|
Bob,
I think you are making a big
mistake in assuming that non-responders favor going ahead with PAM at this
particular time. I, for one, do not. I didn't respond because over
the last few days I have been extremely busy. It seems to me that this
issue has come up before, and I regret not speaking up sooner. Silence can
mean a number of things. Assumptions make for poor communication and
miscommunication. Perhaps other non-responders like myself have also
been extremely busy. The only way to know where a non-responder
stands is to hear it from him or her. As far as I'm concerned a decision
is not a Management Committee decision unless everyone has voted or indicated
that they have abstained. I think you have been premature about giving a
go-head for David Lass to begin negotiations with Dave Gomberg. I agree
with most of what you and Erik have expressed. I think that we should have
a formal vote.
I also think that part of the
problem was the way in which you called for votes. You wanted us to
respond with our "ideas". In the past people have responded with their
opinions and statements backing up their positions. I have "voted" in this
way a couple of times, but in the case of this last vote, I had things to
say, but didn't have time to put my thoughts on paper. I think we should a
ballot type vote. This is what we board members of BAS do. Our
president sends out a "ballot", which states the question, and then beneath it,
I favor X or I do not favor X. If we had such a form and then wanted to
make a statement, we could, but it would be optional. If a committee
member does not respond, then the chair should call send out reminders for
people who have not yet voted. I would think that if an individual has not
responded within a pre-determined time period, their non-vote should be
considered an abstention .
I have been deliberately been
avoiding giving my opinions because I am in an awkward position as a new-comer
to the Management Committee and the new editor of TAG. I was disappointed
when the PAM thing came up for serious consideration because my hope was to make
TAG a better magazine. All along I have I have been extremely reluctant to
commit to PAM sight unseen. I can't feel good about casting my vote for an
unproved publication. I also think their are other red flags: the
publisher David has picked out, the lack of unity among Management Committee
members about this project and the manner in which Dave G. has gone about trying
to get us to accept his proposals to name a few. At the Fish
Extravaganza, he approached me and asked me to hand in 4 AGA pages for PAM
by January 10th. Erik thought this scared me, but I felt Dave was being
presumptuous, assuming that I would do this when no one had even asked me, and
in my opinion, that the MC was farther along in our deliberations than we
in fact were. Also Neil and I had not even begun to talk about the
transition. My read of our the meeting we had without Dave, was
that Paul, Jack and I expressed misgivings about going ahead with the
project. Neil was the only person who seemed really positive about
PAM. What bothered me most of all was when I expressed doubts about having
January as a realistic publication date, Dave said that if we couldn't go along
with it, the deal was "off". I tried to reason with him, but to no
avail. His attitude seemed to be "my way or the highway." Under
ordinary circumstances I would not choose to work with someone like
Dave.
I did, say, however, if the PAM
thing does go through, I would we willing to be the editor for those four
pages. This is not because I favor TAG being absorbed by PAM, but because
of my loyalty to AGA. If this is what people really want, I'll go along
with it. But IMO, going through with PAM at this particular point in time
would be a big mistake.
|