[Kalen Braley]

Minutes are not meant to tell a story. They are meant to record decisions and actions. The more wordy the minutes, the more likely there are mistakes, or at least one sided perception recorded. The truth in how a group decision is arrived is nearly impossible to record because only one person holds the pen when X number of people are involved. Trying to reflect the nuances of every important comment, or even trying to determine if comments are important would create days, not minutes and it is highly unlikely that all would agree on the notes anyway.

Ciao

Most smart organizations record their meetings and produce the minutes from those.

Its still one person who drafts the minutes.

Ciao

Even smarter organizations require the minutes then be published for review by those who attend the meeting and then stored securely for future access.

[Mark_Fine]

I have done dozens of Master Plans for older courses and it never ceases to amaze me how little clubs know about the history of their golf course.  Sometimes I am lucky and the club has a member who is the "club historian".  They can be extremely helpful in unraveling the history of a design.  But even then there are always holes and/or periods of change when no one seems to know what happened (especially about the changes to the golf course)[/size].  You have to use all sorts of resources to really understand the true history and evolution of most older designs.  That is why few architects are good at it (because it can take a ton of time and some just don't really care who did what when).  In some ways you can't blame them but those [/size]probably aren't the architects you want working on your old golf course.[/font]

Some here will remember I posted a fun exercise on GCA a few years ago for the golf course at Lawrenceville School in NJ.  They really had little idea who actually designed their golf course and/or how it had evolved.  I got an incredible amount of help from people on this site (actually I knew that would be the case) and everyone had fun with it and we collectively provided a real service to the school.  Everyone involved was acknowledged for their help in my plan/report.  Guys like Ian Mackenzie, who graduated from Lawrenceville in 1980, Bret Lawrence, who is an avid researcher and someone passionate about historic golf courses, Mike Cirba, who has worked with me on past projects and loves searching through old files and articles on golf and golf course design, Sven Nilsen who is another avid golf historian and was intrigued by Lawrenceville’s historic past, Jim Kennedy, who directed me to some key aerials of the property, Ben Crane who used to live across from the course and was anxious to try to help, Joshua Pettit, who’s uncle and late grandfather went to the school and played on the golf team from 1927-1931, as well as Dave Tepper, Rory Connaughton, Malcolm McKinnon, … It was been a real team effort and the result was a compilation of events and facts that helped us understand the lineage of the present course that exists today.

This is just one of many examples of a club that didn’t know exactly what they had.  Most fall into this same category. 

[Sean_A]

Minutes are not meant to tell a story. They are meant to record decisions and actions. The more wordy the minutes, the more likely there are mistakes, or at least one sided perception recorded. The truth in how a group decision is arrived is nearly impossible to record because only one person holds the pen when X number of people are involved. Trying to reflect the nuances of every important comment, or even trying to determine if comments are important would create days, not minutes and it is highly unlikely that all would agree on the notes anyway.

Ciao

Most smart organizations record their meetings and produce the minutes from those.

Its still one person who drafts the minutes.

Ciao

Even smarter organizations require the minutes then be published for review by those who attend the meeting and then stored securely for future access.

Of course, minutes should be reviewed and approved, that goes without saying. Nevertheless, one person writes the minutes. It's just as important as who sets an agenda. The minutes by nature are not meant to be an exhaustive coverage of meeting discussions. So it is important what a person thinks is important enough to record. That responsibility falls on one person. Besides, not many folks pour over minutes prior to approval. Most are interested, rightfully so, in making sure the decisions and agreed actions are accurate, mostly their own actions. If somebody wants a particular point noted which isn't a decision or action, they are likely trying to cover their ass somehow.

The point is, minutes are skewed toward the attitudes, opinions etc of the note takers. One person's notes can be drastically different to another's. This doesn't mean either is better, just that they are shaped by different PoVs. Researchers need to be aware this is the case before relying too heavily on minutes for anything beyond the decisions and actions.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

A few years ago I had a look through the records (such as they are) at The Northumberland doing some research for Adam Lawrence.  Strangely, they appear to have lost their recordings from the 1920s......

[Thomas Dai]

The importance of photos should not be understated.
Over the last few years I've done a lot of photographic work related to the history of my usual golfing hangout particularly comparison photos of 'then' vrs 'now'.
Amazing how members recollections are often askew .... an admittedly rather naughty trick of mine has been to ask someone, often someone a bit gobby and full of themselves, about something from the past and after they've replied with their recollection and opinion I show the relevant photos that prove things to have been very different (whereupon Mr Gobby usually goes very quiet)!
Fortunately these days we have videos and social media and the like so photographical records are easier to take and share and keep. Keep taking them though. One day in the future they'll be important especially as history usually repeats itself and the old photos and records can be used to show that somethings been tried and worked or tried and failed in the past.
atb

[Tommy Williamsen]

Minutes are not meant to tell a story. They are meant to record decisions and actions. The more wordy the minutes, the more likely there are mistakes, or at least one sided perception recorded. The truth in how a group decision is arrived is nearly impossible to record because only one person holds the pen when X number of people are involved. Trying to reflect the nuances of every important comment, or even trying to determine if comments are important would create days, not minutes and it is highly unlikely that all would agree on the notes anyway.

Ciao

Most smart organizations record their meetings and produce the minutes from those.

Its still one person who drafts the minutes.

Ciao

Even smarter organizations require the minutes then be published for review by those who attend the meeting and then stored securely for future access.

Of course, minutes should be reviewed and approved, that goes without saying. Nevertheless, one person writes the minutes. It's just as important as who sets an agenda. The minutes by nature are not meant to be an exhaustive coverage of meeting discussions. So it is important what a person thinks is important enough to record. That responsibility falls on one person. Besides, not many folks pour over minutes prior to approval. Most are interested, rightfully so, in making sure the decisions and agreed actions are accurate, mostly their own actions. If somebody wants a particular point noted which isn't a decision or action, they are likely trying to cover their ass somehow.

The point is, minutes are skewed toward the attitudes, opinions etc of the note takers. One person's notes can be drastically different to another's. This doesn't mean either is better, just that they are shaped by different PoVs. Researchers need to be aware this is the case before relying too heavily on minutes for anything beyond the decisions and actions.

Ciao

I was the secretary on the board at the resort where I live. My notes consisted of motions that were made and a couple of the more interesting points made during the discussions. Work on the golf course rarely made it into my minutes. New hires, i.e. new superintendent, did not make the minutes neither did a visit from Tom Clark years ago.

[Kalen Braley]

Tommy,

I guess we come from different backgrouds.  In my current organization minutes include:

1)  Who was invited
2)  Who actually attended
3)  Meeting agenda with specific items to discuss
4)  Notes on what was discussed re the agenda items
4.5) Other items that came up that weren't on the agenda
5)  A record of votes
6)  Noting the who and what of Action Items.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,

I guess we come from different backgrouds.  In my current organization minutes include:

1)  Who was invited (Did not list)
2)  Who actually attended (I listed the board members who were present and members who were absent.)
3)  Meeting agenda with specific items to discuss (No)
4)  Notes on what was discussed re the agenda items (Only when I thought it was important, purely subjective)
4.5) Other items that came up that weren't on the agenda (Periodically)
5)  A record of votes (Yes)
6)  Noting the who and what of Action Items.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()