Re: [adhoc] sterling-based accounting

I understand Laszlo's reservations about a seat for COCH-COSH, and I
agree that we need a principled approach to adding new members, and
I'm sorry if my count of Canadians in Jean's subscription spreadsheet
confused matters--those were just individuals who happen to show up
in the existing LLC subscription rolls, and the number is not
representative of what COCH-COSH has as a membership. That said,
here are some other considerations for discussion:

--any new association joining ADHO would do so without any attested
members, in the initial period, since the decision to join would have
to be made before
     --OUP could alter the subscription forms to permit for
subscribers to declare the new affiliaition
     --the new association could require its members to subscribe to
LLC, and
     --no audited membership figures reflecting the new affiliation
would be available until at least the December following the vote,
and very likely no reliable figures would be available until a year
from that December, if the ACH experience is a guide.
--Any association that had to persuade its members to join ADHO
without representation for up to two years would have a hard sell, in
my view.

A good faith alternative might be to take the existing membership
headcount for the new association, and on the basis of that, figure
out what appropriate representation would be, and proceed on that
basis until their are reliable and audited figures (a year from the
following December would be my recommendation, based on past
experience).

As to changing the number of people on the steering committee, I
don't think that is a big deal, but it does require "consent of the
constituent organizations." The number five is not fixed--the
governance protocol says "we choose to begin with 5; the number can
be changed in the future, with the consent of constituent
organizations." I imagine that this consent could be solicited by
email, but if the ACH and ALLC executives were able to register a
"what if" opinion on this question during their meetings, and before
the SC meets again, that would be helpful.

John

On Jun 11, 2005, at 4:05 PM, László Hunyadi wrote:

> Dear SC-members,
>
> in one of the earlier messages John advises to give COCH-COSH a
> sixth seat in the SC.
> At present, I find it problematic for the following three reasons:
>
> 1. As far as I remember (I am sorry, I am not in the position to
> look it up precisely now), we have been discussing the SC to
> consist of 4 (or, at most, 5) members. This quantitative extension
> of the SC has not been proposed or discussed earlier, neither
> drafted. Without further rounds of discussions we need to recommend
> the draft document in the form we have agreed upon.
>
> 2. John refers to "Canadian institutions" and "Canadian
> individuals" who have chosen (if they made a choice at all) ALLC or
> ACH. Accordingly, they should be counted as institutions or
> individuals with a preference for either ALLC or ACH as
> affiliation. Until a separate affiliation COCH-COSH is defined,
> there is no logical (or, procedural, deriving from our draft
> document) reason to create a membership for COCH-COSH in the SC.
>
> 3. Even if the procedural reason would exist (which is not yet the
> case), the figures for "Canadian" (not necessarily COCH-COSH)
> subscriptions is 15-20 times smaller than for ALLC or ACH. A seat
> for them on the SC at present would mean that their figures are
> 7-10 times "overvalued". In case membership on the SC is tighed to
> subscription figures (or, as Harold writes, income derived from
> such figures), a representation of the kind ALLC and ACH have would
> not be a balanced one.
>
> I understand some noble motivations for the inclusion of COCH-COSH
> as a voting member in the SC, but, in addition to my objections
> above, I also agree with John that by doing so the representation
> of further organisations would still remain unsolved. Accordingly,
> we need a principled approach to the further extension of the
> (voting members of the) SC and this needs further considerations.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> adhoc mailing list
> adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
>

_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Sat Jun 11 2005 - 17:40:22 EDT