Altering the Actual Date of the Management Review Meeting Minutes

[RCW]

Just curious, how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the management review minutes. He is doing this since the procedure for M.R. calls out quarterly meetings. If the meetings don't fit into the quarterly time, he just changes the date on the minutes.

....and yes, I am trying to find my way out the door.

 

[Craig H.]

Just curious, how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the management review minutes. He is doing this since the procedure for M.R. calls out quarterly meetings. If the meetings don't fit into the quarterly time, he just changes the date on the minutes.

....and yes, I am trying to find my way out the door.

RCW:

In my experience, if there are 4 meetings a year, reasonably spread out, then a week or 2 give or take won't matter. From a practical standpoint, travel, family emergencies, vacations, etc. make it very difficult to get the main people together. So, I wouldn't think the exact date would matter (although it wouldn't surprise me if some here will disagree). So, that's one option.

Also, would you/the prez consider management review without having a meeting? It is possible to use other means (emails, conference call, whatever).

Just a thought...

 

[Howard Atkins]

Just curious, how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the management review minutes. He is doing this since the procedure for M.R. calls out quarterly meetings. If the meetings don't fit into the quarterly time, he just changes the date on the minutes.

....and yes, I am trying to find my way out the door.

I think that the most significant asopect is that he cares what the procedure says to the extent that he tries to act according to it.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

In my experience, if there are 4 meetings a year, reasonably spread out, then a week or 2 give or take won't matter. From a practical standpoint, travel, family emergencies, vacations, etc. make it very difficult to get the main people together. So, I wouldn't think the exact date would matter .

I agree.

Ok, so he's fiddling with the record dates. That does not bother me so much. Not very clever, of course, and as Craig points out quite unnecessary. It does however make me wonder what else he's changing. What about the contents of the minutes, for instance?

/Claes

 

[BadgerMan]

It does however make me wonder what else he's changing. What about the contents of the minutes, for instance?

/Claes

I agree too,

It seems to me that the procedure should be altered instead. The procedure should be worded more loosely to accommodate variations in meeting dates.

I agree that altering the date on the minutes is a bad thing. Maybe it should be explained to him that he is falsely altering a “quality record”. I would be concerned about what other records may have been fudged if that precedent has been set. Probably the bigger concern, IMHO.

 

[Jim Howe]

I agree too,

It seems to me that the procedure should be altered instead. The procedure should be worded more loosely to accommodate variations in meeting dates.

I agree that altering the date on the minutes is a bad thing. Maybe it should be explained to him that he is falsely altering a “quality record”. I would be concerned about what other records may have been fudged if that precedent has been set. Probably the bigger concern, IMHO.

He/she is the president and as such it is his/her company to do with as he/she sees fit, and his/her responsibility. As president he/she may or may not answer to a higher authority and we all serve at his/her pleasure. Having said that, I agree, rewrite the procedure to allow variation in meeting dates. I don't believe it is that important.

 

[BadgerMan]

I don't believe it is that important.

I believe it says a lot about character, especially for a person in that position. Having discovered the falsified record, any good third party auditor (or regulatory agent, heaven forbid) would most certainly begin to "dig deep".

May be "ok" in some industries but certainly not within the aerospace world I know.

 

[Jim Howe]

I don't believe it is that important.

I believe it says a lot about character, especially for a person in that position. Having discovered the falsified record, any good third party auditor (or regulatory agent, heaven forbid) would most certainly begin to "dig deep".

May be "ok" in some industries but certainly not within the aerospace world I know.

I worked in the aerospace industry for years as a QAE and as a supervisor of inspection! We learned to be flexible. That's all I am saying! I can remember being tasked with writing a Quality Procedure, my instructions were "keep it loose, Jimmy". If you are not careful you can tie yourself in knots with no way out and that doesn't feed the bulldog! Those instructions have worked very well for me over the years!

 

[BadgerMan]

Yeah, no argument with regard to procedural flexibility from me that's for sure. I am somewhat of a master at "weasel wording" myself. LOL!

However, when I hear that the company's leader has basically falsified a record (yeah, I know it's relatively minor), my auditor instincts cause me to question the integrity of the QMS.

Maybe it's just me? Anybody else have the same concern?

Good discussion!

 

[ralphsulser]

Is it really falsifying or making adjustments to accomodate the procedure and the requirements?
I agree with changing the procedure to fit your business targets and objectives. The top manager obviously is paying attention, and attempts to comply. Wish some of that involvement was evident here.