news of a change

Sat Mar 15 18:27:39 EST 2003

JU> I will be joining the University of Illinois as dean of the
JU> graduate school of library and information science

Congrats! Which campus?

This brings up a lot. I have to admit my first thought was, in the
voice of Yoda, "Now, matters are worse"[1], intended not as a predic-
tion of doom, but rather as a compliment to John. Best wishes to you
John in IL, and I certainly hope you can continue to contribute to
the TEI.

<p>The Lists
--- -----
John's original post was sent to tei-board with a CC to tei-council;
Sebastian's reply was to tei-council with a CC to tei-board (as is
this posting). In both cases I expect to receive two copies, one from
each list; but in both cases I got only one copy, from the tei-
council list. What gives?

What software runs our lists at lists.village.virginia.edu? I don't
think I like it much at all, although my distaste may be born of my
ignorance. Where are the archives? (I've asked that here before with-
out any response.) How does one see a list of subscribers? Change
one's preferences or settings?

<p>The Board
--- -----
JU> as the co-representative of Virginia
SR> the idea that Virginia has two reps on the Board (albeit with
SR> half votes each), and it still seems odd to me.

Indeed, the whole 2-reps-with-half-vote-each situation, while it may
have had its purpose, should probably be avoided if possible.

<p>The Hosts
--- -----
JU> I am already working on putting together a bid for Illinois to be
JU> a fifth host, but I will also need to scale back some of my other
JU> activities as I begin this new job.

Okay, okay. You don't have to chair both the Council and the Board
anymore, just the Board. Awright?

Seriously, it would be great for both financial and clout reasons to
have UI on as a host. However, it does seem a bit incongruous with
your recommendation of Mike Furlough as UVA host representative. If
UI is to be a representative, part of the point is so that you can
continue as chair of the board. (Imagine the throngs of us chanting
"we want John, we want John".) However, the by-laws are quite
specific that only 4 of the Directors are host representatives; if
there are "more than four Hosts, the Hosts will choose their
representatives to the Board by simple majority vote among
themselves." (An election that one can really see going nowhere fast
-- five votes cast, one each for five different representatives.)

While I can see why there needs to be a limit of some sort on the
number of host representatives on the board (what, 26 directors, none
of them elected?), it does seem to make recruiting a 5th and 6th host
a bit more difficult. (Not that we want to be seen as selling seats
on the board, either.) Why was this done in the first place?

<p>The Council
--- -------
SR> It is not clear whether that Chair is already a member of the
SR> Council, but let's assume so.

Sebastian is right, it is completely unstated whether the Chair of
the Council is appointed from the Council members or from non-Council
members or at the Board's whim of either. But I don't think it makes
sense to assume so. Because the Board can appoint members or
Directors to the Council, they could obviously appoint someone first
to the Council and then as Chair of it. But since the number of
Councilors is limited to 12, this action would have to occur at a
vacancy or after an election for 1 fewer seats than were up occurred;
or else someone would have to be kicked off.

This all is a bit confusing. I think it makes most sense to amend
the by-laws to make it explicitly clear that the Chair of the Council
is appointed from the Council membership.

<p>By-Laws
-------
Speaking of the by-laws, it seems to me that Article IV section 3
still needs some work. (We amended it in Chicago.)

Here is what it says now:

| At each annual meeting the members will elect members to any of the
| elected positions on the Board of Directors due to be vacated.
| Terms of office begin at the following January 1st.  Elected Directors will serve a
| two-year term, which term will commence at the annual meeting of
| the Board of Directors immediately following the annual meeting of
| the members and continue until the expiration of their term or
| until their respective successors shall have been duly elected and
| qualified.

This seems self-contradictory with the term starting both on 01 Jan
and at the annual meeting, unless I"m misreading something.

Possible rewording:

| At each annual meeting the members will elect members to any of the
| elected positions on the Board of Directors due to be vacated.
| Terms of office begin on the following January 1st and continue for
| two calendar years.</p><p>

Is that sufficient? It doesn't mention the expiration of term stuff,
but that's no longer needed, is it?

Note the "</p><p>" at the end, breaking this paragraph from the
following one that pertains to the process of elections. (But is only
one sentence, which may be why it was rolled into this one in the
first place.)

Furthermore, I wonder if the phrase "from time to time" as used in
article IV section 1 means what the drafters intended? I am not a
lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that, at
least in the legalese English of the era of the U.S. Constitution,
that phrase meant "at regularly scheduled intervals" as opposed to
"haphazardly" or "at whim".

<p>Notes
-----
[1] How would you encode that?
    <distinct type="voice-of-Yoda"
              time="long ago"
              space="Degobah"
              social="Jedi master">
    (Note that some spell it "Dagobah"; I'm not sure which is right.)
    See (well, hear)
    http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Meteor/9836/yoda/sounds/lasthope.wav