• We just finished a fairly major forum upgrade. If you are having problems using the forums, please clear your browser cache and that should clear up any issues. Otherwise post in the Help Thread or email us at forum_moderator@aawforum.org. Happy Holidays!
  • It's time to cast your vote in the December 2024 Turning Challenge. (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Vincent Luciani for "Flower Pot" being selected as Turning of the Week for December 23, 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.

Bylaws, what would you change?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess this causes me to ask the purpose of the minutes? I was under the impression it was to use as a history of developments and changes -- a record of the discussion's pros and cons with a resolution decided upon.

Qwen, maybe the minutes should be a historical record of who said what, but that's not what Robert's Rules require. In fact, Roberts Rules say to do just the opposite. If there is a strong desire to have the Board minutes reflect something more, then a Bylaws change might be required, compelling the Board to follow a different doctrine. But if that were done, I suspect a lot more business would be conducted in private executive session – so the effect will be nil.
 
Last edited:
... Minutes do need to reflect what people said, and who said what, so you have linkage to how actions transpired. ...

I've seen minutes kept both ways. As a board member, I prefer detailed minutes stating who said what and so forth. It allows me to better remember what transpired in prior meetings, which I feel helps me be better prepared for the current meeting's discussion. It also helps me remember the context of the decisions that were made and prevents my raising points that were discussed in prior meetings (unless I think those points warrant reconsideration).

I also understand the argument in favor of minutes that just summarize the "official actions" of the board -- the motions made, votes taken, and such. The argument is that, by not recording who says what, board members may be more candid in their remarks and more willing to brain storm. Like the debate about video cameras in the court room, I think people behave differently when they know there's a record of what they say and do. That can be both good and bad.

I think each board should be able to decide which approach works best for them. What works best may depend on the makeup of the board.
 
David,

Interesting and very valid point for sure; I am against cameras in a court room and I do think that influences how people behave. I think that stems more from media exposure opportunities, and/or fears if you will, than accountability, though.

And yep, I'm more in favor of detailed Minutes, and prior to a public release of said Minutes, the board has a chance to review those and approve, correct, amend prior to release which is different than media in a court room. But yep, I do prefer detailed Minutes.
 
Last edited:
Detailed minutes, within reason, are the recorded history of an organization's workings. Without details, they serve little purpose other than taking attendance.
 
Detailed minutes, within reason, are the recorded history of an organization's workings. Without details, they serve little purpose other than taking attendance.

Unfortunately, with the exception of CNN, no one takes minutes to the detail those here are requesting.
 
Sorry, Steve, that's not quite true that 'nobody does other than CNN:' I always did. Took yes, that detailed of Minutes. And yep, off and on, I did that - depending on if the Secretary of the Board was there or not - for the better part of 25 years. In fact, I did it the first 15 years as at that time it was an Advisory Committee. After it became a Board of Directors, then the Secretary did that most of the time; in her absence, I did it. That's the way you can tell what went on, the direction of a Board.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, with the exception of CNN, no one takes minutes to the detail those here are requesting.

Maybe they should in light of what is currently going on?
I mean, this isn't Watergate, but there is certainly a lot more information needed than has been reported.
 
Maybe they should [record detailed minutes] in light of what is currently going on?
I mean, this isn't Watergate, but there is certainly a lot more information needed than has been reported.

In theory, that would work great. In practice, I don't know it would make much difference. Anything potentially controversial would be discussed in an executive session -- where the minutes wouldn't be published.
 
In theory, that would work great. In practice, I don't know it would make much difference. Anything potentially controversial would be discussed in an executive session -- where the minutes wouldn't be published.

😕Now THAT'S the transparency I'm looking for!:mad:
 
😕Now THAT'S the transparency I'm looking for!:mad:

I hear you. I just don't know how to resolve the problem. People talk more freely and more candidly if they know that their conversations are private. This seems to be part of the human condition, because it's true for just about everyone. Husbands and wives say things to each other in private that they wouldn't in public. That's both good and bad.

We want boards to work well together and for each member to be willing to be honest and candid. That seems to require a fair amount of privacy. On the other hand, we want transparency. We want to be able to hold, not just the board, but each board member, accountable. How can we do that unless we know what each board member says and does? How can we know what each board member says and does and still grant the board privacy? I don't think anyone's come up with a solution to that problem. I don't think a solution exists.
 
Nominating

1.) The process of electing people to the BoD should be open to any and all comers- no committee necessary. If 20 people want to run, then 20 people are on the ballot. Just like in America. Top three vote getters are elected.

This is one thing I've given some thought to, and went back and read the President's letter regarding the institution of the nominating committee screening process. That President was Alan Lacer, by the way, and he supported the current system at that time. There is a possibility of a very popular person being elected who is not really competent to be a board member without some form of screening. But, that could happen even with screening. On the other hand, the current system could promote a dynasty of boards and nominating committees keeping out divergent viewpoints.

My proposal would be a hybrid. Keep the current system but allow others to be nominated, by some petition approved by a certain number of members, and be placed on the ballot without board approval.

If the board is doing a good job, the membership might be prejudiced to see the outsider as being unsatisfactory. If the board is not doing a good job, the outsider without board endorsement might be seen as the favorite. Strikes a good balance to me.

From the membership standpoint, we need more information and opinion from candidates than we are getting. I don't have a solution for that, but I understand that there are rules limiting campaigning. Perhaps that needs to be altered in some way.

Mel Turcanik #7743
 
In the only two boardroom experiences I've had, neither as a Board member but as a construction manager whose presence was required at the meetings for the duration of the projects in which I was involved, the minutes were taken meticulously in shorthand in one instance, and recorded on tape in the other.

The published minutes, on the other hand, were much more perfunctory; they identified any motions and the results of any votes, mentioned any reports given (though not the contents in any detail), and aside from an occasional brief description of the larger points in any discussions leading up to a vote that was about it.

But at least there was an accurate record. Somewhere. I have no clue where they were kept or who had access other than the Board members themselves. But they did exist, and presumably could be dragged out of hiding in the event they were needed for some reason.

Both entities were non-profits btw, involved in historic preservation.
 
I hear you. I just don't know how to resolve the problem. People talk more freely and more candidly if they know that their conversations are private. This seems to be part of the human condition, because it's true for just about everyone. Husbands and wives say things to each other in private that they wouldn't in public. That's both good and bad.

We want boards to work well together and for each member to be willing to be honest and candid. That seems to require a fair amount of privacy. On the other hand, we want transparency. We want to be able to hold, not just the board, but each board member, accountable. How can we do that unless we know what each board member says and does? How can we know what each board member says and does and still grant the board privacy? I don't think anyone's come up with a solution to that problem. I don't think a solution exists.

Your post brings b]me back to the cornerstone of my sociospiritualemotionalmoralpolitcalhumane existence... All actions and statements are choice. If everyone acted as if God were watching, all of the time, none of this would be an issue... The funny thing is, God IS watching all of the time.

I don't mention the big "G" very often, because of those who don't believe, understand or agree, but something somewhere out there is a moral compass.

The solution is simple, be truthful, be honest, take your lumps when you're wrong and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When I stand up, when I act out, As much as I can, i seat my indignence and shame in the words I believe... Everything is a choice.
 
George, you're turning out to be a stand up kind of guy (which I suspected all along but didn't want to tell anyone). We might have to keep you around!
 
Last edited:
George, you're turning out to be a stand kind of guy (which I suspected all along but didn't want to tell anyone). We might have to keep you around!

(weeping a little) thanks
 
Your post brings b]me back to the cornerstone of my sociospiritualemotionalmoralpolitcalhumane existence... All actions and statements are choice. If everyone acted as if God were watching, all of the time, none of this would be an issue... The funny thing is, God IS watching all of the time.

I don't mention the big "G" very often, because of those who don't believe, understand or agree, but something somewhere out there is a moral compass.

The solution is simple, be truthful, be honest, take your lumps when you're wrong and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When I stand up, when I act out, As much as I can, i seat my indignence and shame in the words I believe... Everything is a choice.

George - I believe this is the biggest problem with a lot of society and I think this is happening here. Somebody does wrong but they want to blame someone else for their bad actions. Somewhere is this mess somebody did wrong but will not take their lumps. They instead want to blame someone else. I have my ideas of which side has done wrong but there could be some on both sides. There have been times when I have confessed to doing wrong and others have been incredulous that I would do that. They were of the opinion you should lie or just hope nobody finds out. I hope this is not the case with the supporters on either side of this mess.

William N. Nelson
 
George - I believe this is the biggest problem with a lot of society and I think this is happening here. Somebody does wrong but they want to blame someone else for their bad actions. Somewhere is this mess somebody did wrong but will not take their lumps. They instead want to blame someone else. ...

William,

I suspect that the real tragedy here is both sides honestly believe they are in the right. That may be why its been so difficult to reach an acceptable resolution. Neither side will give in because they are both sure they are right and the other side is wrong. I've seen divorces like this, and it doesn't end pretty.
 
George - I believe this is the biggest problem with a lot of society and I think this is happening here. Somebody does wrong but they want to blame someone else for their bad actions. Somewhere is this mess somebody did wrong but will not take their lumps. They instead want to blame someone else. I have my ideas of which side has done wrong but there could be some on both sides. There have been times when I have confessed to doing wrong and others have been incredulous that I would do that. They were of the opinion you should lie or just hope nobody finds out. I hope this is not the case with the supporters on either side of this mess.

William N. Nelson

I have no doubt that there have been missteps on all sides. You are not the only one who admits when you're wrong, but there are a number of holdouts here.
In full disclosure, I have a lot more issues with the board about the way that they handled this, then about whether or not they even should have handled this, but that being said, the board seems most intransigent about any failure or wrongdoing (IMHO).

I would love it if everyone would stand up and own up and let us decide, based on their truthful admissions (rather than accusations), what to do with them.
 
William,

I suspect that the real tragedy here is both sides honestly believe they are in the right. That may be why its been so difficult to reach an acceptable resolution. Neither side will give in because they are both sure they are right and the other side is wrong. I've seen divorces like this, and it doesn't end pretty.

That is an area where we disagree. I don't believe that. There is some failure of truth and it is purposeful, like in a divorce. Whether it's assets or infidelity, someone has something to hide, usually damaging or they wouldn't hid it.

At this point, whoever doesn't/won't answer the questions has something to hide.
 
I have no doubt that there have been missteps on all sides. You are not the only one who admits when you're wrong, but there are a number of holdouts here.
In full disclosure, I have a lot more issues with the board about the way that they handled this, then about whether or not they even should have handled this, but that being said, the board seems most intransigent about any failure or wrongdoing (IMHO).

I would love it if everyone would stand up and own up and let us decide, based on their truthful admissions (rather than accusations), what to do with them.

Now I had to get my dictionary out for that one. I'm glad I don't get that one on my crossword puzzles.
I think you are correct. I believe that if some of the BOD had the opportunity to go back and take a different approach they would. But that word above does play a big part. I don't know this to be true but I would like to believe they would take a different tack if given another chance. The possibility that one side or the other is truly "lying" and not just mistaken will be a tragedy. I for one will have a very hard time ever forgiving them. I sincerely hope this to not be the case. Compromise has been suggested by many even by a former BOD member who is standing adviser to the BOD. If I remember correctly he was incredulous that the BOD would not budge. I hope I'm not mistaken on this point.

William N. Nelson
 
This has been very interesting, for the most part. There are a lot of good constructive ideas posted. I would like to add some of my thoughts as well. But before I do I want to add a little history on myself for those who are interested. I have served on our Clubs Board for almost four years. During this time we have amended our bylaws at least two times. These changes were made because they we saw a need to hopefully prevent a future problem, based on problems in our past history. One change was to add term limits. Another change was what to do with the clubs assets should the club fold. They were discussed within the board and then voted on by the membership.

Board Elections:

This seems to be a strong point of contention. I have never cared for the current election process as a whole. I think as many people should be able to run for office as want to. The problem is how to handle it. I do believe that candidates must meet some sort of set requirements. I think it would serve no purpose to elect me to a board if I have no skill sets to handle the job. The sitting board has to have input into the process at some point, which they have now in the interview process. Perhaps we could have a Preliminary Election where all candidates are allowed to present themselves, either on line in a forum or thru the journal or a supplement to the journal. Perhaps the supplement could be sent to all chapter presidents and have it be their responsibility to pass it on the membership. This would greatly reduce the cost as well as give all of the chapters’ ownership in the process. From the preliminary election there would be a predetermined number that would move on to the finials. Out of that group the chosen number would move on to the interview process where the final candidates would be chosen.

Board Meeting Minutes:

This seems to be another strong point of contention. Our Board takes what I think are good minutes of our meetings. They always cover the outcome of the discussions but never the details. They also cover who is responsible for any given task. For instance if it is determined that I will be responsible for a certain task, and then it is in the minutes. However the details of our board conversations are never recorded as it is not important in my view. If I thought that my every comment was being recorded, I would never say anything and thus would be ineffective. I really don’t care that Fred doesn’t like Sam’s idea and that they argue about a point. What I want to see in the end is the outcome of a vote, not how it came about.

Enough thoughts for now, my brain is getting taxed I will add more thoughts later perhaps
 
prposed bylaw changes - a compliation from my posts on another thread.

1. I would re-write 'Section 6.05 President' of the Bylaws to read.

'The President shall be the principal executive officer of the Association with sole responsibility for the supervision of the Executive Director of the
Association. '

As it stands the words ' ...subject to the control of the Board....'
is a possible way in for 9 bosses with 9 or even more opinions - which has caused the problem.

If the President does not perform in respect of effective ED supervision the Directors can ultimately consider a no-confidence vote in the President if all communications break down. But the Directors should not be allowed to meddle with the supervision/management of the paid staff, it's a receipe for disaster.

2. The Agenda and supporting papers for each meeting of the Board shall be circulated to all Board members ‘X’ days prior to the date of the meeting.

3. Only matters listed on the Agenda shall be discussed at that meeting.

4. Giving the President a vote, I have no problem either way.

5. Personally, do not think Board members should be removable by other Board members they have been elected by the membership to represent the membership.

If they transgress specific and defined requirements eg brought the organisation into disrepute, failed to attend for a specified time etc. Let the Ethics committee hold Court and if both they and the President agree that the charge is upheld - the Board member leaves.

6. Unanimous vote to remove ED would be very difficult to get, look at the 6-2 vote now. President should have sole responsibility for ED performance and s/he should take the lead and improve performance or remove ED, keeping BOD informed but not requiring their agreement

7. Some non-profits take the Treasurer's election outside of the Directors election by having a specific skills requirement ie financial qualification/experience etc
 
Last edited:
Brian, agree with you completely, recipe for disaster when Boards mess with the ED, should be a clear-cut chain of command, President of the Board supervises ED, ED supervises staff.
 
This has been very interesting, for the most part. There are a lot of good constructive ideas posted. I would like to add some of my thoughts as well. But before I do I want to add a little history on myself for those who are interested. I have served on our Clubs Board for almost four years. During this time we have amended our bylaws at least two times. These changes were made because they we saw a need to hopefully prevent a future problem, based on problems in our past history. One change was to add term limits. Another change was what to do with the clubs assets should the club fold. They were discussed within the board and then voted on by the membership.

Board Elections:

This seems to be a strong point of contention. I have never cared for the current election process as a whole. I think as many people should be able to run for office as want to. The problem is how to handle it. I do believe that candidates must meet some sort of set requirements. I think it would serve no purpose to elect me to a board if I have no skill sets to handle the job. The sitting board has to have input into the process at some point, which they have now in the interview process. Perhaps we could have a Preliminary Election where all candidates are allowed to present themselves, either on line in a forum or thru the journal or a supplement to the journal. Perhaps the supplement could be sent to all chapter presidents and have it be their responsibility to pass it on the membership. This would greatly reduce the cost as well as give all of the chapters’ ownership in the process. From the preliminary election there would be a predetermined number that would move on to the finials. Out of that group the chosen number would move on to the interview process where the final candidates would be chosen.

Board Meeting Minutes:

This seems to be another strong point of contention. Our Board takes what I think are good minutes of our meetings. They always cover the outcome of the discussions but never the details. They also cover who is responsible for any given task. For instance if it is determined that I will be responsible for a certain task, and then it is in the minutes. However the details of our board conversations are never recorded as it is not important in my view. If I thought that my every comment was being recorded, I would never say anything and thus would be ineffective. I really don’t care that Fred doesn’t like Sam’s idea and that they argue about a point. What I want to see in the end is the outcome of a vote, not how it came about.

Enough thoughts for now, my brain is getting taxed I will add more thoughts later perhaps

I don't recall if the candidates in the past have been presented in depth on the AAW website, but there should be some way that more info about each candidate could be made available. Could there be an election forum here on the AAW site, and the opportunity to ask the candidates questions and have answers posted? And the ban of campaigning would be worth reworking to some degree if it would allow more personal interaction with candidates.
 
Some Thoughts Towards the By-Laws

I like this thread. It is the only one not casting aspersions but rather is trying to find a constructive resolution.

I would just like to point out that not all members of the AAW belong to local chapters, therefore any information needing to be disseminated to the entire membership needs to happen some other way than through the chapters.

Also, not all members have a computer or are interested in using the Internet to participate in their organization. To me, the Journal is the obvious method of conveyance of information to the whole membership since they are all already receiving it. Perhaps, these issues could be addressed in the new by-laws and/or policies.

I guess this would all hinge on whether the Journal is truly an Association Journal or a professional product being published for public consumption. I only say this because there was a suggestion on another thread to allow more candidates into Board elections and Ms. Scarpino seemed to object to the amount of space that that would consume in the Journal. It seems to me, if it is truly an Association Journal, the space would be welled used to inform the membership.
 
I like this thread. It is the only one not casting aspersions but rather is trying to find a constructive resolution.

I would just like to point out that not all members of the AAW belong to local chapters, therefore any information needing to be disseminated to the entire membership needs to happen some other way than through the chapters.

Also, not all members have a computer or are interested in using the Internet to participate in their organization. To me, the Journal is the obvious method of conveyance of information to the whole membership since they are all already receiving it. Perhaps, these issues could be addressed in the new by-laws and/or policies.

I guess this would all hinge on whether the Journal is truly an Association Journal or a professional product being published for public consumption. I only say this because there was a suggestion on another thread to allow more candidates into Board elections and Ms. Scarpino seemed to object to the amount of space that that would consume in the Journal. It seems to me, if it is truly an Association Journal, the space would be welled used to inform the membership.

To accommodate a larger number of Board candidates, the suggested compromise that Betty and I believe is completely do-able is to have a summary statement in the Journal for each candidate, and an opportunity for each candidate to expand that summary as much as they want though our website – a link to the website expanded statements could be placed in the Journal article, so anyone who is interested in learning more would know where to look – it’s just a matter of coordination between me, Betty and the candidates, assuming the policy on candidate vetting is changed..
 
My Mr. Davidson, you're up late.

Thank you for that response. That sounds like a wonderful accommodation to those of us without a chapter.
 
Another Thought

Two By-law thoughts in one evening, ouch.

It seems to me that much of the controversy would be less of a he-said/she-said, if the minutes of the meetings of the Board were more thorough. I understand that they meet the requirements of Robert's Rules but where does it say that Robert's Rules can't be improved upon. Had more details been minuted, there would be far less debate now.

The problem has been raised that Board members would feel uncomfortable having the views recorded. I don't understand this. We, on the Forum, are expected to stand behind what we say. Why are we not asking the same of our Board members.

I've been a Secretary in meetings before and I am meticulous in keeping details. They are only there in case of disputes but they are very handy in those rare cases. Seriously, over the past 25 years, how often have the membership in large numbers been moved to look up and study Board minutes?

It's a little like having a camera recording something in which you are participating. It doesn't take long before you forget it's there and revert to your old, uninhibited self.

It really doesn't seem that much to ask. Especially if it will stop future destructive, suppositional debates like the one going on right now.
 
I guess this would all hinge on whether the Journal is truly an Association Journal or a professional product being published for public consumption. I only say this because there was a suggestion on another thread to allow more candidates into Board elections and Ms. Scarpino seemed to object to the amount of space that that would consume in the Journal. It seems to me, if it is truly an Association Journal, the space would be welled used to inform the membership.

Hello cvliet,

You bring up one of my soapbox topics, "AW is a journal, not a magazine." Thank you!

When I took over as editor of AW two years ago, I brought with me an understanding of the nature of journals, that a journal is the voice of the Association and should contain news related to the Association, as well as news about whatever field they represent (in our case, woodturning).

To that end, I have worked to improve coverage of Association news in AW and I will continue to do so to the extent that's possible (it's only me in this "office" and I'm not a reporter, I am an editor -- another one of my soapbox topics, but I'll save that for another time 🙂). Association news is reported in the front of the journal in the News and Notes section -- look for the blue border on the pages.

Also in the journal is news of the field of woodturning. You will find that in the "Chatter" section that follows the News and Notes section. Look for the green border on the pages.

The "feature well" of the journal contains articles of interest to a wide variety of Association members such as how-to, techniques, projects, profiles of woodturners, and exhibit reviews.

The style of language I have adopted for use in the journal is inclusive. For instance, I doubt that I will ever use a title that contains the word "versus," as in "Craft Verses Art." Words such as "versus" are, well, divisive. So, not only is the layout of the journal inclusive, a more subtle evidence of inclusiveness is in the tone and language.

The concern I expressed about additional coverage of candidates in the journal had to do with a "what if" scenario, and my math sucked 😱. One solution I suggested was a supplement insert, stitched into the journal. The other was increased coverage on the AAW website. I think that acquiring additional information about candidates for the BoD is important in order to make an informed decision. On another thread, I suggested that members simply email a candidate with a question or two.

The decision of how much space should be devoted to candidate statements, however, is not really up to the editor of the journal. The elected directors of the Association should make that decision, with input from the membership.

Betty Scarpino, journal editor
 
I find it curious that if a publication has a table of contents, letter from the editor or President. Articles of news related items and such. It is just like "Time", "Newsweek" and "Southern Living".
It is a magazine. Sorry Betty your mistaken.

Is the "Wall Street Journal" a newspaper or a journal?
 
Last edited:
The following is a comparison of a Journal and a Magazine. Although our Journal may not fit every catagory, I believe it fits most.


JOURNALS AND MAGAZINES

What is a Journal? What is a Magazine?

A JOURNAL is a periodical that only
publishes articles after they have passed a
rigorous editing and review process, called
the “blind review†or “peer review.â€
Journals following this procedure are also
known as “refereed†or sometimes “vettedâ€
journals. Articles under consideration have
the author’s name removed and are
submitted to other experts in that subject
field, who evaluate the content, accuracy,
and importance of the article, and provide
their criticisms and comments. If the article
passes the review, it is returned to the
author for revisions, after which it may be
published. Journals may also be called
“academic journals,†“scholarly journals,â€
“research journals,†or “scholarly research
journals.â€

MAGAZINES are the periodicals that most
people are familiar with, and are often called
“consumer,†“popular,†or “mass marketâ€
periodicals. These are the periodicals you see
at the supermarket, the drugstore, or the
newsstand. Many people subscribe to
magazines. Magazines are useful for news and
trends, for information that is very current and
up to date. Magazines also will often report on
the findings of researchers and scientists,
which were originally published in journals, but
the articles in the magazines will be much
easier to read. Magazines are often fairly
inexpensive, and many are considered a form
of entertainment rather than a source of
information.

CITATIONS
All JOURNAL articles provide citations to
the sources of information the author used
as a basis for research and to write the
article. Citations may appear as footnotes
or at the end of the article as
“Bibliography,†“Works Cited,†or
“References.â€
Most MAGAZINE articles do not provide
citations to their sources of information. Articles
may refer to the original researcher by name, or
may only indicate where the research was
done. For example, the article may state,
“Researchers at Johns Hopkins have found
that … “

LENGTH
Most JOURNAL articles are lengthy, and
assume a certain degree of knowledge on
the part of the reader. Specialized
terminology may be used. Statistical tests
used will not be explained; only their
significance and conclusions drawn from
the tests will be discussed.
Most MAGAZINE articles are short, and the
language is usually simple to understand. As a
general rule, magazine articles are written to
accommodate a sixth to ninth grade reading
level. Most articles are continued through
several pages, to give the reader more
exposure to the advertisements.

AUTHORS
Most JOURNALS will provide a sidebar or
footnote, or a separate section, with
information about the author’s credentials
as a scholar, researcher, or professional.
Or, the author’s university or research
institute is given.
In MAGAZINE articles, many times the author’s
name is not given. If the author is listed, usually
the author is a journalist, not a scholar or
researcher. However, many journalists
specialize in certain subjects and are quite
knowledgeable.

SPONSOR
Most JOURNALS are published by, or
sponsored by, a university, research lab,
professional association, or a non-profit
organization.
Most MAGAZINES are published by for-profit
organizations or businesses. Many magazine
publishers are part of large media corporations.


EDITORS
Most JOURNALS will have a section near
the front or the back of each issue that lists
their editorial board and the reviewers,
with the professional affiliation of each
member. Many will also include
submission guidelines, which will indicate
how rigorous the review process is.
Editors of MAGAZINES are comparable to
business managers. Each magazine will have
its own standards for grammar, usage, and
spelling. Selection of articles to publish is
influenced by fads, trends, or by the major
advertisers to the magazine.

ADVERTISEMENTS
Generally, JOURNALS do not accept
advertisements. Revenue to support
publication is from the SPONSOR, and
from subscription fees. Journals are often
very expensive. If there are
advertisements, they will usually be for
other scholarly publications, or for
conference announcements.

All MAGAZINES accept advertisements. This is
how they make a profit and stay in business.
Many times it may be difficult to distinguish the
ads from the articles. Also, many magazines
have special theme issues, and they will notify
advertisers in advance. So, you may often
notice that the ads and the articles seem to
agree.

TITLE OF THE PERIODICAL
Some may have the word “journal,â€
“review,†“bulletin,†or “research†in their
title. However, this is the least reliable way
to determine if the periodical is a research
journal or not.
Titles of MAGAZINES are selected to be
attention getting. Many magazines are famous,
or have a known reputation or notoriety.
BIAS

Most JOURNALS are careful to avoid bias.
However, be aware that some non-profit
organizations or “think tanks†have explicit
political or social agendas, which may be
reflected in the articles published.
Many MAGAZINES are known for their social or
political bias. If you are not familiar with the
magazine, read the articles critically. Look for
alternative views in other magazines or in
journals.

AUDIENCE
JOURNALS are read by students,
professionals, scholars, instructors and
faculty, and other researchers. Within each
profession or subject field, there is usually
a group of “core†journals considered
essential reading by all those in the
profession or field of study.
MAGAZINES are read by everyone: workers,
householders, students, children, hobbyists,
sports enthusiasts, etc. There is a magazine for
almost every possible human interest.

WHAT ABOUT NEWSPAPERS? WHAT ABOUT the INTERNET?
NEWSPAPER articles tend to be short and
report one fact, event, or recent change. A few
major newspapers may offer more “in-depthâ€
reporting. Some are known for their bias. Read
newspaper articles about political or social
issues carefully and critically. Editorials are
solely the editor’s opinion, but can be helpful
for finding pro/con arguments.
INTERNET sources can be “here today – gone
tomorrow.†Many sites are an expression of
personal bias, an excuse to advertise a product, or
just plain phony. The criteria listed here can be used
to judge the worth of a website. Who is the target
audience, how long are the articles, are there
citations to sources? Are there any ads? Look for
the date, the author, editor, or sponsor.
 
I am no expert on the by-laws and quite frankly, reading such things gives me a headache and puts me to sleep. Still, Brian's suggestions make a lot of sense to me. Heck, if the supervision of the ED rested with the president, we wouldn't necessarily be in the position we now find ourselves.

To the issue of minutes and the recording thereof... I know nothing of Robert or any rules he wrote down. I understand that if every word was recorded, board members would inclined to run for cover of private sessions. How about a compromise... What if the minutes stayed virtually the same as they are now except it was recorded how BOD members voted? Who voted "yay" and who voted "nay". That would give the membership an idea of how our representatives think and along which lines.

Just an idea.
 
Journals and Magazines

Hi Keith
Your definition of "magazine" is right, but your description of "journal" applies more to peer-reviewed academic journals, typically published by learned societies of professors and researchers.

There is another kind of journal, typically published by an organization such as the AAW.

The AW journal is not peer-reviewed in the way that academic journals are. Rather, it has an editorial process very similar to that of a commercial magazine, run by an informed editor who calls in advisers as she feels the need. It's got similar editorial content to a consumer magazine, but it's different by being obliged to include news and information about the doings of the parent organization. Comparable examples would be American Craft, National Geographic, Smithsonian, Metalsmith, all published (that is, owned) by membership organizations.

There is a third kind of magazine, sometimes also called a journal, that serves up mostly business news for an industry, with or without obligations to a parent organization. Wood & Wood Products would be an example. Its editors might feel more of an obligation to include organizational news than would, say, the editors of Fine Woodworking (a commercial magazine, not a business journal). Woodshop News is kind of a hybrid, it's a privately owned commercial magazine but its editorial mission includes hefty columns of events and organizational news, though not beholden to any particular organization.

Despite its name, the Wall Street Journal is a commercial newspaper without a peer-review process and without any organizational obligations. All same Time and Newsweek.

I'm not submitting this post to offend or cause any trouble, but simply because I am an interested AAW member and I do have many years of professional expertise in this area.

--John Kelsey
 
John, thanks for your input and as I said the Journal does not fit all of the descriptions listed but I believe it fits the Journal catagory more than the Magazine catagory.

Bottom line, to get into a discussion on whether we call it a Journal or a Magazine at this point in time is really not relative. We should save this discussion for a later time when the AAW is cured. No offence intended toward anyone.
 
Hi Keith
Your definition of "magazine" is right, but your description of "journal" applies more to peer-reviewed academic journals, typically published by learned societies of professors and researchers.
--John Kelsey[/QUOTE

Hey I always thunked we'uns was a lerned societies..........................
 
Hi Keith
Your definition of "magazine" is right, but your description of "journal" applies more to peer-reviewed academic journals, typically published by learned societies of professors and researchers.
--John Kelsey[/QUOTE

Hey I always thunked we'uns was a lerned societies..........................


Keith, like I said, AW includes everyone . . . 😀
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top