Re: Charlene on MC... and voting rights

[Karen Randall <krandall@world.std.com>]

At 07:52 AM 3/25/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi 
>I agree with Karen's suggestion.... so does David L. The SC is me, Karen,
>Erik, David, Dorothy, Bob. Did I get everyone? 

Yes, as far as I know.

>So, one more "vote" and it
>is agreed to invite Charlene to the MC?  I will be happy to move things
>along and invite her. (I am getting impatient in my old age <g>).
>Karen or anyone else: do you know what standing committee Charlene could
>head up. How about publicity? Otherwise, what do we want to call her position?

I think in my last post I suggested creating a convention committee and
making her chair.  I think it's unfair to foist off publicity on her just
to fit her into a very rough draft framework that already exists.  When we
made the MC committee list, a convention was just a day dream... It didn't
make sense to list it as a committee.

*************************************************************

ACTION ITEM:

I move that we create a Convention Committee and authorize Neil to ask
Charlene to chair it.

**************************************************************

On a similar note, Mike Hellwig is now on-line, and still more than willing
to become and active AGA worker.  He's still willing to take on the
Historian position, but I was also thinking he might be a good one to ask
if he'd be willing to do sales of the non-book items Diana doesn't want to
handle. (T-shirts, pins, posters etc.)

His E-mail address is:  michaelangelah@aol.com

We had originally asked him to be historian, but because he didn't have
internet access at that time, staying in touch with him proved difficult.
(as in nothing ever happened)  Should we add him to the MC too?

>I would also like to figure out a diplomatic way to remind the MC members
>who are not on SC that their role is ADVISORY. It is still my understanding
>that the SC are the voters..... until this gets changes thru bilaws. Right?
>Or did  this policy get amended?

You don't think my message got that across?  Maybe Bob could write an
"official" explanation coming from "the top".<g>

>PS. I am also anxious to tell Gomberg that the AQA/TNAQ event is a go. He
>was telling me that the AGA is going to fold in the next year. 

It's disappoining to hear that he said that.  I see absolutely no sign of
him being correct.  I think he's made a first good effort on PAM in spite
of its problems. but I won't believe THAT is around to stay until it has
several years under its belt.  Several start up "plant things" have come
and gone in the past few years.  I'm not saying we should be complacent,
but it seems to me that in spite of our disorganization, AGA keeps plugging
along.  Dave has himself and Dave Herlong, we have a large group of
dedicated workers with a common goal and interest.

>PSS. Charlene says that the event must be limited to the first 200
>registrants. I am thinking positively!!

I think it's important to know what the limit is.  It would be NICE to have
that many attendees even if we don't realize those numbers the first year!

Karen
  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "lemma".