The minutes of the first coordinating and consultative committee meetings have translated into English and then sent back to the manager. The purpose of this work after the first coordinating and consultative committee meeting is to make sure that the coordinating and consultative committee does its job.

By default, the minutes have been translated to English. It is unlikely to be what you meant, it probably wasn’t the minutes that did the translation.

Of the other two options:

Our first coordinating and consultative committee meetings were taken out of the English language and then converted into English, and revert to the manager.

How did translation happen? Uses the past to talk about the fact that this translation happened.

coordinating and consultative committee minutes have been translated into English and sent back to the manager.

Could uses the present perfect to talk about the fact that this translation has happened.

In this case they are both perfectly grammatical, and both amount to the same thing.

If you were talking about the process that was followed would likely favour the first, because it takes more upon the action that took place in the past.

If you were talking about the fact that the translations are now with the manager you would likely favour the second, because it focuses more on the fact impact of past event has on the present.

What is, therefore, the correct answer for both of the above questions rather than the other?

When a noun is used as a modifier, it’s used in the singular, “books shops” rather than “books shops” and even “trouser press” rather than “trousers press” despite trousers normally being plural.

Since the timeframe of the past action of translating the minutes is neither important nor specified, you should use have been, the passive present perfect. No question about that.

The verb were is correct. You should add’s to committees: The minutes

of the first coordinating and consultative committees’ meetings were translated into English and then sent back to the manager.

We commonly want to use the past simple tense to set a finished past event as a main, reference, or anchor time period in a narrative.

We also usually use the past simple to describe sequences of events when we use terms like then to establish the order of multiple events.

Where any other way to show sequence is allowed to take it in a simple way and for a sentence to be more meaningful. What happens is as follows: Those were verbed and then verbed and then the list of steps repeated because the list was repeated twice in order.

The minutes of the first coordinating and consultative committee meetings have translated into English and then sent back to the manager. The purpose of this work after the first coordinating and consultative committee meeting is to make sure that the coordinating and consultative committee does its job.

By default, the minutes have been translated to English. It is unlikely to be what you meant, it probably wasn’t the minutes that did the translation.

Of the other two options:

Our first coordinating and consultative committee meetings were taken out of the English language and then converted into English, and revert to the manager.

How did translation happen? Uses the past to talk about the fact that this translation happened.

coordinating and consultative committee minutes have been translated into English and sent back to the manager.

Could uses the present perfect to talk about the fact that this translation has happened.

In this case they are both perfectly grammatical, and both amount to the same thing.

If you were talking about the process that was followed would likely favour the first, because it takes more upon the action that took place in the past.

If you were talking about the fact that the translations are now with the manager you would likely favour the second, because it focuses more on the fact impact of past event has on the present.

What is, therefore, the correct answer for both of the above questions rather than the other?

When a noun is used as a modifier, it’s used in the singular, “books shops” rather than “books shops” and even “trouser press” rather than “trousers press” despite trousers normally being plural.

The minutes of the first coordinating and consultative committee meetings have translated into English and then sent back to the manager. The purpose of this work after the first coordinating and consultative committee meeting is to make sure that the coordinating and consultative committee does its job.

By default, the minutes have been translated to English. It is unlikely to be what you meant, it probably wasn’t the minutes that did the translation.

Of the other two options:

Our first coordinating and consultative committee meetings were taken out of the English language and then converted into English, and revert to the manager.

How did translation happen? Uses the past to talk about the fact that this translation happened.

coordinating and consultative committee minutes have been translated into English and sent back to the manager.

Could uses the present perfect to talk about the fact that this translation has happened.

In this case they are both perfectly grammatical, and both amount to the same thing.

If you were talking about the process that was followed would likely favour the first, because it takes more upon the action that took place in the past.

If you were talking about the fact that the translations are now with the manager you would likely favour the second, because it focuses more on the fact impact of past event has on the present.

What is, therefore, the correct answer for both of the above questions rather than the other?

When a noun is used as a modifier, it’s used in the singular, “books shops” rather than “books shops” and even “trouser press” rather than “trousers press” despite trousers normally being plural.

The minutes of the first coordinating and consultative committee meetings have translated into English and then sent back to the manager. The purpose of this work after the first coordinating and consultative committee meeting is to make sure that the coordinating and consultative committee does its job.

By default, the minutes have been translated to English. It is unlikely to be what you meant, it probably wasn’t the minutes that did the translation.

Of the other two options:

Our first coordinating and consultative committee meetings were taken out of the English language and then converted into English, and revert to the manager.

How did translation happen? Uses the past to talk about the fact that this translation happened.

coordinating and consultative committee minutes have been translated into English and sent back to the manager.

Could uses the present perfect to talk about the fact that this translation has happened.

In this case they are both perfectly grammatical, and both amount to the same thing.

If you were talking about the process that was followed would likely favour the first, because it takes more upon the action that took place in the past.

If you were talking about the fact that the translations are now with the manager you would likely favour the second, because it focuses more on the fact impact of past event has on the present.

What is, therefore, the correct answer for both of the above questions rather than the other?

When a noun is used as a modifier, it’s used in the singular, “books shops” rather than “books shops” and even “trouser press” rather than “trousers press” despite trousers normally being plural.

Since the timeframe of the past action of translating the minutes is neither important nor specified, you should use have been, the passive present perfect. No question about that.

Since the timeframe of the past action of translating the minutes is neither important nor specified, you should use have been, the passive present perfect. No question about that.