|
|
|
|
|
|
by tssge
692 days ago
|
|
|
Now I don't know what the parent said, but if you mean frightening as in taking up people's time, worry not, as commonly in small orgs such meetings don't take place in reality even though the minutes might indicate so. These minutes may be signed by the attendees via email (or mail) without ever meeting up in reality. This is very common for small orgs where communication is already daily or the matter is trivial in the first place. The reason minutes are signed at all in such cases is to have a paper trail of the decisions and a date for the meeting held, as that might be a legal requirement. As an example in our company when approving accounts, all of us have already seen the accounts multiple times. We have been there when the accounts were being made. The minutes of the meeting are more like a formal paper stating that we know what the accounts contain and approve their content, but it's not like we usually schedule an actual meeting just to waste each other's time. Of course if there's say disagreement with the matter amongst attendees, it is essential to hold a proper meeting. |
|
|
What was "simultaneous[ly] hilarious and frightening" was that the "minutes" on the linked page said absolutely nothing about what was actually decided (and how) at that meeting. It's all just formalities about "not[ing] the presence of a quorum" and how the "agenda was approved"...
But the actual business of the meeting -- "one resolution was approved, and one resolution was approved unanimously as amended" -- all happened in an "executive session", so you can't even see WHAT those resolutions were.
They could just as well not have published any minutes at all, and we'd know just as much as we do with them. That is simultaneously hilarious and frightening.