Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175

["Robert P. Cashin" <rcashin@juno.com>]

Hi Mary,

        Boy, I'm sure glad you wrote. I was beginning to wonder if you were
receiving our messages. One of the problems I have is addressing a list
where the members are not shown. I know who is supposed to be on the list
but can't be sure that someone hasn't been added or deleted without me
knowing about it. I guess we can write it off to me being an old fuddy
duddy who still isn't completely comfortable with e-mail protocols and
procedures.

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.

        One of the reasons I phrased my instructions to Lass as I did was to
indicate that I had expected a response and was disappointed by how few
responded. Part of the problem is that we have no agreement on how long
to wait for a response or how fast it should be sent.

>    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 like this idea and will use it for all future proposals requiring a
vote.

        This is the first formal call for a vote. Should I instruct Dave Lass to
negotiate with Gomberg over AGA's participation with PAM ( specifically
to mail PAM to our members in place of TAG )  YES or NO? Dave, don't
discontinue anything as yet. We would look pretty foolish to the rest of
the world if we stopped and restarted the negotiations again. If we
decide not to do it, we can reject the proposal so we aren't committing
to anything by continuing to negotiate.

        Second formal call for a vote. How long should I wait before counting
the votes? Please give this one a lot of thought because I'd like to use
the results as our future policy. I am retired and can respond pretty
quickly. Sometimes I fall into the trap of thinking everybody can respond
similarly. There have been times, however, when I still didn't respond
quickly because I needed more time to thing about the issue. All these
things should be considered in determining this time frame.
>
>    I have been deliberately been avoiding giving my opinions because 
>I am in an awkward position as a newcomer 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.

        Mary, I am sorry this thing came up at the same time we were
transitioning editors. I anticipated you might be upset and tried to head
this off at the pass by emailing you some of the background. However, I
had gotten hold of an incorrect email address and when I got the right
one, forgot to resend the message.

        I want to encourage you and everyone else to freely express your
opinions on each and every issue. One of the principle benefits of the MC
is the number of different perspectives we bring to each issue. To not
respond denies us valuable input.
>
>    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.

        Thank you. It is not easy to volunteer for something you don't feel good
about, but to do it anyway in the best interests of the organization.
 

>Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:59:30 -0500
>From: "Mary McCaw" <marymccaw@mediaone.net>
>Subject: Previous e-mail; lawyer
>Bob,
>
>    Oops!  I wanted my husband to read my last e-mail before I sent 
>it,and he was trying to make himself a copy by e-mailing it to himself. 

>On our computer one can't print a draft.  So my e-mail went off
unedited. 
> I didn't have the opportunity to reconsider what I wanted to say.  Too 
>ate!  I will just add this to clarify what I said about Dave.  I got 
>to know Dave a little on the Amazon trip.  He has a lot of good 
>qualities.  I don't really dislike him, but he has a lot of rough edges
that make 
>him difficult to work with.

        This seems to be a universal assessment.

>    As some of you know, my husband is an actuary and a tax lawyer 
>with a lot of business experience.  He is in partnership with an 
>accountant.  He has been following our PAM deliberations with interest,
sometimes 
>even reading my e-mails before I get a chance to see them!  He 
>proposes the following:  he will do the incorporation and file for
non-profit 
>status without a fee.

        Third formal proposal for a vote. Do we accept Bob McCaw's offer to do
our incorporation for free? YES or NO? Recently I emailed Steve Dixon to
see if he would be interested in doing this for us at the same time he
does if for PAM. Gomberg and others thought he would be interested. I was
really hoping for him to volunteer to do it for free. It was only a day
or so ago and I haven't heard from him yet but a volunteer is a volunteer
and the best way to run an organization is to pay out money only when you
have to.

        So far the chair has been a frustrating job for me. I have been anxious
to be able to show some progress and it is difficult to do with PAM in
the way. The reason I wanted to show some progress it to give us a
feeling of accomplishment that will encourage us to further achievements.
Ok, lets get those votes in.

                                        cu, Bob
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.