"Approval of Minutes from the previous meeting" is a standard agenda item. You might suggest "Consideration of Minutes from the previous meeting" as the item, or "Discussion, Approval or Revision of Minutes," because discussion and revision and approval of the minutes is a core function of any public body. Majority rules. -----Original Message----- From: oama-request@lists.imla.org <oama-request@lists.imla.org> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 2:30 AM To: oama@lists.imla.org Subject: Oama Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2 Send Oama mailing list submissions to oama@lists.imla.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to oama-request@lists.imla.org You can reach the person managing the list at oama-owner@lists.imla.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Oama digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Meeting Minutes with Extra (Kimberlee Spady) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:59:06 +0000 From: Kimberlee Spady <kim@spadylaw.com> Subject: [Oama] Meeting Minutes with Extra To: OAMA <oama@lists.imla.org> I've recently attended several meetings of public bodies (not municipalities) for which the meeting minutes reflected facts and statements that were not presented or made during the meeting. One example is a board awarded a contract for services but did not reveal the charges proposed by the bidders. The meeting minutes state "The cost of each service is as follows . . . ." The board members did have the proposals in front of them, so they would have known that information. But it certainly was not stated or discussed. Thoughts on whether this is proper? Do the prices qualify as a matter "considered by the public body" even though they didn't discuss them? In another instance, the clerk added facts to the minutes - statements from audience members and agreements of board members with those facts, neither of which happened. These meetings are all recorded, so there is proof that the minutes don't match up with the audio. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Kim Spady CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain privileged and confidential information protected by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail, destroy this message and delete any copies held in your electronic files. Unauthorized use and/or re-disclosure may subject you to penalties under applicable state and federal laws.