Re: [adhoc] vote today, please

On Apr 27, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Lisa Lena Opas-Hanninen wrote:

> there are a few things that bother me.
>
> The first is the clause about leaving the alliance. It's fine if
> someone has
> been in for a year or two, but what about if someone wants to leave
> after 10 or
> 20 years? the cumulative income paid to that organization over its
> whole
> membership would really not be something we could afford to pay 10% of
> necessarily, now would it ? I think this bears a bit of thinking.

Harold and I did do the math on some example cases, and if an
organization left after 10 years, the payout would be, in effect, the
average annual income for one of those ten years, after centrally
funded activities, and that amount would be payable over 3 years. So
in the current case with ACH, I think that income is around
$6K/year--if it averaged about the same for the next ten years, and
then we left, we'd be owed $6K, payable $2K/year for three years; if it
were 20 years, the amount would be double that. This seemed to Harold
and me to be a reasonable way to arrive at a sum that reflected effort
toward a common good that you'd be leaving behind, while not
front-loading an incentive to leave, as it were.

> The next issue I have is with section 7, from which you have deleted
> bits. I
> remember this being discussed in Loch Lomond. The question really is
> about the
> remit of the publications committee chair and the conference committee
> chair.
> Take, for example, the conference committee chair: the wording as it
> stood
> originally made it clear that the conference committee with its three
> members
> was a kind of standing committee that looked after protocols and
> solicited
> proposals for conferences. It seemed to us at the time that that was
> quite
> apart from the programme committee of each conference, which, as
> previously,
> would always be run by the programme chair of that individual
> conference. The
> way it has been written now, ie with no specifications, leaves it
> completely
> open as to what it actually is that that committee does. The same goes
> for the
> publications committee - what is the area that is the responsibility
> of the
> editor of the print journal and what is the area that falls under the
> responsibility of the publications committee?? You may say that this
> is to be
> agreed at some point, but it's not good enough for me, I want it spelt
> out in
> this document.

Harold can respond on this one, but this is one area where we felt,
when we met in March, that the document overspecified, and that the
general practice of the ALLC's proposed revisions, to reduce the level
of specification, would be good practice here as well. It does leave
the exact nature of these committees to be worked out, but we felt it
might take some experience to come up with the right specification.
This is something that the executives might want to weigh in on, too.

>
> There's a typo in section 7: will is spelt with two l's, not one.

Thanks--I'll fix that.

>
> So, in sum I think what I am going to say to the ALLC is that I see no
> irremediable or fatal flaws in this document, but I do think there are
> some
> points that still need some consideration before we approve it. SO I
> would not
> approve of it as it stands, but think that the changes that it needs
> can easily
> be achieved in VIctoria and feel confident that it could be approved
> of there.
>

I'm not sure whether to take that as a yes or a no vote, since the
question on which we are voting is whether to recommend the document to
the ACH and ALLC executives--which bodies may still recommend changes,
and which changes would need to be acted on in Victoria. If I count it
as yes, then our vote is unanimous, as I read it. If I count it as a
no, the question still passes, given my reading of Laszlo's vote. It
would be helpful in the future if we could simply vote yes or no on the
question as stated, but I will take it as a settled question that we
recommend the document to the attention of the two execs, and I will
note the areas in which steering committee members feel there may need
to be more specification. I will also urge both executives to come up
with any proposed changes by the end of May, so they can be considered
in advance and voted on in Victoria by both execs.

Thanks, all.

John

_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Wed Apr 27 2005 - 16:57:56 EDT