• Beware of Counterfeit Woodturning Tools (click here for details)
  • Johnathan Silwones is starting a new AAW chapter, Southern Alleghenies Woodturners, in Johnstown, PA. (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Paul May for "Checkerboard (ver 3.0)" being selected as Turning of the Week for March 25, 2024 (click here for details)
  • Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.

Question for Board Members and Candidates

Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
133
Likes
0
Location
Georgia
The Statement from Mary Lacer and the Board of Directors (August 10, 2010) posted on the AAW home page includes the following quote:

"The Board of Directors simply wishes to move the AAW in new directions."

I would gratefully appreciate it if the current Board Members, and the Candidates for the Board of Directors, would post their reflections detailing the new direction that we're going.

Thank you for taking the time to share this information with the AAW membership.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
143
Likes
0
Location
Torrance California
Met with silence

Al Stramiello,

The Statement from Mary Lacer and the Board of Directors (August 10, 2010) posted on the AAW home page includes the following quote:

"The Board of Directors simply wishes to move the AAW in new directions."

I would gratefully appreciate it if the current Board Members, and the Candidates for the Board of Directors, would post their reflections detailing the new direction that we're going.

Thank you for taking the time to share this information with the AAW membership.
__________________
Al Stramiello
Middle Georgia
Member #28544
I asked this same question in an earlier posting regarding Tom Wirsing's journal article.

Nothing to report so far

Curtis Thompson
AAW member # 15049
 

hockenbery

Forum MVP
Beta Tester
TOTW Team
Joined
Apr 27, 2004
Messages
8,592
Likes
4,888
Location
Lakeland, Florida
Website
www.hockenberywoodturning.com
Al,

Why would any board member post here?

It is a no win situation. Tom Wirsing, Binh Pho, and Dale Larson made posts a few weeks ago.
They have better things to do than engage in verbal sparring on the forum

You may not be baiting the board, but can you honestly expect an answer here?

fool me once shame on you.....

-Al
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
143
Likes
0
Location
Torrance California
Al Hockenbery,

Why would any board member post here?

It is a no win situation. Tom Wirsing, Binh Pho, and Dale Larson made posts a few weeks ago.
They have better things to do than engage in verbal sparring on the forum

You may not be baiting the board, but can you honestly expect an answer here?

fool me once shame on you.....

-Al

Al H.
Why wouldn't someone who talks about a new direction or future want to better explain it?

I read Tom's article in the Journal and just shook my head wondering what I had just read. It was vague and not really clear on what the new future might look like. What is Tom seeing that I missed in his article?

.
.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
101
Likes
0
Location
New Mexico
Al,

Why would any board member post here?

It is a no win situation. Tom Wirsing, Binh Pho, and Dale Larson made posts a few weeks ago.
They have better things to do than engage in verbal sparring on the forum

You may not be baiting the board, but can you honestly expect an answer here?

fool me once shame on you.....

-Al

To not post any information just leads the membership to speculate that the new direction maynot be in the interest of the majority of the members. All that is being asked is a post from each board members explaining what direction they want to lead the AAW. I would also like to see their ideas on how they will attain those goals. It is their choice to answer or not answer questions or disagreements with their goals. As it is now, all we see is a very dim light at the end of the tunnel and the members saying a prayer that it is not a train coming.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,224
Likes
1,135
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
To not post any information just leads the membership to speculate that the new direction maynot be in the interest of the majority of the members. All that is being asked is a post from each board members explaining what direction they want to lead the AAW. I would also like to see their ideas on how they will attain those goals. It is their choice to answer or not answer questions or disagreements with their goals. As it is now, all we see is a very dim light at the end of the tunnel and the members saying a prayer that it is not a train coming.

Marvin,

My guess is that you'll see clarification of this question through the Journal - that all members get, but not necessary through this forum - for two reasons. First, it's been shown over the past two months that some people simply cannot control themselves and go into personal attack mode at the slightest provocation (or opening). Second, this forum is not a good way to communicate with the membership. In case anyone wants to dispute that last statement, please study the following statistics:

- 5,138 ...total number of different people who have "joined" the forum since its inception 8 years ago. Note that many of these 5,138 people were not AAW members, may have been one-time visitors, and/or are not current users.

- 552 ...total number of different AAW members who are also forum members, and have visited the forum at least once between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. In other words, about 4 percent of AAW’s membership visited this forum during the most controversial period the AAW has known in recent history.

- 166 ...total number of AAW members who have joined the forum as new forum members between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. Taking 166 away from the 552 figure indicates that only 386 AAW members (2.8 percent) are what I’d call frequent forum visitors. And, many of those folks do not visit the AAW Info sub-forum, due to all the fussing and fighting.

This tells me that the forum is of no interest, or beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of the membership. I'm not saying that those who visit this forum are unimportant - they are important. But the price to play here can be high, and the payback can be very small.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
201
Likes
13
Location
Torrance, CA
Al,

Why would any board member post here?

It is a no win situation. Tom Wirsing, Binh Pho, and Dale Larson made posts a few weeks ago.
They have better things to do than engage in verbal sparring on the forum

You may not be baiting the board, but can you honestly expect an answer here?

fool me once shame on you.....

-Al

Al - being a adviser to the BOD give you a lot of contact with the BOD members. I'm sure they must have articulated their vision of the future of the AAW with you. You don't seem to have a problem coming on this forum and discussing the AAW. Could you tell us what the BOD has planned for the AAW, what is this new direction they are so secretive about. It would be nice to have a clear understanding of where they want to take us.

I know you like the verbal sparring, come on admit it, you can hardly wait.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
1
Likes
0
Location
Long Beach, CA
Reading the positions of the candidates in the journal world be a great idea - BUT - by the time the next issue arrives, the voting will be over.

Art Fitzpatrick
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
101
Likes
0
Location
New Mexico
Marvin,

My guess it that you'll see clarification of this question through the Journal - that all members get, but not necessary through this forum - for two reasons. First, it's been shown over the past two months that some people simply cannot control themselves and go into personal attack mode at the slightest provocation (or opening). Second, this forum is not a good way to communicate with the membership. In case anyone wants to dispute that last statement, please study the following statistics:

- 5,138 ...total number of different people who have "joined" the forum since its inception 8 years ago. Note that many of these 5,138 people were not AAW members, may have been one-time visitors, and/or are not current users.

- 552 ...total number of different AAW members who are also forum members, and have visited the forum at least once between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. In other words, about 4% of AAW’s membership visited this forum during the most controversial period the AAW has know in recent history.

- 166 ...total number of AAW members who have joined the forum as new forum members between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. Taking 166 away from the 552 figure indicates that only 386 AAW members are what I’d call frequent forum visitors.

This tells me that the forum is of no interest, or beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of the membership. I'm not saying that those who visit this forum are unimportant - they are. But the price to play here can be high, and the payback can be very small.

Since we just received the last Journal the membership will have almost 2 months to speculate where the AAW is headed. I imagine the speculation of the train wreck at the end of the tunnel will be painted in many colors by the time the Journal is mailed.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
143
Likes
0
Location
Torrance California
The doers?

Ed Davidson,

I recall that Al Hockenbery estimated that their are only about 100 doers in the AAW. (people that do the work)

New ideas and constructive criticism are needed.

Whining for whining sake is not useful.

I do think the board is doing a fine job.

the local clubs I've been involved with have
a dozen doers, a lot of watchers, and a few whiners.

the doers do, the watchers help
and both ignore the whiners.

The AAW is much the same you have maybe a 100 active doers.


-Al

Maybe those doers are here on the forum and want to know what the lead Doers have planned for the future of the AAW.

Another way to think of this forum is that it is the narrow neck of a bottle where all the contents are funneled through it to spill out into a usable container.

Curtis Thompson
.
.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
Another way to think of this forum is that it is the narrow neck of a bottle where all the contents are funneled through it to spill out into a usable container.

With all due respect, Curtis, there's a distinct possibility that that statement is just a wee bit presumptuous if it is interpreted to assert that the collective view of the membership is represented by what gets posted on this forum.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
371
Likes
0
Location
SE Kansas
Marvin,

My guess is that you'll see clarification of this question through the Journal - that all members get, but not necessary through this forum - for two reasons. First, it's been shown over the past two months that some people simply cannot control themselves and go into personal attack mode at the slightest provocation (or opening). Second, this forum is not a good way to communicate with the membership. In case anyone wants to dispute that last statement, please study the following statistics:

- 5,138 ...total number of different people who have "joined" the forum since its inception 8 years ago. Note that many of these 5,138 people were not AAW members, may have been one-time visitors, and/or are not current users.

- 552 ...total number of different AAW members who are also forum members, and have visited the forum at least once between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. In other words, about 4 percent of AAW’s membership visited this forum during the most controversial period the AAW has know in recent history.

- 166 ...total number of AAW members who have joined the forum as new forum members between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. Taking 166 away from the 552 figure indicates that only 386 AAW members are what I’d call frequent forum visitors.

This tells me that the forum is of no interest, or beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of the membership. I'm not saying that those who visit this forum are unimportant - they are. But the price to play here can be high, and the payback can be very small.

Ed; you didn't mean to say that did you?;)
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,224
Likes
1,135
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
Ed Davidson,

I recall that Al Hockenbery estimated that their are only about 100 doers in the AAW. (people that do the work)

Curtis, I don't know about 100 - by my count 47 volunteer "doers" can be accounted for here: http://www.woodturner.org/org/staff_dirs.htm.

Most of the other "doers" IMHO are those who support, and help make happen the annual symposium. For a list of those folks, dial in here: http://www.woodturner.org/sym/sym2010/volunteer.htm

and here: http://www.woodturner.org/sym/sym2009/2009volunteers.pdf

and here: http://www.woodturner.org/sym/sym2008/volunteers.pdf

and here: http://www.woodturner.org/sym/sym2007/volunteers.pdf

and here: http://www.woodturner.org/sym/sym2006/wrapup/2006 Volunteer List.pdf - and the list goes on...
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
160
Likes
0
Location
Tulsa, Ok
Marvin,

My guess is that you'll see clarification of this question through the Journal - that all members get, but not necessary through this forum - for two reasons. First, it's been shown over the past two months that some people simply cannot control themselves and go into personal attack mode at the slightest provocation (or opening). Second, this forum is not a good way to communicate with the membership. In case anyone wants to dispute that last statement, please study the following statistics:

- 5,138 ...total number of different people who have "joined" the forum since its inception 8 years ago. Note that many of these 5,138 people were not AAW members, may have been one-time visitors, and/or are not current users.

- 552 ...total number of different AAW members who are also forum members, and have visited the forum at least once between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. In other words, about 4 percent of AAW’s membership visited this forum during the most controversial period the AAW has know in recent history.

- 166 ...total number of AAW members who have joined the forum as new forum members between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. Taking 166 away from the 552 figure indicates that only 386 AAW members are what I’d call frequent forum visitors.

This tells me that the forum is of no interest, or beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of the membership. I'm not saying that those who visit this forum are unimportant - they are. But the price to play here can be high, and the payback can be very small.

The only part you didn't cover is the lurkers/readers. Those that don't join the fourm, but stop by on a regular basis to see what is going on here.
I'm not a computer geek so I don't even know if there is a way of figuring out how many "readers" there are.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,224
Likes
1,135
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
The only part you didn't cover is the lurkers/readers. Those that don't join the fourm, but stop by on a regular basis to see what is going on here.
I'm not a computer geek so I don't even know if there is a way of figuring out how many "readers" there are.

Glen, good point - this data might help clarify the casual visitor question. The amount of traffic the forum gets is really miniscule. BTW, note that big uptick on the main site's March 2010 traffic - that's when the online Journal was first introduced :cool2:

7_2010pageviews.jpg
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
98
Likes
8
Location
Massachusetts
Marvin,

My guess is that you'll see clarification of this question through the Journal - that all members get, but not necessary through this forum - for two reasons. First, it's been shown over the past two months that some people simply cannot control themselves and go into personal attack mode at the slightest provocation (or opening). Second, this forum is not a good way to communicate with the membership. In case anyone wants to dispute that last statement, please study the following statistics:

- 5,138 ...total number of different people who have "joined" the forum since its inception 8 years ago. Note that many of these 5,138 people were not AAW members, may have been one-time visitors, and/or are not current users.

- 552 ...total number of different AAW members who are also forum members, and have visited the forum at least once between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. In other words, about 4 percent of AAW’s membership visited this forum during the most controversial period the AAW has known in recent history.

- 166 ...total number of AAW members who have joined the forum as new forum members between 6/21/2010 and 8/01/2010. Taking 166 away from the 552 figure indicates that only 386 AAW members (2.8 percent) are what I’d call frequent forum visitors. And, many of those folks do not visit the AAW Info sub-forum, due to all the fussing and fighting.

This tells me that the forum is of no interest, or beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of the membership. I'm not saying that those who visit this forum are unimportant - they are important. But the price to play here can be high, and the payback can be very small.

Ed,

Those numbers are depressing. Notwithstanding the times when our little family is squabbling, this forum is an enjoyable and great place to exchage woodturning info for all levels of turners. Might the AAW do more to promote it. I think everyone would benefit from more participation.

Frank
 

hockenbery

Forum MVP
Beta Tester
TOTW Team
Joined
Apr 27, 2004
Messages
8,592
Likes
4,888
Location
Lakeland, Florida
Website
www.hockenberywoodturning.com
Ed,

Those numbers are depressing. Notwithstanding the times when our little family is squabbling, this forum is an enjoyable and great place to exchage woodturning info for all levels of turners. Might the AAW do more to promote it. I think everyone would benefit from more participation.

Frank

Frank,
Who is this AAW you are talking about? you are the AAW...

Why not write an article for the journal on the forum and how to use it

-Al
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
98
Likes
8
Location
Massachusetts
Deal!

P.S. I just learned that a message must be least 10 characters, That's never been a problem for me in the past. :D

Anyway, that's what I added this post script.
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
98
Likes
8
Location
Massachusetts
Al,

Why would any board member post here?

It is a no win situation. Tom Wirsing, Binh Pho, and Dale Larson made posts a few weeks ago.
They have better things to do than engage in verbal sparring on the forum

You may not be baiting the board, but can you honestly expect an answer here?

fool me once shame on you.....

-Al

Al,

Although she is not a board member, I've noticed that Betty Scarpino has been posting more frequently since 6/21/10. I don't know if this is connected to the recent controvesy, but nevertheless she seems to be engaging the members more-not hiding. I think this is a good thing even if I don't always agree with her (the BOD issue for example). Kudos to Betty.

But for the BOD: If they can't take the heat for what they did or try to fix it, I'm sure we could find people who can.

Frank

Frank
 
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
133
Likes
0
Location
Georgia
The Statement from Mary Lacer and the Board of Directors (August 10, 2010) posted on the AAW home page includes the following quote:

"The Board of Directors simply wishes to move the AAW in new directions."

I would gratefully appreciate it if the current Board Members, and the Candidates for the Board of Directors, would post their reflections detailing the new direction that we're going.

Thank you for taking the time to share this information with the AAW membership.

Al,

Why would any board member post here?

It is a no win situation. Tom Wirsing, Binh Pho, and Dale Larson made posts a few weeks ago.
They have better things to do than engage in verbal sparring on the forum

You may not be baiting the board, but can you honestly expect an answer here?

fool me once shame on you.....

-Al


Al . . . I very graciously, and politely, asked the Board members and Candidates a question that I thought was a reasonable request. You obviously misinterpreted my inquiry if you thought it was malicious or some sort of trick question.

It is, in fact, a win situation for all of us, for the Board and candidates to use the forum as another avenue for communicating with the membership. Even though Ed believes that "the forum is of no interest, or beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of the membership.", I and others happen to believe that the forum is a viable, important means for the BOD and Candidates to communicate with us.

Also, Al, I would appreciate it if you would not try to lead my thread down the road to disharmony and debate. Mine was a simple, reasonable request.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
Al . . . I very graciously, and politely, asked the Board members and Candidates a question that I thought was a reasonable request. You obviously misinterpreted my inquiry if you thought it was malicious or some sort of trick question.

It is, in fact, a win situation for all of us, for the Board and candidates to use the forum as another avenue for communicating with the membership. Even though Ed believes that "the forum is of no interest, or beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of the membership.", I and others happen to believe that the forum is a viable, important means for the BOD and Candidates to communicate with us.

Also, Al, I would appreciate it if you would not try to lead my thread down the road to disharmony and debate. Mine was a simple, reasonable request.

Al,

It is unfortunate, but nonetheless apparent that this forum has become "hostile territory" for current Directors with those who seek punishment for perceived (but yet unproven) wrongs in connection with the Lacer firing. Frequenters here have demonstrated their ready willingness to parse any word or phrase to use it against the object of their anger. The stream of invective that flowed through e-mail channels can only be guessed at from the hints that have surfaced.

Given the vocal public demands for ethics complaints, espoused conspiracy allegations, and outright personal hostility here and elsewhere, your "gracious" and "polite" requests for statements and dialog to be posted on this board are not likely to get much response. Indeed, were I an attorney representing any of the current Directors, I would absolutely forbid my client from becoming involved in any public "conversations" in such an atmosphere.

Public lines of communication within the organization have been seriously impaired, if not broken, and it will take time to repair them. Drawing people into what they have good reason to expect to be just another internet "flame session" will be quite difficult.

I do hope that after all the public and private vilification that has gone on over the past 2 months that you truly don't expect people, even in light of a settlement between Mrs. Lacer and the AAW, to just make all 'nicey-nicey' again and open themselves to further public insults and accusatory demands, do you?

Respectfully, Al, if you do, you are being very naive.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
133
Likes
0
Location
Georgia
Al,

It is unfortunate, but nonetheless apparent that this forum has become "hostile territory" for current Directors with those who seek punishment for perceived (but yet unproven) wrongs in connection with the Lacer firing. Frequenters here have demonstrated their ready willingness to parse any word or phrase to use it against the object of their anger. The stream of invective that flowed through e-mail channels can only be guessed at from the hints that have surfaced.

Given the vocal public demands for ethics complaints, espoused conspiracy allegations, and outright personal hostility here and elsewhere, your "gracious" and "polite" requests for statements and dialog to be posted on this board are not likely to get much response. Indeed, were I an attorney representing any of the current Directors, I would absolutely forbid my client from becoming involved in any public "conversations" in such an atmosphere.

Public lines of communication within the organization have been seriously impaired, if not broken, and it will take time to repair them. Drawing people into what they have good reason to expect to be just another internet "flame session" will be quite difficult.

I do hope that after all the public and private vilification that has gone on over the past 2 months that you truly don't expect people, even in light of a settlement between Mrs. Lacer and the AAW, to just make all 'nicey-nicey' again and open themselves to further public insults and accusatory demands,do you?

Respectfully, Al, if you do, you are being very naive.


Mark . . . let's not get carried away with your interpretation of my post. While I certainly used the descriptors "gracious" and "polite", it was not my intent to cross the boundaries into the land of "nicey-nicey".

On the other hand, if I was a candidate for a position on the Board of Directors, the AAW Information Forum would be one of the first places that I would make a statement. Honestly, and you may call this "naive" . . . . I call it integrity . . . I would come right into the Forum and make a post outlining my vision for the future direction of the organization. Then, I would read the followup posts, both positive and negative, and reflect upon what my colleagues had to say. I might even alter my vision based upon their input

Later, if I was elected to the Board . . . . I would use that statement as a measure of how I performed as a Board member. When it came time for re-election, and I wanted to run for another term . . . I would repeat the process . . . but this time with a self-evaluation reflecting on how I did and outlining my next steps.

It doesn't sound naive to me . . . it's what I call being forthright.

Of course, I am not a Candidate for the Board of Directors, nor would I ever anticipate being in such a position. Hopefully, my post may inspire one, or all of the candidates to post their vision in the forum.

As always, Mark, I appreciate the interaction with you.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
Al,

I then suggest you lead-by-example. Put your application in to run for the Board. I may be wrong, but the last time I checked there were only 5 names on the list. If you get "accepted", you can do exactly as you propose and leverage the other candidates to go right along with you. Just keep Ed's stats in mind that the number of AAW members you'll actually reach through this board is quite small, then do the cost/benefit analysis.

Who knows, you might just get the votes with your approach. :D
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
578
Likes
7
Location
Mesa, Arizona
...

On the other hand, if I was a candidate for a position on the Board of Directors, the AAW Information Forum would be one of the first places that I would make a statement. Honestly, and you may call this "naive" . . . . I call it integrity . . . I would come right into the Forum and make a post outlining my vision for the future direction of the organization. Then, I would read the followup posts, both positive and negative, and reflect upon what my colleagues had to say. I might even alter my vision based upon their input ...

Al,

The AAW has historically had a policy against campaigning for positions on the board. In the AAW's culture, a candidate simply wrote a statement on why he or she wanted to serve on the board. Each candidate's statement was published in the journal and that was about all we heard from the candidates prior to the election. For good or ill, this culture grew up because the organization feared the divisive nature of active campaigning for the board. Considering that history, it's doubtful that any candidate would be likely to do as you suggest -- post on the forum the candidate's vision for the AAW. (Such a vision, in theory, would be part of the candidate's statement that's already in the journal and is on the website.) Nothing, however, prevents you from posting your critique of each candidates published statements.
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
69
Likes
1
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
BoD candidates views

Last year John Lucas expressed some frustration in the fact that we had so little to base our vote on in AAW BoD votes. Then, the only thing you had was the write up in the journal. Although I was told of the few numbers of people participating in the forum, I took up the gauntlet. I looked all candidates e-mails up in the directory and asked them to participate in a forum thread so we could further understand their views on the important issues facing the woodturning community. Of the six candidates either 4 or 5 of them responded either in the forum or in a note to me that I posted in the forum. The major problem with this was I got started late and most of the people had already voted. The ability to get more information out to the masses about the views of the BoD candidates is a laudible goal and in another year where there wasn't so much turmoil I might attempt it again.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,224
Likes
1,135
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
There is a 300 word limit to each Board candidate's AW Journal message. This year, pretty much in response to the postings made on this subject from last year, we set up a new page on the main site - allowing each of the candidates a blank-check to post anything they felt would be useful to those preparing to vote. This is what resulted: http://www.woodturner.org/products/aw/more_info/August_2010/

I consider this a first-pass experiment that is certain to evolve over time. If you have suggestions for next year's "get-to-know-the-candidates" process, please let me or the nominating committee know.
 
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
133
Likes
0
Location
Georgia
Al,

I then suggest you lead-by-example. Put your application in to run for the Board. I may be wrong, but the last time I checked there were only 5 names on the list. If you get "accepted", you can do exactly as you propose and leverage the other candidates to go right along with you. Just keep Ed's stats in mind that the number of AAW members you'll actually reach through this board is quite small, then do the cost/benefit analysis.

Who knows, you might just get the votes with your approach. :D

Mark . . . better hold off on your plans for organizing a PAC on behalf of my candidacy for the Board. I'm guessing there will be a problem with that "accepted" part of your post. The harsh reality is that I've already been removed from the Bylaws Committee. Sort of leads me to believe that I would not be accepted for Board candidacy. I'm guessing it was one too many of those "Fall on your swords" posts.

By the way, I wouldn't for a minute think that I would ever be nominated for the BOD. Not to worry . . . I know my station in life. ;)
 
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
133
Likes
0
Location
Georgia
Al,

The AAW has historically had a policy against campaigning for positions on the board. In the AAW's culture, a candidate simply wrote a statement on why he or she wanted to serve on the board. Each candidate's statement was published in the journal and that was about all we heard from the candidates prior to the election. For good or ill, this culture grew up because the organization feared the divisive nature of active campaigning for the board. Considering that history, it's doubtful that any candidate would be likely to do as you suggest -- post on the forum the candidate's vision for the AAW. (Such a vision, in theory, would be part of the candidate's statement that's already in the journal and is on the website.) Nothing, however, prevents you from posting your critique of each candidates published statements.

David . . . Looks like this is another matter in a long list of issues that the Bylaws Committee needs to address. Technology has grown right along with the AAW. What might not have been acceptable 25 or 20 or even 5 years ago, may now be the cultural norm. The media and mass communication are no longer limited to hard copy journals or newspapers. It think you get my drift.

On another note, I never realized that the AAW has "historically had a policy against campaigning for positions on the Board". If you'll take a look at the August issue of American Turner, you will find three of the candidates, including President Wirsing, openly soliciting the members' votes.

Just to clarify my points of reference:

John Ellis: "I offer my full support and ask for your vote."

Botho von Hampelin: "I hope I can count on your vote."

President Tom Wirsing: "I ask for your support." And "Please support me for another term on the board of directors."

I imagine, David, that you'll have some other interpretation of their statements. I'd be interesting in hearing it.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
Mark . . . better hold off on your plans for organizing a PAC on behalf of my candidacy for the Board.

Sorry, hadn't made any plans, Al. I was involved in a PAC many years ago. Once was more than enough.

But, hey, you'll never know 'till you try. Worst the committee can say is "no."
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
578
Likes
7
Location
Mesa, Arizona
...
On another note, I never realized that the AAW has "historically had a policy against campaigning for positions on the Board". If you'll take a look at the August issue of American Turner, you will find three of the candidates, including President Wirsing, openly soliciting the members' votes.

Just to clarify my points of reference:

John Ellis: "I offer my full support and ask for your vote."

Botho von Hampelin: "I hope I can count on your vote."

President Tom Wirsing: "I ask for your support." And "Please support me for another term on the board of directors."

I imagine, David, that you'll have some other interpretation of their statements. I'd be interesting in hearing it.

Dude,

I in the very next sentence after I said we've historically had a policy against campaigning, I specifically mentioned the candidates' statements printed in the journal. Your duty as a reader is to interpret the two sentences in a manner that avoids unnecessary conflict. In this case, my meaning should have been clear: Other than the statement from each candidate printed in the Journal, the AAW has frowned on public campaigning for seats on the board. But then, given your education, I suspect you knew what I meant and were merely trying to have some fun at my expense. Ha! Dude, you're such a card!
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
935
Likes
241
Location
Newberg, OR: 20mi SW of Portland: AAW #21058
Dude,

I in the very next sentence after I said we've historically had a policy against campaigning, I specifically mentioned the candidates' statements printed in the journal. Your duty as a reader is to interpret the two sentences in a manner that avoids unnecessary conflict. In this case, my meaning should have been clear: Other than the statement from each candidate printed in the Journal, the AAW has frowned on public campaigning for seats on the board. But then, given your education, I suspect you knew what I meant and were merely trying to have some fun at my expense. Ha! Dude, you're such a card!

My thoughts... not contradicting... Don't know the guidelines currently in place... I would hate to see campaigning involving anything outside of the confines of the AAW "publications" (Journal, website, forum). Outside forums, mailers, etc. should be prohibited. All campaigning venues should be provided by the AAW, of course equally open to all candidates. No money should be allowed to be spent in seeking elected offices.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
156
Likes
0
Location
Central Ohio
My thoughts... not contradicting... Don't know the guidelines currently in place... I would hate to see campaigning involving anything outside of the confines of the AAW "publications" (Journal, website, forum). Outside forums, mailers, etc. should be prohibited. All campaigning venues should be provided by the AAW, of course equally open to all candidates. No money should be allowed to be spent in seeking elected offices.

Dag gone, just when I had a spare $.50 to buy votes too. :D
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
371
Likes
0
Location
SE Kansas
My thoughts... not contradicting... Don't know the guidelines currently in place... I would hate to see campaigning involving anything outside of the confines of the AAW "publications" (Journal, website, forum). Outside forums, mailers, etc. should be prohibited. All campaigning venues should be provided by the AAW, of course equally open to all candidates. No money should be allowed to be spent in seeking elected offices.

What's your explanation/reasoning for what you've stated above?
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
935
Likes
241
Location
Newberg, OR: 20mi SW of Portland: AAW #21058
What's your explanation/reasoning for what you've stated above?

A) It's my belief that the AAW election process should be free from hindrance or advantage due to personal finances. No media buys, no postage, nothing should be allowed to be spent. I assume we hope everyone who volunteers to be considered for the board comes to the decision without any goal of personal gain. By prohibiting any spending in order to obtain a board chair, the opportunity is equal to even the least financially positioned among us.

2) Given the financial prohibition, AAW would then need to make venues available to candidates to disseminate their views. The website is basically free of cost to add new content, the journal already sets aside space, the forum allows semi-instantaneous "discussion" and there is free messaging service that goes along with it.

C) By restricting campaigning to the AAW channels, you equalize the playing field. No one may post to WoW, WoodCentral, or rec.crafts.woodturning :eek: in order to influence large groups of established "friends".

I realize C) above is going to rile some; I see it as equal opportunity for the less internet connected candidate. Perhaps the person not frequenting all the internet sites is busy with a whole plate of activities that will bring myriad strengths as a board member. Do we want a popular board or a skillful one?
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,557
Likes
25
Location
Annandale, New Jersey
Hold that thought, Owen, on your No. 2 for when member usage of the AAW site begins to reach anything like a significant portion of the membership. Right now, it seems like something on the AAW home page might get to some thing under 5% of the members; way less on this screen. At least the journal is the one sure contact with the whole bunch because when the "magazine" don't come on time they scream.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
371
Likes
0
Location
SE Kansas
A) It's my belief that the AAW election process should be free from hindrance or advantage due to personal finances. No media buys, no postage, nothing should be allowed to be spent. I assume we hope everyone who volunteers to be considered for the board comes to the decision without any goal of personal gain. By prohibiting any spending in order to obtain a board chair, the opportunity is equal to even the least financially positioned among us.

2) Given the financial prohibition, AAW would then need to make venues available to candidates to disseminate their views. The website is basically free of cost to add new content, the journal already sets aside space, the forum allows semi-instantaneous "discussion" and there is free messaging service that goes along with it.

C) By restricting campaigning to the AAW channels, you equalize the playing field. No one may post to WoW, WoodCentral, or rec.crafts.woodturning :eek: in order to influence large groups of established "friends".

I realize C) above is going to rile some; I see it as equal opportunity for the less internet connected candidate. Perhaps the person not frequenting all the internet sites is busy with a whole plate of activities that will bring myriad strengths as a board member. Do we want a popular board or a skillful one?[/QUOTE]

I agree with A)
I agree with 2)
I agree with C) ; but, I think we are already there on a smaller scale
And since you asked a question with your last sentence, please clarify one thing for me before I answer: Which do we have now?
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,224
Likes
1,135
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
Hold that thought, Owen, on your No. 2 for when member usage of the AAW site begins to reach anything like a significant portion of the membership. Right now, it seems like something on the AAW home page might get to some thing under 5% of the members; way less on this screen. At least the journal is the one sure contact with the whole bunch because when the "magazine" don't come on time they scream.

Mark,

That is not correct - the main site (woodturner.org) gets a tremendous amount of traffic - 291,305 page views in July. It's not possible to say exactly, but my guess is that on the order of 40 to 60 percent of AAW's membership visit the main site on a fairly regular basis. And, main site visits may grow significantly as the online Journal catches on. BTW, there are over 62,000 other websites linked to woodturner.org

Study this graphic carefully - July forum traffic was about 1/25th of the main sites.

7_2010pageviews.jpg
 
Back
Top