Fwd: Let's hold up a bit here

[krandall@world.std.com]

>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 06:26:26 -0400
>To: AGA SC
>From: krandall@world.std.com
>Subject: Let's hold up a bit here
>
>Hi Everyone,
>
>At the risk of people mad at me, I think something has to be done here.  I 
>have a few comments to make concerning AGA, PAM and the way we are doing 
>business.  I hope that everyone will take this in the spirit in which it was 
>written, as I like and respect you all, and want only the best for AGA.  
>I've worked too long and to hard to support the organization to want to see 
>us make a major mistake.
>
>1.  Normally, under Robert's Rules, a motion for a vote comes from the 
>floor, not the chair.  It is done after all discussion has finished, and is 
>seconded by another party.  Bob, I know you are anxious to keep things 
>moving, and _believe me_ I know what a difficult process this is to manage 
>over the Internet, even though I have had plenty of experience, and have 
>been quite successful doing it in real life.  But I don't think cutting 
>corners with process, particularly the discussion phase of a major decision 
>makes sense, particularly when it is such a MAJOR decision that is up in the 
>air.
>
>After a motion comes from the floor, and is seconded, the Chair calls for a 
>vote.  At that time, the chair does _not_ vote.  The reason for this is so 
>that the chair does not unduly influence the vote.  In the case of a tie, 
>the Chair casts the deciding vote.  This is why it is important to have an 
>odd number of people on the MC, and particularly on the SC.
>
>Normally, after a CFV, there is no further discussion.  But I choose now to 
>break one of Robert's Rules in this instance because I feel that they were 
>not properly applied to start with.
>
>2.  I think that taking a vote now, when Dave has been away, and not been 
>able to answer questions is not fair to either him or the best interests of 
>the AGA.  This is a big undertaking and a big decision.  As in any "contract 
>negotiation" there will be _many_ issues, large and small that need to be 
>worked out.  This takes time, no matter how hard we work.  
>
>3.  Here is a list of potential concerns that I believe have not been 
>adequately addressed on this issue. (These are outside the structural 
>details that would definitely need to be hammered out before we went forward)
>
> - Merrill suggested that we put the same amount of money into TAG and 
>upgrade that, rather than join Dave's venture.  
>WHO is going to do this?  Mary came forward to take over for Neil, but only 
>on the basis of the current structure.  You'd have to talk to her and see if 
>she were even willing to take on the much greater work load of an "upgraded" 
>TAG.
>
> - Someone mentioned that PAM's 4 issue/year publication schedule would give 
>us less contact with our members.  This is not so.  Neil, with the blessing 
>of the SC, had already suggested that TAG be produced quarterly, and I am 
>pretty sure that was the basis upon which Mary took it on.  Even with our 
>every other month schedule, we were talking about an interim "newsletter" 
>publication to keep people up to date on news.  There is nothing that says 
>we can't do this, whether our major publication is TAG or PAM.
>
> - Someone suggested that AGA find advertisers for TAG, rather than joining 
>Dave on PAM. There are 2 problems here.  The first again is WHO is going to 
>reliably and long term do this _very_ big job?  
>
> - Second, if you are charging large amounts of money for ad space, you 
>_CAN'T_ let publication dates slip by, no matter _what_ the reason.  The 
>advertisers become your customers, and you _must_ fulfill the agreement you 
>have with them.  Can we hold our volunteers to that standard of performance? 
> I doubt it.
>
> - Third, make no mistake.  Dave _is_ going forward with this magazine, with 
>or without AGA.  He would much rather do it with us, because he cares about 
>AGA too.  Even if someone stepped forward to do the job, AGA would be 
>competing for the same advertising dollars that Dave would be looking to 
>get. Trying to compete would be a disaster.  Why would an advertiser choose 
>to advertise in TAG, when they can advertise in color in a slick, 
>professional looking publication?
>
> - One of the reasons that Dave wants to do this WITH AGA is that he doesn't 
>want to hurt the organization, but at the same time he feels that a 
>professional looking magazine in English will be well received, and a big 
>benefit to the hobby at this time.  I think he's right.  He doesn't want to 
>compete with AGA, but whether we want to accept it or not, AGA is only a 
>small part of this hobby.  
>
>Dave is afraid that if people have the option of subscribing to PAM for $20 
>per year, or becoming AGA members for $15 per year, there is little contest. 
> Despite the fact that we would LIKE to be doing more for our members, at 
>this point, in the perception of the public,  AGA _IS_ TAG.  I would like to 
>think that serious hobbyists might choose to do both, but I wouldn't count 
>on it. 
>
> - Neil made another point.  It has been like pulling teeth to get people to 
>write for TAG.  It will be much, much harder to get quality articles for TAG 
>when people can be paid for their material by a magazine devoted to this 
>sector of the hobby.  
>
> - As Dave has said, he has in no way pressured for AGA to become 
>stockholders in AGA.  _I_ was the one who said that, and I still believe 
>that becoming majority stockholders is well within the range of our pocket 
>book, and will give us the best control of the situation.
>
> - Bob was afraid of the consequences of investing in this venture.  What 
>have we got to lose?  He's doing this, with or without us.  AGA _needs_ a 
>shot in the arm.  Yes, there are risks.  But it is hard to take big steps 
>forward without risk.  I do not think the risk is any greater than any time 
>we hand over control of ANY of our functions to a new person.  Maybe he'll 
>do a great job, maybe he won't.  I'm HOPING he will, but if he doesn't, we 
>are in the same position we are now.  We go back to publishing the way we 
>have in the past.  The only difference is that the workload for Mary will 
>increase significantly from what it would be if we joined forces with PAM.
>
>OK, now I'll turn to the problem areas I see.  
>
> - The first is Dave himself.  Dave can be (is) a curmudgeon.  He can 
>aggravate people, particularly in E-mail communications.  There is no "nice" 
>way of saying this.  OTOH, I have met him in person.  He is good hearted, 
>deeply dedicated to promoting this part of the hobby, has done very good, 
>very reliable work for the AGA for some time now, and has developed a good, 
>active and growing local plant group in the SF area.  He is also aggressive 
>in pursuing what he wants.  He _will_ get advertisers.  I understand that 
>there are a number of us who struggle with his commercial endeavors.  The 
>fact of the matter is that Dave is supplying the products he does so that 
>people have a place to get good reliable products for their tanks.  Yes, 
>he's making a little money off it, why shouldn't he?  He is also offering 
>every product for less than most of the competitors, simply because he 
>_doesn't_ want to get rich on this, he wants to supply good materials at a 
>reasonable cost.  Ask him about his margin on this "business".  You will 
>find that it is so small that _I_ wouldn't be willing to do it.  I suspect 
>none of you would either.  Dave doesn't _need_ the money. 
>
>I think I forwarded the message from Steve Dixon to all of you.  I think 
>that with good advice from Steve, myself and Neil (and anyone else who wants 
>to be involved) that we can keep Dave on the right track.  If we can't, then 
>we go back to the old way.
>
> - The second is Dave Herlong.  I have more reservations about him, 
>actually, than about Dave G.  Before we committed to this project, I would 
>want to know Dave G's alternate plans both for publication and advertising 
>if Dave H. does not produce as promised.  When people are paid for their 
>work, I think they must be held to a higher standard than volunteers.  We 
>need to know whether we could get the same work done elsewhere for a similar 
>amount of money.  If not, how much _are_ our costs likely to increase?
>
>I will tell you up front, that while I will still give my full support to 
>AGA, as I have for years now, I also intend to support Dave in this project, 
>with or without the AGA.  I hope that those of you who have already voted 
>will retract your votes and continue this dialog.  If not, I hope that I'm 
>wrong, but I feel that AGA might be making a big mistake.  I have no problem 
>with a democratic vote when all the information has been gathered, but at 
>this point, any vote is based on incomplete information and fears.  
>Decisions based on fear are rarely good ones.
>
>Please, as you read this, keep in mind that the easy course of action for me 
>would have been to allow things to flow along without making waves.  I have 
>no intention of antagonizing anyone.  The easy course for the AGA is to 
>stick our heads in the sand and continue to believe that we are doing great. 
> I just think that it was my duty to AGA to address these issues.
>
>Karen 
>
>P.S.  I would like to release this to the whole MC for consideration, but 
>thought I should give it to the SC first.  I would be perfectly happy to 
>leave out the parts about rules of order if it made people more comfortable. 
>(though it might help some people to know that there _are_ standard rules 
>and that we don't have to make this stuff up as we go along)