RE: Board email list

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Rick Rose wrote:

> You may remember that we had discussion last fall (sparked by Erika's
> masthead questions) about which committee chairs should, of necessity
> imply a board position.  At that time, as now, I felt AS YOU DO that the
> newsletter editor position required close communication with the board
> and SHOULD be a board position.  It was my desire to document each chair
> position and whether or not each should be a board position as well, but
> that effort was shot down.  That's okay; I can live with being voted
> down.

Here's the rub with that: Theoretically, members of the board are elected
by the general membership, but treasurer, editor and committee chairs are
*appointed* by the board.  Thus, if we were sticking to rigid rules here,
and the editor was a board position, then the editor would first have to
be elected to the board and then appointed.  That's why I *don't* think
it's important that the editor be a board position, but merely someone in 
good contact with the board.

In the last ten years, we've had people come and go on the board whenever
they really wanted.  We've had folks show up mid-year and just start
helping out by coming to board meetings, and that's great.  After a couple
of meetings, they're just sort of "on" the board if they want. 

Perhaps the problem is that this particular e-mail list is mis-named, and
instead of gsas-board should be called gsas-workers (or worse,
gsas-politics).  The ACA has such a list, and it includes pretty much all
the people who have regular jobs to do and need to be clued in on what's
going on... board discussion goes on, and the people who vote know when to
do so, while the people who don't vote don't.  Perhaps this list *should*
have included a former hospitality coordinator even though I felt we
couldn't stand the chaos...perhaps that is why I was uneasy about making a
decision on this & it subsequently was the ONLY thing I asked for some
guidance on from the board this year.

> At the August meeting, the board discussed at length, the question of
> who can/should be on the Board Email list.  The decision was... current
> members, of course, and that past board members who were still
> interested in providing insight were welcome to remain on the list.

More important than insight, these are people who provide direct support 
to the club by showing up at auctions, offering to bring things to 
meetings, etc.

> Within minutes I sent Erik an OFF-LIST email pointing out that the board
> had addressed the subject and that what he was suggesting went against
> what the board had agreed upon.

I bounced my reply back to the board because I wanted to see what everyone
thought; I did not want to see yet again something get "tabled" for an
entire month until the next board meeting, while June is already starting
to get to work on her newsletter and could use our participation.  I did
not add her to the list until several folks had chimed in and said "yes we
should have her on this list."   If you hadn't sent that letter, I 
would have allowed June's subscription request to go through immediately.  
In my opinion, it shouldn't be this difficult to make decisions.  Not for 
a small hobby club like GSAS.


> On a different matter, this same email (below) contained the second,
> not-so-subtle insinuation that the way that I, as the Board Secretary,
> communicated with Erika is the reason that she stopped publishing
> newsletters and communicating with the Board - the first was at the
> January board meeting we had at Clay's house.  It hurt then, and it
> hurts now.  It was a very unkind thing to say.  If Erika had any problem
> with the way I communicated the board information with her, she never
> let on to me.

I apologize for hurting you.  At this point, there's pretty much nothing
that can be done to salvage what's happened with Erika (since she's not
returning e-mails, I unsubscribed her from the list as well).  But perhaps
this can help with future interactions and future volunteers.  I don't
know:

I must say that I *have* tried to be subtle.  I tried to suggest things in
a positive way last fall when the "edicts" started.  I beleive I stated
that it might be better to engage Erika directly on the list instead of
sending a batch of decrees from the board.  In fact, regarding the whole
"new member list" problem, I specifically remember suggesting that it was
probably a classic miscommunication and that you might try to explain what
you're trying to do rather than simply say "the board voted that the 
newsletter shall contain a new member list."

I'm sure the sending of decrees is not the only reason for the falloff of
communication with Erika; she's got her own set of quirks, is basically
starting a new life over in Atlanta, and I realize that it is VERY
DIFFICULT to communicate long-distance, let alone with a brand new editor
who wasn't even in the club for more than a few months & whose experience 
of the newsletter was Bob F's two horrid examples.

But not everyone lets on how they feel.  I am loud, and tend to go down
kicking and screaming. But others (the smart ones, the ones who are in bed
instead of up composing and editing a single e-mail message for two hours)  
choose to be silent and simply walk away.  Back in January, you commented
similarly about the "three strikes" rule something like this: "If it were
me, I wouldn't be hurt by having the number of strikes by my name on the
board meeting minutes or if I were automatically kicked off.  That's the
rule, and I understand it."  Everyone is different.  The one ex-board
member I talked to was offended by seeing "as per the ruling, XXX has been
automatically resigned", but they never let on.  I was also offended by
the rule, REALLY offended by it, enough that I've now wasted valuable time
at three board meetings, only to have it continually tabled "to an e-mail
forum" that never appears because it's not "high enough priority".  So now
recently finding myself, one who never missed a board meeting in something
like 6 years until last year, in receipt of two "black marks" for February
and March, I was ready to bail on this month's board meeting, get
automatically booted out by this rule, and pack up the website, e-mail
lists and database.

The point being that, there's quite a range of reactions to some of these
policies.  From my few conversations with Erika, I beleive she *was*
somewhat put off by the way she was handed things for the newsletter, even
though you might not think so and she may not have said so directly.

I don't want this to sound like I'm just a major whiner here; you have
done absolutely exemplary stuff for the club this year, Rick.  I
especially appreciate your efforts to involve members in the society
itself (i.e., the tags, the member profile column, coloring book ideas,
and the attempted new member list).  The live food workshop with its
"themed" hospitality foods was an extravaganza the likes of which I've
never seen in ten years.  These are what keep the club alive, make it fun
and worthwhile.

  - Erik

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com

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