Thursday, 15 January 2009

Contemporaneous notes

Notes from a meeting can be strong evidence. Subsequent judgements about the weight to be afforded such notes, however, will be based on the answers to (at least) three questions:

Who made the notes? It's best if the notes were taken by a note taker with no personal interest in the matter at hand. If you find yourself in a meeting that would benefit from such assistance, ask for the meeting to be rescheduled so that you can enlist that help. And then, if it's not already apparent that notes are being taken, say something like, "Jane will be taking notes."

When (and where) were the notes made? Contemporaneous notes — notes made at the time and place — are far better than notes made subsequently based on recollection.

What kind of evidence do the notes provide? Notes that say, "Joe Bloggs spoke in disparaging terms," are not nearly as useful as notes citing the actual words, for example: "Joe Bloggs said to Henry, "You're useless and your work is pathetic.'"

If getting down the actual words means saying, "Excuse me, I just need a moment to make a note," then ask for that time.

England's East Sussex Council has a useful one-page document (PDF) about contemporaneous notes (albeit for matters that might end up in court). Allow me to paraphrase (and adjust) that advice:

Keep it factual
Write in ink, at the time
Record the date, time and participants
(and the name of the note taker)
Keep the original
No erasures
Nothing torn out
No blank spaces
No overwriting
No writing between lines
No separate sheets
Amendments to be initialled
William Camden said, 'The early bird catches the worm.'
Well, the worm was up early
and it didn't do him any good.
It's less about whether you're early or late,
and more about whether you're the bird or the worm.
Yllib Ybnad (b. 1948)