From merope@Radix.Net Thu Nov 1 07:39:00 2001 Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 07:38:59 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/1/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: A little of that old time religion...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 31 October 2001: Kathy Heidel summarizes the purpose of the proposed newsletter: "the general gist of the Newsletter/Ezine when I suggested something of this order and Alice submitted a format on ALL was for everyone to be included...It does need to be for everyone, Visitor's, CC's SC's and whomever would choose to read it. It needs current events such as Regional Gen. Soc Events, Local Events, Featured Genealogist's to write an Column for the paper, HTML or Internet Website Information or help. A feature on some of the CC's or SC's or a Member of the Project. John Schunk's Virtual Tour Agenda and on and on. Members have written to me offering to do articles for the Ezine or Paper." She believes a newsletter "would be very motivational and would benefit the Project so much." Diane Parsons believes that "the board should adopt ( by motion) a set of Parliamentary Procedures to go by, whether it be Alice Sturgis's book of Parliamentary Procedures or Robert's Rules of Order." She notes that the Board should all "be working from the "same page"" and suggests we choose a parliamentary authority and "get on with Board business." She notes "Kathy Heidel's motion was not frivolous and (IMHO) was important enough issue to be on the agenda.I would have seconded her motion, I was just not fast enough." Pam Reid likes the idea of an "Agenday Message Board" and believes "it would help us all tremendously." Holly Timm tells Mary Ann Hetrick that she doesn't have record of any mail from Mary Ann regarding the Bylaws "starter" committee. She adds Mary Ann to the commitee mailing list. Mary Ann notes that she was included in Teresa Lindquist's original emails and had taken part in the discussion before the mailing list was created. She thanks Holly for adding her to the list. Phyllis Rippee notes again that she would like to see a prototype of the proposed newsletter. She notes "it won't take more than two to show us a proto-type and then we could make an informed decision from that point." Sundee asks what items will be placed on the proposed agenda and notes "your emails...are basically your agenda, and if need be the archives are threaded...I am just not sure how we would do this. You all go day by day with the same stuff and then it drops and new stuff is constantly coming up." Thursday 1 November 2001: Teresa does not agree to the withdrawal of the parliamentary procedure motion. All Board members have submitted nominations for mediation panel members [a full list of votes is below]. If I counted properly, the new mediators are Diane Parsons, Tina Vickery, Richard Harrison, Kathy Heidel, and Nate Zipfel. Congrats to all! --- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: --no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === Everybody Wins Corner: Here is the full list of votes for panel mediators [thanks to the CC who helped put this together]: Nate: Diane, Jana, Tina, Ron, Richard, Betsy: Diane, Jana, Tina, Kathy, Richard, Jana: Diane, Jana, Tina, Kathy, Richard, Tim: Diane, Jana, Nate, Kathy, Richard, Phyllis: Teresa, Jana, Ron, Kathy, Richard, MaryAnn: Robert, Jana, Tina, Nate, Richard, Vicki: Diane, Nate, Tina, Kathy, Richard, Ron: Robert, Nate, Tina, Kathy, Teresa, DianeP: Diane, Nate, Tina, Kathy, Isaiah, Kathy: Diane, Nate, Tina, Teresa, Isaiah, Isaiah: Diane, Nate, Tina, Kathy, Jana, Robert: Diane, Nate, Teresa,Kathy, Ron, Teresa: Diane, Nate, Kathy, Tina, Richard Tina: Richard, Ron, Diane, Jana, Nate Pam: Richard, Ron, Diane, Jana, Nate If I counted correctly [and please correct me if I did not] the winners are: Richard Harrison, 12 votes Diane Parsons, 12 votes Nate Zipfel, 11 votes Tina Vickery, 10 votes Kathy Heidel, 10 votes === "The way people in democracies think of the government as something different from themselves is a real handicap. And, of course, sometimes the government confirms their opinion." ---Lewis Mumford This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved From merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 2 19:35:01 2001 Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:35:01 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/2/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Follow the leader...its Your Daily Boad Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 1 November 2001: Phyllis Rippee calls "for an immediate vote of the AB to determine if this motion [motion 01-5, parliamentary procedure] is to be allowed to be withdrawn." She later changes the wording of her request to read "Pursuant to accepted parliamentary procedure, I request that you ask the assembly's voting members if there is any objection to the withdrawal of motion 01-35 Parliamentary Procedure." Teresa Lindquist wonders why the Board does not just proceed with voting on the motion, noting "Its apparent that some of us are in favor of it, and some of us are against it. Its also apparent that some of us have not expressed an opinion one way or the other. Voting on it cannot hurt and it will more or less settle the matter regardless of the outcome." Phyllis notes that the motion is "alive only on its second" and notes "Once we get a ruling from the chair, the question could be called.....except I think that we've been told the motions have to be taken in order and nothing can be done about motion 01-34 until Holly the "all clear" on the EC request mediation completion." Ron Eason says he has received a letter from a constituent in his region who is in favor of a newsletter "that is aimed at everyone, inside and outside the Project. Something that can offer information to those who are only interested in new information and/or where to find something, those that are just surfing and find us and want to know more, CC's and other Members that just want brief overviews of what is going on inside the Project, but something that will be non-bias towards any one group or sub-project." He would also like to see an example of the proposed newsletter. Sundee Maynez posts the vote counts for the mediation panel nominations; Holly agrees with her figures and names Diane Parsons, Richard Harrison, Nate Zipfel, Kathy Heidel, and Tina Vickery to the Mediation Panel. Kathy Heidel asks that Motion 01-35 (parliamentary procedure) not be withdrawn. She later explains that she has had several requests from the membership that she not withdraw it, noting "At first I felt that would be the only way as many were wanting "Status Quo" and they felt comfortable with what was fine in the past will be sufficient for the future. I withdrew and immediately realized I was wrong in my estimation. Commonsense and Experience aren't good enough for the future and the future is what we as members of this Board were supposed to be considering." She again explains her reason for choosing the Sturgis book and hopes the motion will come to a vote soon. Richard Harrison moves "to postpone consideration of Motion 01-34 (Standing Election Procedures) until the conclusion of the mediation efforts between Teresa Lindquist and Linda Haas-Davenport." Phyllis, who seconded Motion 01-34, agrees to its being postpoined. Ron Eason thinks Motion 01-34 is not needed, "would be better served if it was pulled, and I think it would be also better served if you would drop your previous motion, until the outcome of the EC talks, so that we could get on with other business, like the Parliamentary issue." In the interests of furthering other business, Ron asks Richard to withdraw his motion but retain the right to resubmit it again. Richard notes "the motion to postpone will allow us to proceed with other business. I do not believe it blocks anything nor requires us to sit on our hands. It sets consideration of motion 01-34 aside until a specific future time/" He declines to withdraw Motion 01-34. Phyllis says that "Under the current circumstances" she would not withdraw her second even if Richard withdrew the motion and notes "the path should now be considered clear to move on with other business." Friday 2 November 2001: Teresa asks whether Richard's motion to postion Motion 01-34 needs to be seconded and voted on before Motion 01-34 may be postponed. Noting "I just assumed it meant that he wanted to table the motion so that the AB could go on with other business," Phyllis seconds the motion [Jana also seconds it]. Phyllis also notes "this is EXACTLY what we need....another motion that has been made and seconded. Wonder how long it will take for it to be assigned a number, since there's one waiting for a number now." She asks if anyone wishes to know the proper procedure for handling motions made and seconded. Jana clarifies that she believes the Board needs to use both a parliamentary authority and common sense, but "in an internet environment there will be times when PA simply does not address issues at hand." She is not interested in the "minutia" [sic] of parliamentary procedure herself, and is happy to let others do it. She asks Diane to chekc her copy of Sturgis and "see how it addresses such situations and let us know? It is important that we be certain, whatever PA we adopt that we will have the flexibility within that PA to address our special and specific needs in our particular internet environment." Both Diane and Kathy provide information to answer Jana's question. Jana is not satisfied with Kathy's information because she "can find nothing in either to address internet meetings of a 24-7-365 nature." Jana notes "If we are going to consider choosing one authority, I like to put them side by side to compare." [Jana must be fun to go grocery shopping with.] Kathy reiterates that Sturgis is a simplified version of RRoO and it does address the issue of internet meetings. She suggests that Jana check the source for herself and apologizes for causing trouble with her choice of authority. Jana says she's too lazy to go the library but would like "side by side" comparisons of Sturgis and RRoO. She notes "I just need to feel sure that simple does not equal incomplete. So far Sturgis seems to hold up well." In a sort of "bookkeeping message", Holly notes that motions to table or postpone "attaches to a main motion and moves with it so to speak," so Richard's new motion will not be separately numbered. Motion 01-35 (parliamentary authority) is in discussion and will continue to be so. HOlly suggests it may need to be amended and suggests that "everyone check out whichever of the various sources that have been cited that they have access to and consider them point by point in the framework of the medium in which we meet." Holly also asks the Bylaws "starter" committee members if they agreed to the presentation of the motion regarding the formation of the bylaws committee. This motion is currently unnumbered. Holly calls a vote on the Motion to Postpone Motion 01-34. Thus far 11 Board members have voted yes [and Motion 01-34 is postponed]. Regarding the numerous calls for a newsletter prototype, Holly notes "we don't even have a publicity/promotions committee yet so I'm not sure how we could have a prototype or rough draft of a newsletter. There have been a lot of excellent thoughts and ideas about a newsletter (or similar e-zine etc) floating around and I am sure there are even more to come. It needs considerable planning and discussion by the committee once it is actually formed." Teresa says the Bylaws committee motion was presented to the Board without the committee's prior approval or knowledge. --- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: -- the committee takes a belated vote on the motion now before the Board. Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === "This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer." ---Will Rogers This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved From merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 4 07:29:15 2001 Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 07:29:15 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/4/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Living on borrowed time since 1998...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 3 November 2001: Voting proceeds on the Motion to postpone Motion 01-34; Holly Timm declares the motion passed with 14 yes votes and one no vote. Motion 01-34 is postponed until the conclusion of the mediation efforts between Linda Haas Davenport and Teresa Lindquist. Kathy Heidel asks if the Board may to proceed to a vote on Motion 01-35 (parliamentary authority). Richard Harrison moves to amend Motion 01-35 to read : I move that the Board accept "Robert's Rules of Order Revised," by General Henry M. Robert, 1915 Version (Public Domain) that is posted on the Internet at http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm as our parliamentary authority." [no, I don't get the point of this, unless its to save having to spend ten bucks on a new book. The 1915 version is _certainly_ not going to address internet meetings.] --- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: vote proceeds on the motion to the Board Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === "In the last analysis we must be judged by what we do and not by what we believe. We are as we behave - with a very small margin of credit for our unmanifested vision of how we might behave if we could take the trouble." ---Geoffrey L. Rudd This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Mon Nov 5 07:18:24 2001 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 07:18:23 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/5/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: You're soaking in it...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 4 November 2001: Holly Timm notifies the Board that the usgenweb.com domain is now properly registered to the USGenWeb Project and asks Tim Stowell to "report on the status of correcting the listings for usgenweb.net and usgenweb.org", as he is the administrative contact for both. Ron Eason asks Richard Harrison why his proposed amendment to Motin 01-35 (parliamentary procedure) will help the Board. He points out that it does not comment on internet activity, but asks it if were chosen because it is online and free. He notes that it appears that Richard's motion is to "further complicate and slow the process." Richard replies that "The 1915 version is the one that is free and on-line and therefore available to all our members at no cost," and that none of the other proposed guides "cover internet meetings completely, so in any case we will need to formulate special rules to deal with our special behaviors." He points out that 1) Kathy Heidel, who proposed the original motion, has agreed to amend it to specify RRoO, 2) Roger Swafford, who is knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure, has recommended RRoO [in a message to the -ALL list, Roger most definitely specifices a _current_ version of RRoO),3) Jana Black expressed concern that Sturgis is "not complete enough for our purposes." and 4) Richard Howland suggested using something online that everyone can "see and quote". Richard [Harrison] notes that his motion "is not an effort to "complicate and slow the process." It is an effort to make sure that all these points are addressed. Anyone who has trouble with the language in Robert's is certainly free to use Sturgis or any other aid to clearer understanding, but we should adopt Robert's." Kathy Heidel and Betsy Mills second the motion to amend Motion 01-35. Ron points out that Roger Swafford supports using the most current version of RRoO and notes "If we are going to amend and make and do, can we at least get to something that makes more sense than just because it is on-line." He also points out that Jana _also_ pointed out that upon perusal the Sturgis book "seems to hold up well". Monday 5 November 2001: Diane Parsons agrees that the Board needs to adopt a standard code of parliamentary procedure, but "shouldn't we at least adopt the LATEST edition of a Parliamentary Procedure, instead of just any ole version??" She provides several online sources of older and current authorities and notes "I find it hard to believe that we should "settle" for less than we need. That we should make do because we do not want to spend under $20.00 for the latest edition of a much needed book. As a genealogist, I will spend that much just making copies at the Archives and call it "well-spent" !!" Teresa Lindquist, as the second to the original motion, does not agree to Richard's proposed amendment, but will agree to an amendment specifying a current version of RRoO. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === Apropos of Nothing Corner: Yay Diamondbacks! === "Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." ---Andre Gide This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Nov 6 19:03:16 2001 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 19:03:15 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/6/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: When you come to a fork in the road, take it...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 5 November 2001: Richard Harrison posts an amendment to the motion to amend Motion 01-35: "I move that the Board accept "Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, The Tenth Edition as our parliamentary authority." This new version is seconded by Kathy Heidel. On behalf of the Publicity/Promotion starter, Tina Vickery moves "for the creation of the Publicity/Promotion Committee to constructively promote and publicize the USGenWeb Project internally within the project, and to the greater genealogical community, both online and off-line." This proposed committee will "develop means of publicity and promotion such as but not limited to newsletters, brochures and web pages to accomplish their purpose and will be available to work with all committees and organizations within the USGenWeb Project to assist and advise them with publicity and promotion." The committee will be composed of 19 members, with the NC as an ex-officio member, and will contain no restrictions as to regional or project affiliations. It will form sub-committees, or "Task Teams" to "to assist in accomplishing the tasks placed before them." The first two "task teams" proposed are a Newsletter team and a Brochures team. The committee will originally be formed of Tina Vickery, Jana Black, and Kathy Heidel, "who shall choose a temporary chair and proceed with soliciting and accepting volunteers for the committee itself, as well as for specific Task Teams." Once the full committee is formed, a permanent chair will be elected. Jana Black seconds this motion. Holly Timm gives it number 01-36 and opens it for discussion. Betsy asks that the Board-L list be set back to "reply to list", and Holly explains that it already is, but that individual settings sometimes override that. Holly asks if anyone has checked out the various parliamentary authorities in regards to our special meeting needs. She provides several examples of parliamentary procedures which we do not currently follow and notes that they are difficult to implement or will delay Board business further. She notes "If we jump into a blanket adoption of any of the suggested authorities we must abide by them until we go through the proper procedures for adopting any standing rules that vary from the authority we accept. Unless we adopt an authority with our own standing rules in place or include something that allows us variance where common sense and the elements of the medium we meet in require it (I am sure that could be worded better) we will accomplish things at a crawl if at all." Kathy notes that she did do as Holly suggested and that she "truthfully wanted Alice Sturgis because of the simplicity and it did comply with Roberts Rules of Order 10th edition." It is in compliance with the bylaws, but "because the AB and others who wish to look up a rule or how to proceed with a question could do so without having to buy a book," she accepted Richard's amendment. Kathy notes "The fact is we need to adopt a form of PA. I have no understanding of why we should not have a guideline in place to refer to. Most of us do not have a working knowledge of PA and that is sad. We at least need to be introducing ourselves to this, it is not new it is a way to become organized. I suggest we begin to vote on this soon so we can proceed with other business on the agenda." Vicki Shaffer hopes Ron Eason is "not ignorant enough to think that a 1915 version would include Internet activities." She notes, however, that "nothing surprises" her, including the nature of a private email that Ron sent to all the Board members "pleading for the removal of Keith Giddeon on the EC and applauding Teresa for calling Barbara Dore and Keith, "those two together are reminiscent of a pack of pitbulls that has spotted an unattended child innocently playing on the sidewalk."" She notes that corresponding by private email is not acceptable to her and suggests that if Ron has anything to say he say it on Board-L and/or -ALL. She notes that this also applies to Teresa Lindquist "that feels that her "private" email list doesn't violate her strong policy against the Exec-L." She asks Ron if he is setting up the USGW for a lawsuit. [I have _no_ idea where that came from.] Richard and Jana both claim not to have received Ron's email. Jana notes that "the plot thickens." Jana Black asks Holly if "adopting RRoO (any edition) puts us into a position where our ability to get anything done will be hampered and slowed by the particulars of the rules themselves "until we go through the proper procedures for adopting any standing rules that vary from the authority we accept?"" [Uh oh, wind is about to change again...] She notes that these would fall under the Special Rule of Order provisions in RRoO and notes "there are provisions in RRONR to allow groups in unique circumstances to adopt Special Rules that will fit. For example, we could create a Special Rule to address issues like USGW designed protocols for making motions, seconding motions and for discussing and voting upon motions in (or not in) an order but within the confines of a 24-07-365 working environment??? Or, we could create a Special Rule addressing what constitutes the need for the Board to go into Executive Session (so it is not perceived as using a secret list) or we could create Special Rules addressing what is Confidential or not in our unique operating environment." She asks if Holly is suggesting "that we should amend motion 01-35 to "allow us variance where common sense and the elements of the medium (in which) we meet in require" or are you suggesting we need to think twice before adopting ANY one PA until we first PUT in place some Special Rules that address our unique medium (internet)?" Tuesday 6 November 2001: Tim notes that the motion proposed by Phyllis Rippee and seconded by himself regarding the formation of a bylaws committee is a valid motion whether or not Holly numbers it. Regarding the changes to the domain name registration, Tim notes that "When the domain address info was first set up from Rootsweb to USGenWeb it was set so that no one person would have all the functions pointed to them. It was fixed so that the NC would be the contact person and the At Large Representative would be the billed to address for the domains." He says he hasn't changed the registration because he can't change the Admin info to Holly until he changes the billing contact info to Teresa's and because he's not sure how to go about changing it. Teresa asks the following questions about Motion 01-36: "Will these three pick _all_ the committee members? Will the Board have any say at all [even to voting to accept the slate, as is done for the EC]? How long will the committee members serve? How long will the Chair serve? Is there provision for regular reporting to the Board, or the project at large? How long will the Task Teams function? Will they be under the guidance of the PP Chair and will their activities be included in committee reports? Will the Board have any say in the selection of the Task Team members? Who will determine what business properly falls to the PP committee, the Board or the committee itself? Will contact of a publicity-oriented nature with outside organizations go through the NC or through the committee itself? Will the Board be able to approve such contacts in advance?" Kathy Heidel quotes [at least it looks like a quote] from somethign regarding standing committees. She notes that she has received some unpleasant maile regarding the parliamentary authority motion and notes "Looks to me like Commonsense and Experience have failed again. I am not trying to stifle anyone, I am only trying to help us grow and to stop this constant chaos and waste of time." Kathy asks "what is the fear in having a Parliamentary Authority? Are you afraid of having (1)a Reference to Guide us?...(2) Order and Organization? Or do we have to waste valuable time and effort only to come up against a brick wall because it wasn't done correctly in the first place. Would it not have been better to have had some guidelines in place?" She notes "I happen to believe that any "PA" will empower the AB and expedite how business is handled. It will allow all of us to gain some semblance of order and we will know how to proceed with what the Project needs. This is not to say that Commonsense and Experience are not important, they are, but we also need to bring about orderly business. We need to stop chaos and work...Guidelines are in place for definite reasons. They *Empower* us to do our job with the utmost efficiency possible. I am having a problem focusing on what is happening and I know I am not the only one." Jana says "The job of the committee formation committees as described by our NC was *not* to address the working details of the committee but rather to get a committee established. Here we have presented the goals/purpose and structure of the committee to be formed. Once the committee itself is formed, it will need to consider and address all the considerations Teresa has raised plus anything else committee members see as relevant." [This is rich.] Phyllis Rippee comments on "Sir Robert of Rules"' apparent proclivity for virgins [did I miss something?] and notes "Common sense and experience tells us that because of the type of cyber-meeting we must have, it is impractical for the chair to be expected to recognize a member prior to a comment, or motion being made. Common sense and experience tells us that we will know what is "said" because we will be reading instead of having to depend on hearing as we would in an actual face-to-face meeting." She notes that RRoO says motions must be considered by the assembly if two members wish it thus and there is "a valid motion (in regards to establishing a bylaws committee) has been made that should have a number. There is a motion (01-35) still under discussion on the floor and contrary to any of Sir Robert's virgins, the chair has given another motion a number (01-36) that places it in front of the unnumbered valid motion and opened up the one out of numerical sequence (01-36) for discussion, also." Jana corrects the record to say that she _did_ receive the email Ron sent privately to the Board but "that particular email did *not* include what Vicki said below...Ron spoke his opinion on his subject, but he made no "plea," nor did he "applaud" Teresa." She then launches a diatribe against the use of personal mail as opposed to Board-L or Board-Exec, noting "anytime a Board member wants to address the AB as a whole, the proper forum for that communication is the BOARD-L...I agree that most business should be conducted in the open on BOARD-L. Those who circumvent the established tools IMHO use behavior that is unprofessional and not in the best interest of the USGW Project...when Teresa and Ron have emailed AB members as a group, but not on the BOARD or BOARD-EXEC lists, they are doing so because they believe the content of what they address should not be shared publicly for whatever reason...[well actually, I do it to maintain control of my own posts, but whatever] basically, Teresa and Ron, while implicitly agreeing that some AB communication is not appropriate for general discussion, are refusing to "play by the rules" in end running the proper forums...Every AB member has the option of taking such discussion into Executive Session on the BOARD-EXEC-L. That list is NOT a SECRET LIST as Teresa and others like to imply. Everyone knows about it and that it exists. [They are SO cute when they do this. "Of course its not a _secret_ list, _everyone_ knows about it. *wink* *wink*" Well, then, perhaps Jana would share with us the gist of recent non-EC-related discussions there? Since they aren't secret, can't hurt, right?] We also know it exists as a specific tool for the specific purpose of supplementing the AB's ability to accomplish its business using an appropriately confidential forum where and when necessary. On EXEC, any member can ask that conversation be moved back to BOARD-L at any time. This has been shown to have worked." [Really? When?] Ron notes that there was no other email than the one he originally sent to the Board members privately and describes the content of the email: "it did not read as she stated, but it did state that I saw no difference in the way Keith treats Teresa on the ALL list." He notes "if Vicki can bring things into a public list that were said in private, then her actions are no better than what others say Teresa's are, by putting things in the DBS." He notes "if we are asked to treat a Board Member one way, then the same standard should apply to a Member of a Board Committee Member. If one is asked to refrain from saying something about the other." He says "Talking about a subject and disagreeing with someone is one thing, but reverting to name calling and making rude remarks is not necessary. What I addressed was not a person, but the actions of a person versus the actions of another." Teresa notes that she was precluded from posting on Board-L [about the EC request to have her removed] " by the gag rule imposed on the secret list by every NC since November 1998 and by the gag rule imposed on the EC. I would have been more than happy to share this with the rest of the project from day one." She notes that as long as the discussion is conducted in secret, Board-Exec will be a secret list as far as she is concerned. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: === "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." ---Winston Churchill This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed Nov 7 06:57:58 2001 Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 06:57:57 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/7/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: All bent out of shape...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 6 November 2001: Since Jana Black refused to answer the "good questions" asked by Teresa Lindquist regarding the proposed Publicity/Promotion committee, Teresa proposes the following scenario: "So 3 people will form the committee. The Board will have no say. The committee is then free to grant itself permanent tenure, determine that it will have _no_ Board oversight, and that it is free to design its duties as it sees fit." She thanks Jana for answering her questions. Jana [who is apparently severely irony-challenged] tells Teresa not to quote her as giving the "answers" above. Jana is glad to know she was not left out of Ron's private email to the other Board members; however she thinks the message should have been sent to Board-Exec, noting "there is a BIG difference between emailing one or two Board members to "worry out" our thinking before we do anything in an official capacity and sending a mass email to us all regarding Board business that is already under consideration." She is happy to hear from her colleagues privately, but draws a line where Board business is the topic. She agrees with Vicki Shaffer that "any AB member who addresses the Board as a whole in an official capacity needs to use the appropriate forums; either BOARD-L or BOARD-EXEC-L." Jana also sees "a huge difference between disagreement over issues and casting personal aspersion," and notes "Folks can disagree over the issues until the cows come home, but they need to do it in an honorable and respectful way." Kathy Heidel reiterates the method of forming the Publicity/Promotion committee and asks how the Bylaws and Guidelines "starter" committee are progressing. Teresa informs her that discussion on both committees has stalled. Jana confirms Teresa's summation of the situation, noting additionally that Teresa "especially" has been silent on the Guidelines committee. She is frustrated that there has been no further discussion. Jana [still on the apparently endless topic of Board-Exec] says again that Board-Exec is the appropriate place to discuss confidential matters and that there is a "BIG difference between "secret" and confidential." She provides the example of my leaking the ongoing discussions regarding the EC request as proof that the "system works". Teresa notes again that Board-L was the appropriate place for the EC request discussion and that private mail is just as appropriate a place for confidential matters as the private list is [actually, its probably more secure, since Root$web occasionally opens up the archives of the secret list for everyone to see]. She reminds Jana that in order to move the EC discussion to the public sphere, she had to violate the gag rule on the secret list and thus "would hardy call this an example of the system working." Pam Reid does not understand why some members think "it is alright to handle some confidential matters via private email but not alright to use the Exec list." She believes the secret list is the "appropriate venue for confidential matters." Jana believes that the EC discussion occurred on the secret list in order to show respect for Teresa [please] and that the only reason the conversation remained secret for so long was that Teresa herself had not asked to take it public. She publishes the following summary: "The EC request was received on the 18th of OCT. You first responded off list the 19th and you made no mention at all of moving dialogue to BOARD-L. You continued to write us all off list 5 more times between then and the 21st, still never mentioning the information be moved to BOARD-L but specifically participating and responding in BOARD-L discussion. In fact, until the sixth message you sent us all on the 22nd, you did not once address moving the conversation to BOARD-L...three AB members asked you to put your posts on list and you ignored us. On the 21st, I suggested the time was near if not here to move the conversation to BOARD-L.... twice. Other AB members added their voices to this idea as well...a good way through the evening of the 22nd, you finally offered concurrence to move the dialogue to BOARD-L. It was the FIRST time you had addressed it yourself, and the email was posted "after reasonable hours" for our NC in her time zone." She then proceeds to suggest that Teresa timed the release of the information to occur when the NC was at work and unavailable and tells Teresa "I think it is very fair to say your concern was not making the conversation public... It is disrespectful of other AB members for you to avoid using the appropriate established channels of communication. This is not about you. It is about putting AB members into a position where if they reply directly to you, they risk compromising what they want to keep confidential as you insist you will print what you see fit as you choose." Wednesday 7 November 2001: Teresa reminds the Board that there is no rule requiring the use of any specific forum for any specific topic and until there is any mode of communication is as valid as any other. She notes "If I prefer to use private mail as opposed to Board-Exec once a topic has been introduced on the secret list, that is my prerogative." Teresa attempts to clarify her questions regarding the proposed Publicity/Promotions committee: "I asked some questions that really should be addressed _before_ a permanent committee is seated. Especially the first two, since they are entirely moot once a permanent committee is selected." She notes that Jana "more or less elected to blow [the questions] off." She also asks a question put to her by a CC: "who will be responsible for any debts that could be incurred by the publicity committee?" Teresa asks why the "starter" committee mailing lists are not publicly archived. --- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: --no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: --discussion on committee size and duties === "You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jelly beans." ---Ronald Reagan This has been your Daily Board Show. I'm partial to the black ones myself. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 9 06:33:49 2001 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:33:48 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/8/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Something you can sink your teeth into...its Your Daily Board Show! [this should have gone out yesterday, but I had some ISP issues last night, so its a bit late. My apologies!] *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 7 November 2001: Tina Vickery provides some thoughts on Teresa Lindquist's questions from a couple of days ago. She indicates that she, Kathy Heidel, and Jana Black will pick the 19 Publicity/Promotion Committee members but since the committee is not a "policy committee", she sees "no reason for the board to be involved except in accepting the committee." She agrees that quarterly reports to the Board and membership can be added. She notes that the task teams will each contain at least one P/PC member so that "cross communication between the committee, task teams and the Project can occur." With regards to outside communication, she notes "The NC, as an ex-officio member of the committee, and will be aware of what is in the works...outside groups that the USGenWeb Project volunteers work with will be numerous. We have an extraordinary opportunity to structure this committee to indeed grassroots, I would hate to think that the effort would be hindered by approval of the board as a whole." Getting back to the secret list, Jana Black tells Teresa that they "are going to have to agree to disagree." She says the system works, "except for times like when...you decided to take matters into your own hands." [yes, the system works, except when it doesn't. Glad we got that worked out.] Jana informs Teresa that the information committee is considering her questions. Ron Eason notes that the Board has spent two full days "getting absolutely zip.....done," and that "these deliberate comments made just to create some sort of smoke screen and rile up the troups are not getting us any where." He request that the Chair ask the members to refrain from posting messages not related to business currently before the Board and notes "if you have something negative to say about someone else because you don't like private email or you don't like how they interpret you, to take it up with them somewhere else. I don;t think the intent of this list is to continue to try and outdo someone else. Sometimes, saying nothing is so much better." Sundee Maynez does not understand the process for assigning conflicts to mediators as described in the Mediation process guidelines and asks if someone can explain it to her. Thursday 8 November 2001: Teresa thanks Tina for responding to her questions and provides some more comments. She notes in particular that it appears under the current motion that three people [Kathy, Tina, and Jana] "will ultimately decide how USGW is presented to the outside community and to the volunteers." In regards to an official committee report, Teresa also notes that "the Board might like to be kept abreast of projects that the committee has in progress, for instance: plans to attend meetings, brochures that are in the pipeline, etc. And it also might be nice to have an official record, similar to what is provided in the EC report, of completed projects. And I certainly think the Board should be apprised of changes in committee membership, including the current names and functions of task teams, although I agree that once the full P/PC is formed, it should be responsible for the task teams without needed to submit them for approval to the Board." In response to Tina's idea that the Board should have no oversight of the committee at all, Teresa asks her to consider the situation where the "Newsletter Task Team" opts to choose the DBS as the "official" USGenWeb newsletter [hey, it never hurts to plan for the worst-case scenario!]. She notes "Anything of an "official" nature coming out of the project, such as a brochure or a newsletter, should probably be submitted to the Board for at least a straight up-and-down vote. And _any_ official correspondence should go out over Holly's signature. In the case of the newsletter, I think its probably sufficient that the Board vote to accept [or not] the editorial slate, the publication schedule, and the general format at the outset, but not the content of individual issues." Holly forwards a message from Linda Haas Davenport to the Board, containing Keith Giddeon's resignation from the Election Committee. Linda says the EC will not replace Keith at this time, as 1/2 of the EC will itself be replaced in January. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: discussion on committee function and size === "Between the great things we cannot do and the small things we will not do, the danger is that we shall do nothing." ---Adolph Monod This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 9 08:01:23 2001 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:01:22 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/9/2002 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: If you have to ask, you can't afford it...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 8 November 2001: Teresa Lindquist apologizes for wasting the Board's time with a conversation not related to business before it and asks that a vote be called on Motion 01-35 (parliamentary authority) and/or its amendment. She also requests that the unnumbered motion regarding the bylaws committee either be numbered and opened for discussion or removed from the floor and returned to the "starter" committee. Holly Timm asks members to clarify their positions with regard to Motion 01-35. She also notes "The ByLaws motion is returned to committee for committee discussion and majority approval before presentment to this Board. Mr. Stowell's statement is corrected in that although 4 members of that group had approved the numbers, only two approved the wording of the motion. The Chair finds this unacceptable." Teresa says she is still in favor of Sturgis, but will certainly accept RRoO if the rest of the Board prefers that authority. Richard Harrison and Phyllis Rippee are both in favor of RRoO. Phyllis asks whether the announcement of Keith Giddeon's resignation from the EC means "the problem is resolved and we can take up the motion to change one of the procedural rules?" Holly responds that "the resignation does not signify resolution. The EC is moving along with it's decision and until then Motion 01-34 remains postponed." Tina Vickery notes that Teresa's follow-up questions will be addressed by the Publicity/Promotion "starter" committee. Tina forwards a question from a member asking why the NC does not get to pick the parliamentary authority, since she will be the one ruling on parliamentary procedure. This starts a long conversation on the merits of parliamentary authority in general. Kathy Heidel notes ""...this affects the entire AB and the Project members, not just one person...as our NC, I am certain Holly would want to work with us, and would of course want to meet this Motion with fairness, commonsense ,and good faith in her fellow Board members to be able to select what they feel would be for the good of the USGW Project. If the AB as an entire group determines that we should not elect to select a Parliamentary Authority, then as a member of the AB I could accept that...But if the NC chose to overlook the motion presented in good faith by a member of the AB and seconded by another, that would not be fair nor just in in my opinion." Tina clarifies that the member's question points to "the day to day, working operation that we have as a board to function effectively and efficiently for the USGenWeb Project." She asks "where's the fairness, common sense of the AB, and good faith toward the NC figure into it all?" Kathy notes "The motion was made in good faith and seconded as such. Why is there such a fear in RRoO, or any of the others which may be substituted as they are all based on RRoO...This isn't about power it is about fairness and having an accepted method of applying and make judgments which benefit all of us, AB members and USGW members as a whole. This will help all of us to use as a guide if needed." Tina notes that she doesn't want to get caught up in the minutiae of parliamentary procedure and "would truly hate to see it hinder the process, and I am sorry, but in the experience I have had serving on the board, I have found it a hindrance." She points out that the Board's current method of functioning works most of the time and notes "I would be remiss if I didn't say that is what is called experience and common sense." Kathy replies that "many problems could be avoided if the committee's, Board, and members just had a reference." She notes "your commonsense and mine differ for obvious reasons...I learned a different way of life, language/dialect, and coping skills. My experience with life will be far different from yours. Deals are still made here with a person's handshake and word...Roberts, Sturgis or whatever is a guide. Just another tool, just like a dictionary or encyclopedia." Ron Eason notes "the scope of this is to HAVE a reference to turn to in the event that there truly is a situation that requires PA to be used. Our Bylaws I believe want us to have a PA for the moments when something cannot be agreed upon and there has to be a ruling by authority other than us who have run out of common sense." He also does not want to be bogged down in the minutiae of parliamentary procedure but notes "by deciding on a specific PA to use as our reference, we do not have to change our entire freedom of asking a question. But I do know that in past Board sessions there were instances where a PA was necessary and there were several individuals giving reference from different versions and offering different interpretations." He suggests that it might be advantageous if Holly asked someone like Roger Swafford to advise her on parliamentary procedure. [Hoo boy, remember what happened the _last_ time someone tried that?] Holly explains the procedure for ordering the mediation panel members to Sundee Maynez and says once this is done, the list will be forwarded to Board-Exec. Holly also notes "When a mediation comes up, the person in the number one position is assigned the mediation although if they are named in the complaint they can not serve and it gets assigned to the next in order. The parties to the complaint may also refuse a particular person which again means it gets assigned to the next in line." Teresa thinks only Sundee, Holly, and the mediators themselves need to know the order of mediators and notes that, unless she missed it, the mediation guidelines don't contain any provision for allowing complainants to reject a mediator. Holly notes that the guidelines do specify that the order of mediators shall remain "confidential to the Board" and that this "is at least an appropriate use of Board-Exec." Friday 9 November 2001: Richard calls the question on his amendment to Motion 01-35. Holly asks him to restate his amendment and to clarify "whether you are asking...to vote on a vote on making the amendment so that we can then proceed to a vote on the motion or are you asking for a vote on voting on the amended motion." --- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: --extensive discussion on committee procedures Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === Letter From the Editor Corner: I've been thinking this over for some time now, and have come to a difficult decision. My duties as a Board member and as a participant in various committees are taking up more and more of my time, and should I make it onto the Bylaws committee that time commitment will increase exponentially. These things are important and I don't want to short-shrift them. I think the DBS is also important and don't want to short-shrift it either, but I find more and more that all I really have time for now is summarizing the Board member's comments. Also, the DBS has always been an "outsider" publication and now that I am "inside" it is becoming increasingly difficult to balance my positions as a critical commentator and as a Board member [its hard to be hard on yourself ]. In the hierarchy of importance to USGW, I think that competently and completely representing my constituents needs to take precedence over writing a daily newsletter. But fear not! To make a long story short, the DBS will go from being a daily publication to being a weekly one as of this Sunday. The weekly edition will still be called the "Daily Board Show" [hey, tradition has to count for _something_] and it will contain concise [maybe] summaries of weekly Board activities, committee activities, and hopefully more commentary than I have had time for of late. There will also still be News Flashes as warranted and Special Reports as the spirit moves me. The weekly version should come out on Sundays, which is usually my "lazy day". When time and circumstances permit, the DBS will return to a daily schedule. I thank you all for your support of the DBS over the years, and I apologize if this inconveniences anyone. === "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me. ---Ayn Rand This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sat Nov 10 18:20:31 2001 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 18:20:31 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/10/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Its only a model...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 9 November 2001: Richard Harrison requests that debate cease and his amendment be put to a vote. He notes "My request is not debateable and must be acted on immediately. IF two-thirds of the Board members agree, there will be an immediate vote on the amendment. If not, debate may continue on the amendment." [Discussion, which apparently will be endless, continues on this motion (01-35) to adopt a parliamentary authority. I will only summarize some of the more meaningful points raised over the last two days] Richard notes that he has not seen a second to his call, and Jana Black obliges with a second. Saturday 10 November 2001: Holly Timm directs Board Secretary Sundee Maynez to randomly order the mediation panel members, as required in the mediation guidelines. Noting substantial confusion among the original motion, Kathy's withdrawn withdrawal, and Richard's two amendments, Holly directs the Board members to indicate their preference between RRoO (1915 version), RRoO (current revision), and the Sturgis version. She says "The version most preferred will then be accepted as the one to be in the motion which we can then vote upon." Holly notes "this is not according to "proper" procedure but voting online takes considerable time unlike face-to-face where it is a matter of moments. One simple poll of which version resulting in a motion to vote upon seems practical and efficient to me." [Or...we could just _vote_. I guess this must be what common sense looks like.] Thus far, six Board members have notified Holly that they prefer the Sturgis book. Phyllis Rippee points out that both of Richard's proposed amendments were seconded by Kathy Heidel, and notes "Richard moved to call the question on Nov. 9...This motion was not subject to debate. It was then up to the chair to state the motion and call for a vote. Instead, we have an opinion poll going...Which means that by "not finding a second, causing a possible point of order being raised".....the chair has managed to debate the issue." Phyllis indicates she has a copy of the current RRoO and will continue to use it. Ron Eason questions whether Richard's amendment might be out of order for not being germane to the original motion, since it changes the motion substantially. Phyllis indicates the amendment is germane to the original motion and also notes that Kathy Heidel [who originally proposed Motion 01-35] approved of both amendments. Richard objects strongly to Holly's "flouting of parliamentary procedure." He notes "From what has been demonstrated so far it will be one thing to adopt rules of order and another to get the Chair to abide by them." Teresa Lindquist suggests that the Board proceed with voting on the call, the amendment, and the original/amended motion, in that order. She doesn't see any reason to drag the issue out further and urges the Chair to call the vote. --- In Executive Session: --messages from Richard Harrison, Nate Zipfel, and Jana Black Bylaws "starter" committee: --discussion proceeds on comittee procedures Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === "Confusion now hath made his masterpiece!" ---William Shakespeare This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 11 08:31:43 2001 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 08:31:42 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 11/11/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: To all the ships at sea...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 10 November 2001: Ron Eason notes "there were problems with the amendments, but with what is already on the table, the proper and common sense thing to do is to vote each one in order per PA and move on." Holly Timm worries that with "going straight to a vote on his amendment, people are not going to vote against it cause they don't like that version, they will not want to appear to be against PA so they will vote for it so we will end up with a PA that is not what I suspect most of us want." Because no parliamentary authority is in effect yet, she is doing what she believes to be "sensible and efficient." The discussion on Motion 01-35 (parliamentary authority) reminds Tim Stowell of the Paris Peace talks. Richard Harrison notes that all Board members are capable of distinguishing between voting on an amendment and voting on the primary motion. He states "The notion that you may take the law into your own hands to protect the Board (or the CCs, for that matter) from things they don't understand and might do wrong is dangerous and repulsive...When the bylaws say "by accepted parliamentary procedures," I don't think they have "Holly's Rules of Disorder" in mind." In a later message, Richard also notes "It is now clear that the majority of the Board favors Sturgis over Robert's...the question of whether or not we abide by SOME kind of parliamentary authority, be it Sturgis or Robert's or "accepted," is of more importance to this organization than the question of the shape of our virtual table." [alluding to the Paris Peace talks again] Sunday 11 November 2001: Holly doesn't think its an issue of "protecting anyone nor even of doing wrong," but that "many of you no longer care which authority is referred to although they may each have a preference but just want the whole thing over with and will thus vote yes on any authority to have the whole thing over with and so as not to be perceived as against PA and so-called order." She asks whether it is more orderly to amend the original motion based on the poll or to follow the correct sequence of events required by parliamentary procedure. Holly also notes that a "significant number of board members seem to feel that some specific authority should be used", but that "During the discussion it was not at all clear which version was favored by board members and it was not at all apparent that at least six of you favor Sturgis as the reference in the motion until the responses to my poll." She notes that the six cannot be considered a majority or a plurality and that in her opinion "the most responsible thing to do is to determine which version most board members favor and proceed to a vote on the motion with that reference." Teresa asks if the Board may proceed to a vote on the call of the question. --- In Executive Session --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee --discussion on committee procedures Guidelines "starter" committee --no activity === Tiger Run Around The Tree Corner: I have to admit I am at a loss to explain why Motion 01-35, or any of its various permutations, amendments, or subsidiary motions, has not yet come to a vote. Instead, we are doing another "poll" so that the Chair can amend the motion by fiat. I also don't understand why this has gotten so complicated, when it should be a simple thing. Our bylaws say "The Advisory Board shall perform the duties prescribed by these Bylaws, and by accepted parliamentary procedures." They don't say we _must_ select a specific authority, but several Board members, noting the history of occasional confusion as to procedures and policy, decided it might be a good idea to select one authority and stick to it. We asked Holly to select an authority on our behalf; she decided instead to tell us the version she uses, but then to qualify it with "common sense and individual experience". Since in any disputes over procedure, the only "common sense and individual experience" that will matter are hers, some concern was raised and a motion specifically made to adopt Sturgis as our authority. This motion was seconded, but then was withdrawn. Later, the withdrawal was withdrawn and then an amendment to use the 1915 version of Roberts' Rules of Order was proposed. That was seconded, but shortly thereafter, the amendment itself was changed to specify the current edition of RRoO. And the Board has been discussing this whole thing since October 25, when the original motion was made. The relative merits of each version have been discussed and the Board appears more than ready to vote. On November 9 [yes, two days ago], Richard Harrison called the question on his amendment. We should have gone to an immediate vote on that, but instead we are continuing debate, apparently entirely at the will of the NC, who has instituted a poll to determine which authority Board members prefer; she has then indicated that she will then amend the original motion to reflect that choice and that is what the Board will proceed to vote on. Apparently, this is "common sense" in action. What should happen here is that the call should be voted on or, if there is no objection, there should be an immediate vote on the amendment. If the amendment fails, then the original motion is voted on next. If the amendment carries, then the amended motion is voted on. Simple, yes? Well, apparently not. I gather the fear here is that Board members who do not really want to select _any_ parliamentary authority will vote for whatever is in the amendment so that they don't appear to be against parliamentary procedure. Of course, doing a poll that forces a selection between three authorities does not really alleviate any actual or perceived pressure to vote with the mainstream and certainly won't make anyone who "goes with the flow" any less likely to do so. Since all Board members who have responded have indicated Sturgis as their choice [six so far], there is gathering pressure for the rest of us to do so as well. We could, of course, determine this exact same outcome with an actual vote on the actual amendment and main motion. Instead, we have a "common sense" solution that is making no one happy, is further confusing the issue, and that is _already_ being challenged on procedural grounds [the bylaws do say that we will conduct our business using accepted parliamentary procedure, and I don't see the Chair conducting polls to amend main motions listed anywhere.] And I have to ask the question that's been asked of me by several people: Why doesn't Holly want this to come to a vote? Voting is simple, we all understand that. And I'm also sure that each and every Board member will vote according to the benefits they see relative to each of the proposed authorities or to selecting any specific authority at all. Whatever is decided, this little circus points out the need to have some sort of authority in place. This is getting both ridiculous and embarassing. === ". . . it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer." ---Thucydides This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved