Board Candidates Positions

[Steve Worcester]

.... The touchstone is your comment Ben Pho contributes outright, implying others may not. If the latter do not and part of the auction proceeds are paid to them without public disclosure at the beginning of the auction--a problem exists--serious problem....

I don't see the issue. When you enter something into the auction, EOG or POP, you are given the option of giving all the proceeds to the AAW or taking your (%50-%60? I can't remember). If they don't give a piece at all, the AAW gets nothing. If they give a piece and it sells, worst case the AAW gets a cut.

 

[hockenbery]

Getting more candidates will be a problem because the AAW has always had a problem getting the candidates they have every year. How could they ever get more of them?

The candidates each year since 2006 has varied from 6 to a high of about 19.
Usually it runs in the 9-11 range.
The nominations committee then selects the 6 candidates based on interviews.

Each year board members call and encourage potential candidates to run for the board. To the extent that individual board members build the candidate pool they have distant influence on who is available to get selected.


-Al

 

[George Guadiane]

If the bod selects the candidates, we know were the candidates stand

That would be true IF the board selects the candidates. It doesn't (the nominating committee reviews the applications of those who wish to run for the board). Therefore, there is no truth in your statement.

Rather than cast a shadow on the integrity of people you probably don’t know, why don’t you work for positive change by trying to influence the Bylaws review committee, addressing your underlying concerns...

I would agree that the statement is not well couched as it does seem to give a decided impression of disdain, but as stated below and in further details elsewhere, the BoD does have the OPPORTUNITY to have an impact on the candidate selection process...

The candidates each year since 2006 has varied from 6 to a high of about 19.
Usually it runs in the 9-11 range.
The nominations committee then selects the 6 candidates based on interviews.

Each year board members call and encourage potential candidates to run for the board. To the extent that individual board members build the candidate pool they have distant influence on who is available to get selected.


-Al

For instance, I find it unlikely (NO, I do NOT want a position on the board, or even a nomination) that I (or anyone who spoke as strongly against their actions as I did), for instance would be approached by any sitting Bod member to take a position on the Bod.

The question, then, becomes; at what point would any BoD member approach a prospective candidate who didn't have pretty much the same views and values? In fact, it seems like the stronger THEIR views and the more determined they are to enact THEIR agenda, the less likely ANY person selecting members, ever, would pick or even look seriously at people who were not cut from the same cloth - or am I missing something?

And again, this is no specific reflection on any individual or board, past current or future.. I'm only suggesting that human nature is at play.

 

[George Clark]

I disagree with part of what you say. The board does not approve or disapprove of the candidates.



As I read the section, the board is to ensure those interested, are in fact, eligible candidates by meeting the requirements and then passing the names to the nominating committee. I might argue that this seems to be micro-managing the nominating chair, but there doesn't appear to be any culling of applicants other than to state to the nominating committee that they meet or do not meet the basic requirements.

What's more, there is nothing in the bylaws about the board taking any role in the process (either approving or disapproving of a candidate) after the nominating committee has selected the pool.

As to your first point of the board selecting the nominating committee, it appears to be set up that way. However, instead of jumping to conspiracy accusations, I challenge myself to wonder why it is structured as such. If I can come up with reasons then I can more clearly assess the merits of the control. Can you think of sensible reasons as to why it was done that way?

No conspiracy theory at all. I just wanted to point out that, in my opinion, the current bylaws appear to be carefully crafted to assure the continuity of the leadership, no matter what the rank and file may want. Why else would the board need to review the nominating committee's selections? The requirements to run for the board are clearly spelled out. If you think this board, at least prior to the recent firestorm, would have approved candidates who wanted to put more power in the hands of the membership or move the association in a different direction, then I think you've been drinking kool-aid.

I do hope the the committee tasked with reviewing and revising the bylaws provides for some checks and balances to make the Association responsive to the entire membership and not just to that small group of really important turners.

George Clark
0032620

 

[Owen Lowe]

Note: I added the underlining to the quote:

No conspiracy theory at all. I just wanted to point out that, in my opinion, the current bylaws appear to be carefully crafted to assure the continuity of the leadership, no matter what the rank and file may want. Why else would the board need to review the nominating committee's selections? The requirements to run for the board are clearly spelled out. If you think this board ...snip...would have approved candidates who wanted to put more power in the hands of the membership or move the association in a different direction, then I think you've been drinking kool-aid.

I do hope the the committee tasked with reviewing and revising the bylaws provides for some checks and balances to make the Association responsive to the entire membership and not just to that small group of really important turners.

George Clark
0032620

Again, George, you state that the board has review control of the candidate roster after the nominating committee makes its selections. That's not the case as outlined in the bylaws. It's not very clearly defined what the board's candidate review entails prior to sending the list to the nominating committee, but it doesn't appear the board has any culling abilities and only offers comments referring to the potential candidates meeting the eligibility requirements.

Just FYI, the requirements are pretty minimal:

(a) Qualifications of Candidates

• i. Must be a member in good standing for the past three years
• ii. Must be approved by the nominating committee.

As in my previous post, I question the need to have the board perform the screening prior to the entire list of applicants landing on the nominating committee's table. Seems the nominating chair and committee can determine a candidate's eligibility. Perhaps one of the current or past directors can chime in to relate how the process works and how the setup serves the process.

Here's the link to the bylaws:
http://www.woodturner.org/info/AAW_bylaws_07_2010.pdf

 

[hockenbery]

The question, then, becomes; at what point would any BoD member approach a prospective candidate who didn't have pretty much the same views and values? In fact, it seems like the stronger THEIR views and the more determined they are to enact THEIR agenda, the less likely ANY person selecting members, ever, would pick or even look seriously at people who were not cut from the same cloth - or am I missing something?

the call for board candidates goes out to all AAW members every year.
Any member who has been a member for 3 years and can apply to be a candidate. They need to find two AAW members to recommend them.
You can urge any AAW member to run and write one of their recommendation letters.

I have suggested that a couple of people run for the board. I did so based on leadership qualities they displayed with their clubs and regional symposiums. I never quizzed them on any AAW issues.

Why would any board member want to be surrounded by people that think exactly alike? be pretty dull and unproductive.

The AAW boards I served on were not homogeneous in any sense. Nine different people who brought ideas to the table and represented the membership the way each though was best.

-Al

 

[davidwalser]

...
As in my previous post, I question the need to have the board perform the screening prior to the entire list of applicants landing on the nominating committee's table. Seems the nominating chair and committee can determine a candidate's eligibility. Perhaps one of the current or past directors can chime in to relate how the process works and how the setup serves the process.
...

I cannot speak for the AAW, but, based on other non-profits I've worked with, I can comment on the purpose of having the board review the candidates applications before they are submitted on to the nominating committee. One of the problems facing many not-for-profits is getting a good mix of candidates for the board. It's not uncommon for the "self-selection process" to generate over representation of one demographic or another. Or, the board may have need of a member with a particular technical skill and no one with that skill set volunteered. In such cases, it's not uncommon for members of the board to be asked to help recruit people to submit their applications. Since the board members know the most about the current make up of the board, they are the best positioned to know whether the board is becoming out of balance.

Does such a system create a potential for abuse? Of course it does. At the same time, the system addresses a practical need most not-for-profit boards face -- frequently the best candidates don't self-select. They're already busy serving in other areas of their lives. They often need to be recruited. Having the board review the applications of the candidates allows an important opportunity to find additional candidates if necessary. Recall, it's up to the nominating committee to determine which names appear on the ballot and its up to the members to determine which candidates are elected. The board is pretty far removed from actually determining who will be elected to serve.

If any of you can come up with a better solution, I'm sure the members of the bylaw committee would be happy to entertain them.

 

[George Clark]

Note: I added the underlining to the quote:


Again, George, you state that the board has review control of the candidate roster after the nominating committee makes its selections. That's not the case as outlined in the bylaws. It's not very clearly defined what the board's candidate review entails prior to sending the list to the nominating committee, but it doesn't appear the board has any culling abilities and only offers comments referring to the potential candidates meeting the eligibility requirements.

Just FYI, the requirements are pretty minimal:


As in my previous post, I question the need to have the board perform the screening prior to the entire list of applicants landing on the nominating committee's table. Seems the nominating chair and committee can determine a candidate's eligibility. Perhaps one of the current or past directors can chime in to relate how the process works and how the setup serves the process.

Here's the link to the bylaws:
http://www.woodturner.org/info/AAW_bylaws_07_2010.pdf

Owen,

I stand corrected. From 5.18(d)iiii, The board reviews the list of candidates before it goes to the nominating committee. Thus no candidate that the board deems not "qualified" even gets to the nominating committee.

My point remains the same. The current board, under the current bylaws, has within their power, the ability to control who is on the succeeding board. This, in my opinion, is a system totally open to abuse, even by well meaning people.

George Clark
0032620

 

[davidwalser]

...

My point remains the same. The current board, under the current bylaws, has within their power, the ability to control who is on the succeeding board. This, in my opinion, is a system totally open to abuse, even by well meaning people.
...

If you have a better approach, I'm confident the bylaw committee would love to hear your suggestions.

 

[George Guadiane]

the call for board candidates goes out to all AAW members every year.
Any member who has been a member for 3 years and can apply to be a candidate. They need to find two AAW members to recommend them.
You can urge any AAW member to run and write one of their recommendation letters.

I have suggested that a couple of people run for the board. I did so based on leadership qualities they displayed with their clubs and regional symposiums. I never quizzed them on any AAW issues.

Why would any board member want to be surrounded by people that think exactly alike? be pretty dull and unproductive.

The AAW boards I served on were not homogeneous in any sense. Nine different people who brought ideas to the table and represented the membership the way each though was best.

-Al

I didn't say "exactly" (didn't come close). I would think that few if any want to spend an extended term arguing with people who have opposing agendas.

I'm just saying that I believe individuals with a common ideology could form a group of like minds to enact a common agenda and might seek out other like minds to further their ends. It's (human?) nature.
Recently, that is pretty much what happened here.

Power...

 

[Owen Lowe]

Owen,

I stand corrected. From 5.18(d)iiii, The board reviews the list of candidates before it goes to the nominating committee. Thus no candidate that the board deems not "qualified" even gets to the nominating committee.

George, I don't know that you can jump to that conclusion -- that the board does anything other than offer comment on an ineligible candidate. To you, review means something other than assess, examine, appraise or evaluate. You are giving "review" a more physically active role to block a candidate's progress. I don't agree with your interpretation -- unless I am looking to find nefarious activity.

In the one instance made public recently, when the former exec. director's husband applied for candidacy, the board merely registered concern regarding conflict of interest. It was the director who physically acted to block his application from the nominating committee, not the board.

Above all of this, I am not defending the bylaw as it is written; it may well be better to amend this item. I don't understand the purpose of board review but don't want to throw it out if it exists to serve a reasonable purpose. I refuse, however, to jump to the conclusion that it exists for this board or any board to orchestrate and ensure the ideological makeup of future board members. If that were indeed the case, then this board's ideology would be just like every board preceding it and there wouldn't be an outcry about how far they've strayed from the past.

 

[Al Stramiello]

I've been following this thread with great interest. It seems to me that how the current, or past, Boards have operationalized the word "review" is pretty much a moot point. I think we're expending negative energy by trying to determine the extent of the BOD's role in reviewing the list of candidates.

To be honest with you, I'd rather see us focus our energy on making suggestions to the Bylaws Review Committee.

How do we think the future Board members should be selected?
What might the Bylaws revision look like?
How could it be presented in crystal clear language that is not open to misinterpretation?

The Bylaws Review Committee is asking for input. Let's give them some suggested revisions to consider.

 

[Betty Scarpino]

I've been following this thread with great interest. It seems to me that how the current, or past, Boards have operationalized the word "review" is pretty much a moot point. I think we're expending negative energy by trying to determine the extent of the BOD's role in reviewing the list of candidates.

To be honest with you, I'd rather see us focus our energy on making suggestions to the Bylaws Review Committee.

How do we think the future Board members should be selected?
What might the Bylaws revision look like?
How could it be presented in crystal clear language that is not open to misinterpretation?

The Bylaws Review Committee is asking for input. Let's give them some suggested revisions to consider.

Al,
I've been asked to publish the revised bylaws in the December issue of the journal (probably an insert) for membership approval. The deadline for submissions is mid-October at the latest. That means that all the suggested revisions need to be finished by early October.

The committee is working on the bylaw revision right now. If you want your suggestions to be taken into consideration, I'm guessing that you'd need to send your comments to the committee right away (aawbylaws@gmail.com).

Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[Stuart Johnson]

Al,
I'm guessing that you'd need to send your comments to the committee right away (aawbylaws@gmail.com).

Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

The rush might not serve the membership best if the revised by-laws are presented as all or nothing. Take just the BOD and how they are nominated, individual powers, removing a director, replacing a director for what ever reason. I hope we can agree on a good revision and not just a compromise that we can live with.

I'll try to write my thoughts up in greater detail and send them to the committee.

 

[Royce Wallace]

by law amendments

I join with Betty in urging all of you to furnish your recommendations to the by law revisions committee. Start by reviewing the Minnesota statutory provisions applicable to corporations and in particular non profit types. They are available on line.
My personal concern has to do with agenda control and ethics committee structure-power.
Secondly, the up or down process is, I believe, a concern. Without a doubt the membership will be 'confronted' with an accomplished fact-take it or leave it. The better process is to published proposed amendments with an opportunity for membership to provide feed back and suggestions to be considered before submission for a membership vote. Thus the process would be open as opposed to closed drafting and confrontation.

 

[Betty Scarpino]

I join with Betty in urging all of you to furnish your recommendations to the by law revisions committee. Start by reviewing the Minnesota statutory provisions applicable to corporations and in particular non profit types. They are available on line.
My personal concern has to do with agenda control and ethics committee structure-power.
Secondly, the up or down process is, I believe, a concern. Without a doubt the membership will be 'confronted' with an accomplished fact-take it or leave it. The better process is to published proposed amendments with an opportunity for membership to provide feed back and suggestions to be considered before submission for a membership vote. Thus the process would be open as opposed to closed drafting and confrontation.

I do not know exactly how the committee intends to proceed or how it intends to offer to the membership the bylaws (other than them asking for space in the December journal). Best to ask a committee member before assuming a rush job or take-it-or-leave-it scenario.

But someone has to make the decisions and the committee is large, so there will already be lots of opinions and input. Also, the committee has published a call for input. At some point, a vote needs to happen. Now is the time to debate. I'm guessing December is the time to vote.

Royce, the process already is open to suggestions and debate. I don't see a problem with publishing the results for a vote of "yes" or "no" in the December journal. Everyone has a chance, now, to offer suggestions. Seems fair to me. Again, here's the committee's email: aawbylaws@gmail.com

Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[Marvin Hasenak]

I agree now is the time to email your suggestions to the committee. Read the current bylaws and and see where you think they can be improved. It is a do it, now not next week or next month situation.

 

[Dave Moore]

Just FYI, any emails with suggestions sent to the bylaws committee are posted on their very own prominent thread in the forum we are using to communicate with each other.

That's much more efficient for us than each of us having to scan the threads here on this forum ...
Additionally we are trawling through the earlier threads on this forum, extracting the ideas and concerns that have been expressed there, and collecting them together into something manageable.
The easy part is understanding the concerns, indeed many of us on the committee share them, the not-so-easy part is figuring out what to do about them.

The scope of this task is large, and we are committed to trying our very best to having it all together for the December Journal, as Betty said.
You can well imagine that the sooner we receive your ideas the better. Please do let us have them ASAP.

 

[George Clark]

I've been following this thread with great interest. It seems to me that how the current, or past, Boards have operationalized the word "review" is pretty much a moot point. I think we're expending negative energy by trying to determine the extent of the BOD's role in reviewing the list of candidates.

To be honest with you, I'd rather see us focus our energy on making suggestions to the Bylaws Review Committee.

How do we think the future Board members should be selected?
What might the Bylaws revision look like?
How could it be presented in crystal clear language that is not open to misinterpretation?

The Bylaws Review Committee is asking for input. Let's give them some suggested revisions to consider.

Al,

I agree, the horse is probably dead and our sticks are broken. I'm not a lawyer and I don't serve on any boards so I'm not sure I can be as vocal (read wordy) about the the solution as I was the problem. Wisely, no one asked me to be on the "fix the bylaws committee." My goal was to help identify at least one area where I perceived a problem.

With that being said, I see no reason for the the board to review the list of candidates. The nominating committee, having one current board member and one former board member has, in my opinion, enough and perhaps too much "board" input already. Perhaps the qualifications for serving on the board could stand a bit of a tune up. Not nearly enough information is provided, in my opinion, about the various candidates for the membership to make an informed choice. Perhaps that is why the voting is so light. It also might that their is not a lot of diversity in the candidates. To suggest that the individual members should take on the role of acquainting themselves with the candidates is a viable solution only if no one does it. I don't think 12,000 or 13,000 emails essentially asking the same questions is a great plan. Instead of a 1/2 page statement how about a two page statement in the journal with some specific guidance on what is to be covered. Having each candidate answer and then publish a well thought out questionnaire in the Journal could provide additional information.

George Clark
0032620

 

[DOCworks]

Questions

I would like to know what direction they (new board members) see the AAW going? Not to bring up a sore spot, but is the organization going to cater more to the "Studio" turner who shows in exclusive galleries and museums? The main body of the AAW is the weekend warrior or non professional turners. I get that there has been a real effort to get Woodturning recongnized for the art form it is and get proper respect in the art community and I appreciate the hard work that has been done to this end. But, who on the board is going to look after all "our" best interest?

What are they going to do to make sure the next Symposium is better than the last? I know it's the 25th coming up but I'm not spending money to go to this event just to be there for the 25th anniversary. I want value for my money spent. This last one was a bit stale and I heard that from several attendees, I'm not saying it wasn't successful, but what are you (new board members) going to do to keep it fresh and successful?

That's what I want to see in our leadership.
Bill

 

[Andy Hoyt]

Al,
I've been asked to publish the revised bylaws in the December issue of the journal (probably an insert) for membership approval. The deadline for submissions is mid-October at the latest. That means that all the suggested revisions need to be finished by early October.

The committee is working on the bylaw revision right now. If you want your suggestions to be taken into consideration, I'm guessing that you'd need to send your comments to the committee right away (aawbylaws@gmail.com).

Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

These By Law issues have been festering towards a nasty catch for many many years, or so it would seem.

This newly established committee has to sort out the pieces, develop a responsible and reasoned approach, do the required research, and develop a proposal. They have to do this for free, and on their own time.

Restricting this endeavor to a two month process (as stated in the highlighted text above) for the sake of a journal deadline is, in my estimation, a gross miscarriage of the mandate handed to the committee.

Let your December posting of the By Laws be the current document so that when the proposals are eventually made down the road, they'll be available to all for reference purposes.

Give it and them time, and let them apply all reasonable diligence to the cause.

 

[davidwalser]

These By Law issues have been festering towards a nasty catch for many many years, or so it would seem.

This newly established committee has to sort out the pieces, develop a responsible and reasoned approach, do the required research, and develop a proposal. They have to do this for free, and on their own time.

Restricting this endeavor to a two month process (as stated in the highlighted text above) for the sake of a journal deadline is, in my estimation, a gross miscarriage of the mandate handed to the committee.

Let your December posting of the By Laws be the current document so that when the proposals are eventually made down the road, they'll be available to all for reference purposes.

Give it and them time, and let them apply all reasonable diligence to the cause.

Andy,

I appreciate your understanding of the size of the task the committee is undertaking. However, we think the time commitment is something we can work within.

I hope everyone understands that our goal is not to write a masterpiece. The bylaws won't be etched in stone and will be amendable. While we are striving to do the best job of drafting that we can, we won't be (too) offended if the membership wants to make some changes once we're done.

Again, it would help if everyone chimed in now. We take each suggestion seriously.

 

[KellyDunn]

Bill, if you go to enough symposiums you get to the point where you have seen the same people several times. You then look at the roster to pick out fresh topics for your interests. But in reality some of the best things about a symposium for me tend to be the talking with others. The one on one. With or without a beer in hand. Some of the best learning I get is in group talks in the bar or in a hotel room or a walk through the instant gallery with one or more folks with critique in mind. Since there are plenty of folks I respect what they do its not hard for me to have a great time while maybe attending only a few classes. So stale is a state of mind. Change that focus and you can learn and explore much more than those stale old classrooms. And a big symposium sure gives you lots of choices.

 

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I agree with Andy.

To do it right will take more than 2 months. I would suggest Andy's suggestion is a sage one.

Don't rush it just to make a publication deadline.

I have worked on such an endeavor where we met 3 to 4 times a month for 2 to 4 hours each session. It took about 6 months do develop a document that was democratic, balanced power between the board and members, protected the organization and yet gave officers freedom to conduct business for the organization without taking advantage of same.

Allow the committee to take the time to do it correctly.

(I have to admit it hurts to publicly agree with Andy.)

 

[Al Stramiello]

Andy,

I appreciate your understanding of the size of the task the committee is undertaking. However, we think the time commitment is something we can work within.

I hope everyone understands that our goal is not to write a masterpiece. The bylaws won't be etched in stone and will be amendable. While we are striving to do the best job of drafting that we can, we won't be (too) offended if the membership wants to make some changes once we're done.

Again, it would help if everyone chimed in now. We take each suggestion seriously.

David
Thanks for your post. While my expectations may be unrealistic, I, personally, am looking for a masterful revision of the Bylaws. I suspect that I'm not alone with my perception. The posts made over the last six weeks clearly show the high level of energy that has been expended by the AAW members. The anxiety level is near the top of the chart when it comes to the AAW Bylaws. Interest in the revisions runs very deep. I would rather see you and the other committee members spend a longer length of time on revising the Bylaws and getting them "right" . . . than on setting an unrealistically short time frame with the thought that whatever you come up with will be "amendable". Bylaws are always amendable. I would just like to see the committee make them near masterful . . . resulting in a document that has the need for being "less amendable". If you get my drift.

Incidentally, in my thinking, the Bylaws revision is just one piece of the puzzle. As I wrote in my first email to the Committee, there is also the matter of the Mission Statement, a well developed Conceptual Framework, and then after the Bylaws . . a clearly written, comprehensive, policies and procedures manual.

 

[hockenbery]

What are they going to do to make sure the next Symposium is better than the last? I know it's the 25th coming up but I'm not spending money to go to this event just to be there for the 25th anniversary. I want value for my money spent. This last one was a bit stale and I heard that from several attendees, I'm not saying it wasn't successful, but what are you (new board members) going to do to keep it fresh and successful?
Bill

Bill,
Most of the 2011 symposium content will be set before the new board members are seated Jan 1, 2011.

The invited attendees are on the symposium site http://www.woodturner.org/sym/sym2011/
the applicants will be selected in November.

What would you like to see??

By stale you mean too many chips? too many boxes? too many hollow forms? too many bowls? to many multi-axis?
too many folks that were recently at the Florida Symspoium😉?
a fifth of the presenters... that is just a coincidence
I just checked 8 of 18 invitees have been at the Florida symposium recently

2010 saw the first intimate critiques in the Instant gallery, the first emerging artists, at least 30 demonstrations given for the first time at an AAW.

If you or anyone has somebody or something to recommend let the sympsoium comittee know.

-Al

 

[davidwalser]

David
Thanks for your post. While my expectations may be unrealistic, I, personally, am looking for a masterful revision of the Bylaws. I suspect that I'm not alone with my perception. The posts made over the last six weeks clearly show the high level of energy that has been expended by the AAW members. The anxiety level is near the top of the chart when it comes to the AAW Bylaws. Interest in the revisions runs very deep. I would rather see you and the other committee members spend a longer length of time on revising the Bylaws and getting them "right" . . . than on setting an unrealistically short time frame with the thought that whatever you come up with will be "amendable". Bylaws are always amendable. I would just like to see the committee make them near masterful . . . resulting in a document that has the need for being "less amendable". If you get my drift.

Incidentally, in my thinking, the Bylaws revision is just one piece of the puzzle. As I wrote in my first email to the Committee, there is also the matter of the Mission Statement, a well developed Conceptual Framework, and then after the Bylaws . . a clearly written, comprehensive, policies and procedures manual.

Al,

Your email was the first or second we received. Thank you, and the other six members who've taken the time to write, for your input.

We hope to do a masterful job with our task. However, my personal goal is not to produce anything akin to poetry. Nor are any of us suffering from a delusion that no one will be critical of our effort -- too many are asking for things that are 180 degrees apart in direction.

As for the time it will take, none of us know for sure. I can say when the deadline was first proposed to us, the first question was whether we should do a thorough job or meet the deadline. We all agreed that a thorough job was more important than the deadline. Having said that, I expect we'll be able to do a thorough job and still meet the deadline. Is it an aggressive goal? Yes. Might something come up that prevents us from meeting the goal? Of course. It's a worthy goal and one we are working towards meeting -- thoroughly.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[Al Stramiello]

Al,

Your email was the first or second we received. Thank you, and the other six members who've taken the time to write, for your input.

We hope to do a masterful job with our task. However, my personal goal is not to produce anything akin to poetry. Nor are any of us suffering from a delusion that no one will be critical of our effort -- too many are asking for things that are 180 degrees apart in direction.

As for the time it will take, none of us know for sure. I can say when the deadline was first proposed to us, the first question was whether we should do a thorough job or meet the deadline. We all agreed that a thorough job was more important than the deadline. Having said that, I expect we'll be able to do a thorough job and still meet the deadline. Is it an aggressive goal? Yes. Might something come up that prevents us from meeting the goal? Of course. It's a worthy goal and one we are working towards meeting -- thoroughly.

I hope this makes sense.

Okay David, thanks for the response. Now . . . quit posting in the forum and go get busy on those Bylaws!!

PS I almost added . . . "and don't come out of your bedroom until they're done!" But, I resisted . . . sort of.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Okay David, thanks for the response. Now . . . quit posting in the forum and go get busy on those Bylaws!!

PS I almost added . . . "and don't come out of your bedroom until they're done!" But, I resisted . . . sort of.

But . but I hafa goto da paaaaahty. . . an. . .an . .

coo I hava gwass a wahter?

😀

 

[Dave Moore]

Aha!
I knew if I searched around I'd find the committee playing hooky around here somewhere.
Loading frogs into a wheelbarrow under time pressure ... man, it doesn't get any better than that.
That's why we get the big bucks, right?
:cool2:

 

[Ron Sardo]

Get back to work you guys, we got a wheelbarrow worth of work to accomplish. 😉😀

 

[DOCworks]

Candidates

Al, you are right about the Florida Symposium that was a coincidence or maybe the Florida Symposium only gets the best? 😀 You can never have too many chips, bowls, boxes or multi-axis turning. There is always going to be presentations you have got to see and others not so much, just because everyone’s taste is different. Also I agree that meeting with fellow turners and discussing projects and even picking on the demonstrators is a wonderful opportunity to learn and grow. My first symposium will always stand out as the best, period. And maybe this time it was just me, maybe. But I want our leadership to understand that while getting the “best” demonstrators for the symposium is important their responsibility does not end there. Keeping a pulse on what the new trends are, putting together different venues for showing and sharing, making available different venues to ask questions or express ideas. This is some of the creative ideas I would like to see in our leadership. I think it’s great what some of our candidates have done in the past, but how about some campaign promises so we can see if they also have the creative juices that are needed to take this organization forward, not just run it well. I’m not so naive as to think any new idea is going to be wildly successful, but if you don’t try new stuff…, even the good events get boring.

 

[Frank F]

​

The only answer I could respect from a non-incumbent candidate would be:

"I am unable to give a definitive answer. I wasn't there during the lead up to termination nor was I in the room during the vote. Any agree or disagree answer without first-hand knowledge within the context of the situation would only be reckless speculation."

Let's suppose that a non-incumbent was running for President of the US and that there were two major controversial issues - like two wars overseas. Would you really respect a candidate that when asked questions about the wars and what he/she planned to do about them respond with:

"I am unable to give a definitive answer. I have not had access to the intelligence as our current President has had, nor was I in the room when the decisions leading up to the wars were made. Any answer with out access to the daily intelligence briefings or first hand knowledge of that intelligence would only be reckless speculation."​

I don't think any voter would, nor should, accept an answer like that.

The controversy over the BOD's actions is one of the most divisive I've seen. Ducking this issue by the candidates is, IMHO, irresponsible.

The Mary issue is over. But asking a candidate to offer opinion on how the BOD handled the situation and what, if anything, should be done to heal the divide is certainly a valid question. Regardless on which side they fall, if the issue is important to voter, if allows the voter to make an informed decision.

Frank

P.S. The comparison I raised was only for comparison of logic. I am in no way comparing the seriousness of the two issues- -not even a little bit. So please don't accuse me of such.