Re: [AGA-sc] Board membership

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

The point would be to increase the B, just fill the spot
that Kathy used to hold.

We didn't bring Larry on Board (sorry for the pun) because
we were letting time tell and waiting for the Texas-ACA
convention to blow over.

While Phil puts in more time, I think Larry has a more
mature view of things. 

If SF doesn't come through, I think we sort of said that
we'd self host in 2006. It's getting close to time for SF
to put a proposal (draft or final) on the table.

I wasn't aware that we had any crises going on; I thought
we were just being the AGA, doing what the AGA does, and
doing it pretty well.

I do not want to see any of the B members step down -- and
hopefully, none are interested in running ;-) .

sh

--- Karen Randall <krandall@rdrcpa.biz> wrote:

> I'm not sure we ever got Larry onto the BOD, though I
> stll think he should 
> be here.  I don't know who else you're thinking of.  I
> would be leery of 
> adding Phil.  He means well, but even without being a BOD
> member he 
> does/says things that are not particularly helpful
> without running them by 
> the group first.  I think he needs a bit more maturity. 
> Of course, that's 
> just one person's opinion.<g>
> 
> We do want to think carefully before making the BOD so
> large that it becomes 
> unwieldy.  But, then again, there are at least a couple
> of us who might be 
> happy to step down if there are people champing at the
> bit.<g>
> 
> I do agree with Erik, that we probably shouldn't divert
> too much 
> attention/effort from the contest/forum/convention (and I
> assume he meant 
> 2006) issues at this very moment.

_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc