Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:48:07 -0400 From: Tom Massey <massey@hal.fmhi.usf.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3107$foo@default> Subject: RE: ICPS vote
Rick:
Well, I guess your comments are shadows of my concerns. As Barry pointed
out in his response, he sees the editors a little "at risk" if not
represented on the board. As he says:
".....Indeed, the editors are overseen by the board, and presumably serve
at the pleasure of the board (i.e., Jan and I could get "fired" tomorrow if
the board saw fit). I agree with you that the editors
should be represented on the board, which is one of the reasons I am
running!"
I am confident this is just an organizational issue to Barry and he is not
expecting to be shut-out of discussions. But as you say, since nearly all
your conversations include the editors, and if it would be foolish to do
otherwise, then perhaps the editors should be changed from de facto board
members to formal board members.
I guess I am really thinking about this in terms of workload issues. And
again you anticipate my concern. As it stands, you will have 6 board
members; two of these members may be editors who will be already fully
committed. This will leave 4 remaining members to do all the chores, and
one of these will be swamped with membership coordination. That leaves 3
to do everything else. Is this enough?
Perhaps the needs of ICPS do not require a lot of work, and three can split
the workload. However, as one of the four board members of our small club
here in Tampa, I can tell you that there is a lot to do. And we don't try
to serve Cp'ers all over the world and coordinate national and
international meetings, etc.
Now you could respond by saying don't elect editors to the board, and that
will provide 6 manpower slots, but then you are left with the concerns of
Barry (and perhaps Jan) who apparently feel that as editors they should
have a formal voice within ICPS.
As a friendly suggestion, I would propose that if the editors are not
elected to the board, that the board change their constitution and enlarge
to include the editors. (I would suggest ex offico membership as long as
it is understood that this is a voting membership.) If the editors are
elected, I would propose that, at the least, they consider the number
needed to accomplish the work of ICPS, and consider expanding the board for
the next election cycle.
For my own small voice, I believe the editors should be on the board and
will vote accordingly.
Hope this wasn't too windy. Hurricane Georges must be rubbing off on me!
Tom in Fl.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 3:36 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
> Tom Massey writes:
> Since the ICPS vote has come up. I notice that there are 6 positions
> to be filled and 8 candidates. Am I right in interpreting this to
> mean that the CPN editors (who are running) will not automatically be
> members (or ex-officio members) of the Board?
Yes. That's right. The editors are *not* automatically members of the
Board.
However, the election just decides who has *voting power* on the board.
It would not surprise me if all 8 candidates continue to stay engaged
with the ICPS even if in a non-voting capacity. Believe me - we will
never turn away an enthusiastic volunteer!
> It would seem to me that as the newsletter is a critcal and demanding
> segment of ICPS activities, inclusion of the editors as board members
> would be automatic. If they are not, it changes the complextion of
> Board staffing.
The editors have always participated on all board discussion via the
ICPS listserv group. Nearly all of our decisions have been by informal
concensus in which the editors had a say. I think it would be foolish
for the board to do otherwise.
> This has implications for manpower issues among other things.
In what way?
I expect that as the ICPS gets more engaged in conservation, research,
education, etc., that the board will get pretty busy. It would likely
overload the editors if they were forced to split their committment
between publishing work and board work.
I've seen several volunteers burn out from overwork in the last 4 years.
To avoid this in the future, the general trend has been to spread out the
responsibilities rather than trying to double them up.
Best regards,
-- Rick Walker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:36 PST