At some point in the past, a developer brought in cameras to a meeting and the township tried to sue, it was thrown out of court on free speech grounds.
>  
> “Despite that fact, the township's current tack is a reversal of the previous minute taking conventions - which were detailed and recorded the meetings accurately.
>  
> “Do you have any issue with potential lawsuits because of the nature of your detailed minutes and if so, how does your solicitor respond? 
> Have you been asked to curtail the details for similar reasons?”
>  
> My response was that descriptive minutes are the best defense against a court finding that a board has been arbitrary and capricious; they should lay out the background of the board’s actions, including aspects of the discussion relevant to its jurisdiction and the reasoning behind its motions. The more explicitly the discussion connects the board’s motions to its statute and ordinance, the better.
>  
> Does anyone had experience with this kind of debate, or know of appeals based on details in meeting minutes, and the lack of details?
>  
> Charles Sullivan
> ________________________________ 
> Charles M. Sullivan, Executive Director 
> Cambridge Historical Commission 
> 831 Massachusetts Avenue 
> Cambridge, Mass.  02139 
> 617 349-4684 voice, 349-3116 fax
>  
> ******************************
> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100413/8d09bae0/attachment.htm>