|
Hi Erik, Please excuse the delay - this time caused by a wicked week at work -
Weekend FINALLY! ... just a couple loose-ends to tie up; and I think
we're on pretty much the same page :)
I can’t get my email to do the nifty > “you wrote”,
“I wrote” thing, so I’ll do my best to make it clear. Erik wrote: 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. Me now: I couldn’t agree more!
Now that we have our bylaws back, let’s use them! Rick wrote: > 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. Erik wrote: 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. (Me again…) This is where I am confused. A simple delay to run the idea past the
board on the email list is all that I was asking for. But, I didn’t perceive that to
happen. My email log looks like
this… Saturday, 4/19 at Saturday, 4/19 at Saturday, 4/19 at Saturday, 4/19 at Saturday, 4/19 at One and Two days later… Sunday, 4/20 at Monday, 4/21 at Monday, 4/21 at When June’s second email came through on Saturday evening as a member (without having to be
forwarded by you after a BOUNCE) I interpreted that to mean that you had gone
ahead and added her over my “point-of-order”-objection and prior to
any of the other board members yet having responded to the issue. And, although I still don’t see
any other explanation to the timing, I’ll take your word for it. And, for the record, I too, support
modifying the policy that was set in place last August to include an exception
for the newsletter editor. I don’t want you to think that your
other points and words of advice have gone unread or been otherwise ignored by
me. I appreciate the time that you
took put your thoughts into the email and I have read and re-read it carefully.
Thank you also, for your kind words at the end of your response. I am definitely ready to go back to
having fun. Rick -----Original Message----- 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". |