Will you vote????

[Jake Debski]

Being new to the AAW (January) I have been reading with interest all the back and forth arguments, accusations, etc. regarding the ED. I finally got around to reading the BOD minutes of the last two years.

A very interesting piece of information in the Hartford Symp. board meeting in Feb.:

"Board – ED – lawyer relationship
Malcolm Tibbetts made a motion that no AAW board member should initiate communication with an outside lawyer unless directed to do so by the president. Dale Larson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken. All in favor. Motion Passed"

Less than 6 months later BOD members violated that vote.

Not a huge confidence builder is it??????

Dick Wilson
Member #0040997

A more interesting question might be; why would Malcolm feel the need to make such a motion? We know who the President was at that juncture.

Was he anticipating that the BOD may feel the need to take such an action, if so, what might prompt that sort of action?

Be careful what you ask, you may be disappointed by the whole answer.

 

[Dick Wilson]

Jake

Be careful what you ask, you may be disappointed by the whole answer.
__________________
Jake - WNYWoodturners-II and the AAW
Your warning leads me closer the the conclusion the membership, DOES NOT have the whole answer. Don't you think the membership deserves the whole answer? And don't you think the membership deserves adults with the ability to sit in a board meeting and deal with problems without tuning it into a major crisis?

Instead of questioning the reasons why Mr. Tibbets made the motion, maybe, just maybe, you should be asking why the motion was violated.

Dick Wilson
Member #0040997

 

[Curtis Thompson]

Dick and Jake,

This is re-hashing a topic that was discussed early on in the forum discussions. Probably late June or in early July when the s--t hit the fan.

The Tibbetts motion to limit outside attorneys being hired was in response to earlier AAW business. I don't remember the exact details of the forum discussion but it was dropped quickly after the the facts surfaced.

Maybe someone else can remember it, but it would take hours of me reading the old postings to find. It's a mute point by those that have been following the turmoil from the beginning.

We need to take care that old topics aren't dredged back up to re-argue as it is a cause for the moderators to delete or lock down the discussions in this thread that are more current and substantive. They have a job to limit the discussion to new topics that haven't been drummed to death in the past.

Thanks for your concerns and involvement

Curtis Thompson
#15049
.
.

 

[KurtB]

Gentlemen (and ladies), this thread is supposed to be about voting. It has turned into a discussion about past events which does not belong here. Let's get this thread back on track, please.

 

[Jake Debski]

Gentlemen (and ladies), this thread is supposed to be about voting. It has turned into a discussion about past events which does not belong here. Let's get this thread back on track, please.

Kurt, you are correct, this thread has devolved from its original intent. I accept my responsibility in helping to cloud that intent.

The thread should either be moved over to the Info sub-forum or deleted.

Its time to let the by-law committee do the job that they volunteered to do. And let the current BOD attempt to make some changes to better inform the Membership of how and why it and its committees are chosen and function.

If the members are still unhappy with the results, the elections next year can be used to make changes. None of this will happen overnight and I guarantee it won't happen if only 10% or so members vote.

 

[Gynia]

The tread is right on target.

WILL YOU VOTE?

Can we write in a candidate? Can I vote for Mary Lacer as a write -in?