With the principle of objectivity in mind, minutes of meetings should have a collective focus and not a personal focus. It is therefore important to record the group's collective actions and - if needed - an objective point-form summary of the discussion (without attributing specific comments to individuals). With objectivity in mind, here is a piece of advice that may shock you at first, but will hopefully delight you as you read on: Names of movers and seconders should not be recorded in minutes…

Did I get your attention? Good... Now that I've done that, I'd better give you some compelling reasons for this seemingly revolutionary and outrageous proposal.

To start, let me tell you what the most commonly used book on parliamentary procedure, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10^th edition), says on recording movers and seconders in minutes.

On page 453 Robert says: "The name of the seconder of a motion should not be entered in the minutes unless ordered by the assembly". What might be the reason for this? Well, the individual seconding a motion does so only to get the motion debated, and not necessarily because he or she favors it. In fact, a person may second a motion because he or she opposes it and would like to see it formally rejected. Recording his or her name next to the motion would give a false impression. Also, seconding a motion is not a significant step in parliamentary procedure. If a motion is debated and voted on without ever being seconded, the lack of a second becomes immaterial (Robert page 35).

As to the name of the mover, Robert page 452 says that the mover's name is recorded "in the case of important motions". This provision is vague and problematic, since someone needs to figure out what is an important motion and what is not an important motion. You can already hear the arguments…

The solution? I suggest that your group adopt a special rule to remove both the names of the mover and the seconder from the minutes. Make this new rule well known and easy to find, without having to sift through a 600 plus page book on parliamentary procedure. It should be understood that your group's special rules of order supersede Robert or any other book on rules of order.

Below are a few more reasons for removing names of movers and seconders from the minutes.

Recording the mover's name in the minutes is bound to be misleading. Yes, the mover is generally presumed to be in favor of the motion when he or she moves it, but the mover is entitled to change his or her mind and vote against the motion. This is the essence of a healthy debate, where people truly listen to one another, keep an open mind, and can be persuaded to change their views (otherwise why have a meeting?) Another situation where the mover may end up voting against his or her motion is when it is amended against the mover's wishes. With the above scenarios in mind, it should be clear that recording the mover's name in the minutes can give false impressions.

Then there is the question of ownership. Recording the mover and seconder gives the false impression that the two own the motion forever and have exclusive control over it, when - in fact - nothing could be further from the truth. I say this despite the fact that you may have you heard a presiding officer ask the mover and seconder if they agree to amend or withdraw "their" motion. Despite this common (and incorrect) practice, neither the mover nor the seconder own the motion once debate on it begins. Ownership then shifts to the group. From this point onwards decisions to amend or withdraw the motion are to be made by the group, collectively, and not unilaterally by the mover and seconder. The fact that senseless practices are followed everywhere does not make them correct.

The issue of who owns the motion is more than just a technicality. I never cease to be amazed at how the false idea that the mover and seconder own the motion in perpetuity paralyzes a governing body and subjects it to "the tyranny of the minority". On several occasions, I have found Boards and Councils thinking that they cannot rescind or amend a previously adopted motion because the mover and seconder are absent or do not agree to rescind or amend it. So much for "the majority rules"…

Another negative outcome of recording movers and seconders is that it personalizes and politicizes the decision making process. Individuals rush to make motions to get their names in the minutes and be personally credited for "having done something" for the community (thereby "increasing their chances of being re-elected"). Others are afraid to move and second motions because they want to avoid public attention. Under such conditions, the focus is on individuals, and objectivity is compromised.

There is also the question of FOI (freedom of information) legislation, under which minutes are a public record (with the exception of minutes of closed, or "in-camera" meetings). With FOI in mind, the less names go in the minutes the better. Several clients have asked me what they needed to do to remove those names from minutes. My answer has been simple: Just adopt a rule or bylaw to take them out.

Here is my final reason for taking names of movers and seconders out of minutes. Many meetings are run informally and proposals are made, discussed and voted on without being moved and seconded. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this practice, as long as proposals are clearly articulated, opened for discussion, and voted on by the group. But whom do you record as having "moved and seconded motions" in such cases? How about "the floor moved and the ceiling seconded"? All of this anxiety will be avoided if names of movers and seconders are not recorded in minutes.

So how about letting go of this unnecessary and counter-productive tradition?