Proposed new USBCHA Forum

[blackacre]

Wow, "Mr. Regards" is now just Gary? He must want this badly.

In any case, I invite Gary to come here and discuss it if he wants to comment--or justify.

No one wants to give Eileen more work. Adding a topic heading, however, should not be too onerous. Or we can post on the existing Yahoo group. IF the board wants to go that way.

Andrea

[Chesney's Girl]

I don't know how much extra work it would be in the long run, it might be a bit to begin with but Robin's idea of adding a section to this board I think is a good idea. If the section would be added why not just grant access to the USBCHA member to only be able to get into that section? Kind of like the BOD section cannot be seen by those who don't have permission. I would think that might be a better solution in the long run because it keeps it to one board that everyone can visit instead of all the information needing to be posted on multiple boards.

 

I know I am a no body when it comes to things like this (I just became a member this year) but after reading everyones thoughts and ideas here and on the Working Stockdog forum, I just thought that Robin had a good idea and that way there is still an area for the BOD's private discussions and also a place that the members could offer advice. Sorry if this was already suggested and I missed it...

[Shoofly]

If the section would be added why not just grant access to the USBCHA member to only be able to get into that section? Kind of like the BOD section cannot be seen by those who don't have permission.

 

That would be a TON of work (and on-going as well, always changing), not like the private boards where there are only a few board members.

 

I don't see any reason why non-members shouldn't be able to read the section anyway, but be asked to not post. Maybe some new folks would join the HA so they could join in the discussion if they enjoy it and want a voice.

[Mike Neary]

Well, I tried to post this earlier and somehow it got lost in web space, I think. No telling where it ended up? I'm just not good at this stuff.

 

Anyway, I posted the following to the sheepdog-l list in response to the proposal. I don't reguarly post to this forum, but check it out frequently. I don't have the time, desire, or the technical know how to be a regular contributor. However, I do feel strongly that this proposal is a bad idea. I urge all of you to contact your directors with your feelings on it, even lurkers such as me. That's a little old fashioned way of having input, that still works. Works better than fundamentally changing the way our fairly healthy working dog organizations are run.

 

Here is what i posted to sheepdog-l:

 

Gary and all,

 

This proposal, while it seems well intentioned, is a bad idea. I guess I'm struggling to see the need for this vehicle. I fail to see a problem with transparency and a "secret society". In fact, just the opposite. I imagine every USBCHA member personally knows their directors. I imagine every USBCHA member would feel comftorable contacting their directors, or any director, for that matter. I don't subscribe to the "black helicopter" theory that underlies this proposal. All these people that serve on these boards are our peers. They are elected from the same pool of handlers we see running at trials every weekend. I have visited with many of them frequently about HA business, and always received courtesy and a welcoming of feedback, even when we have disagreed on policy.

 

We should expect our directors to be competent, reasonable people that think through items that come before the board. We shouldn't expect them to march in lock step with all members. We should expect them to welcome input and idea's, but eventually decide the course of action after weighing all sides of the issue. I certainly don't expect the directors from district 5 to agree with me all the time. I do expect them to be reasonable, fair, and informed. If enough members from a district have a problem with their directors, then elect new ones, or run yourself.

 

My real problem with this proposal is that eventually when the 50 or so people sign up for it, just like with any of these electronic or web based communication devices, there will be a minority of people that dominate the discussion. Eventually, there will a very small group that chatters the most, which is hardly a consensus of any group. The ones that are satisfied with how things are going will mostly remain silent, or will resort to private e-mails or phone calls, which defeats the whole purpose. You can go to any working Border Collie website or discussion group currently and find many examples of this happening, including this one. Oftentimes, the best way to solve a "crisis" is to let some time pass.

 

If communication to the membership is a problem, and this is always a challenge, there has to be a better way to solve it than to move away from a representative form of decision making. The working dog community has always made decisions on basically a consensus basis. Oftentimes it can be cumbersome and slow, but there is still not a better way of operating.

 

Respectfully,

 

Mike Neary

[Little Bo Boop]

Well, I tried to post this earlier and somehow it got lost in web space, I think. No telling where it ended up? I'm just not good at this stuff.

 

Anyway, I posted the following to the sheepdog-l list in response to the proposal. I don't reguarly post to this forum, but check it out frequently. I don't have the time, desire, or the technical know how to be a regular contributor. However, I do feel strongly that this proposal is a bad idea. I urge all of you to contact your directors with your feelings on it, even lurkers such as me. That's a little old fashioned way of having input, that still works. Works better than fundamentally changing the way our fairly healthy working dog organizations are run.

 

Here is what i posted to sheepdog-l:

 

Gary and all,

 

This proposal, while it seems well intentioned, is a bad idea. I guess I'm struggling to see the need for this vehicle. I fail to see a problem with transparency and a "secret society". In fact, just the opposite. I imagine every USBCHA member personally knows their directors. I imagine every USBCHA member would feel comftorable contacting their directors, or any director, for that matter. I don't subscribe to the "black helicopter" theory that underlies this proposal. All these people that serve on these boards are our peers. They are elected from the same pool of handlers we see running at trials every weekend. I have visited with many of them frequently about HA business, and always received courtesy and a welcoming of feedback, even when we have disagreed on policy.

 

We should expect our directors to be competent, reasonable people that think through items that come before the board. We shouldn't expect them to march in lock step with all members. We should expect them to welcome input and idea's, but eventually decide the course of action after weighing all sides of the issue. I certainly don't expect the directors from district 5 to agree with me all the time. I do expect them to be reasonable, fair, and informed. If enough members from a district have a problem with their directors, then elect new ones, or run yourself.

 

My real problem with this proposal is that eventually when the 50 or so people sign up for it, just like with any of these electronic or web based communication devices, there will be a minority of people that dominate the discussion. Eventually, there will a very small group that chatters the most, which is hardly a consensus of any group. The ones that are satisfied with how things are going will mostly remain silent, or will resort to private e-mails or phone calls, which defeats the whole purpose. You can go to any working Border Collie website or discussion group currently and find many examples of this happening, including this one. Oftentimes, the best way to solve a "crisis" is to let some time pass.

 

If communication to the membership is a problem, and this is always a challenge, there has to be a better way to solve it than to move away from a representative form of decision making. The working dog community has always made decisions on basically a consensus basis. Oftentimes it can be cumbersome and slow, but there is still not a better way of operating.

 

Respectfully,

 

Mike Neary

 

 

 

My real problem with this proposal is that eventually when the 50 or so people sign up for it, just like with any of these electronic or web based communication devices, there will be a minority of people that dominate the discussion. Eventually, there will a very small group that chatters the most, which is hardly a consensus of any group. The ones that are satisfied with how things are going will mostly remain silent, or will resort to private e-mails or phone calls, which defeats the whole purpose. You can go to any working Border Collie website or discussion group currently and find many examples of this happening, including this one. Oftentimes, the best way to solve a "crisis" is to let some time pass.

 

 

 

 

Mike I think you are exactly right. We experienced pretty much that same thing on our TSDA forum. It was requested that our board post items on their agenda on the club website, so that members would have the opportunity to see what sort of things the board was looking at or thinking about doing. THe board obliged, and began posting items up for vote. There was 'some' discussion, but for the most part it became a one man bitch fest with this same person questioning/complaining about every single purposal....even to include the most mudane, shouldn't have made a difference to this person one way or the other items...and as I stated in my earlier post, even after the purposals had been passed, the haranguing continued. I can tell you this, IMHO the whole thing has had a very negative effect on our club and has certainly had an impact on the Esprit de corps of our TSDA. And finally, I think we are all familiar with how things can get out of hand, turned around, feelings hurt, things taken the wrong way etc...on a public forum....In my estimation its just a wreck waiting to happen. Maybe I should just stock up on popcorn eh?

 

 

Betty

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Maybe some new folks would join the HA so they could join in the discussion if they enjoy it and want a voice.

 

I think this is a really good point. The proposed method would encourage even more exclusivisity, I'm afraid (also can't spell, lol).

 

That's a little old fashioned way of having input, that still works. Works better than fundamentally changing the way our fairly healthy working dog organizations are run.

 

Absolutely. Anything that encourages personal interaction is good - like knowing what is afoot, being more informed - but requiring that telephone call or private e-mail to express one's opinion. I don't think providing a potential venue for grandstanding is a wise idea.

[amc]

Here's Gary's response to some of the above-stated concerns, posted here with permission:

 

My reply to Mike Neary's post on BC Boards. Moving it over there is fine, if someone feels the need to do so.

 

Mike,

 

I tried to respond logically to all you wrote, for what it's worth.

 

Quote:

This proposal, while it seems well intentioned, is a bad idea. I guess I'm struggling to see the need for this vehicle. I fail to see a problem with transparency and a "secret society". In fact, just the opposite. I imagine every USBCHA member personally knows their directors. I imagine every USBCHA member would feel comftorable contacting their directors, or any director, for that matter. I don't subscribe to the "black helicopter" theory that underlies this proposal. All these people that serve on these boards are our peers. They are elected from the same pool of handlers we see running at trials every weekend. I have visited with many of them frequently about HA business, and always received courtesy and a welcoming of feedback, even when we have disagreed on policy.

 

 

I don't know, Mike, maybe you're more interconnected with the axons, dendrites, and whatnot that make up our "nerve center" than the average member. I don't subscribe to a "black helicopter" theory, either, and it does not "underlie this proposal", although I don't doubt some who don't like the proposal do couch it in such terms. However, efficient communication among the directors and members has been, according to what I have seen and heard, a continuing problem within the USBCHA. How often do you see your three "At Large" directors to discuss your opinion on HA issues? I do know you probably often talk with one. Why should the onus of asking what is going on with the BOD be placed on the few members who actually care and voice opinions? It seems to me that the BOD would WANT the members to inform them of opinions and concerns, and to do it from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance, and to do it in "print", for careful reference, rather than via a disembodied voice on a phone, and to do it in a central location for easy access.

 

Quote:

We should expect our directors to be competent, reasonable people that think through items that come before the board. We shouldn't expect them to march in lock step with all members. We should expect them to welcome input and idea's, but eventually decide the course of action after weighing all sides of the issue. I certainly don't expect the directors from district 5 to agree with me all the time. I do expect them to be reasonable, fair, and informed.

 

 

We do expect our directors to be competent, reasonable people, and they do not have to "march in lock-step" with the members, by organization charter. How on earth can they "weigh all sides of the issue" if they don't hear/see all sides of the issue, or if we, the members, only see "the issue" once the steamroller of "motion and second" is in gear? I don't expect District 4 directors to agree with me all the time, or even part of the time, as is evidenced by the passage of the novice sanctioning proposal a while back.

 

Quote:

If enough members from a district have a problem with their directors, then elect new ones, or run yourself.

 

 

I think this is too simplistic a rationale to dismiss the idea of a forum.

 

Quote:

My real problem with this proposal is that eventually when the 50 or so people sign up for it, just like with any of these electronic or web based communication devices, there will be a minority of people that dominate the discussion. Eventually, there will a very small group that chatters the most, which is hardly a consensus of any group. The ones that are satisfied with how things are going will mostly remain silent, or will resort to private e-mails or phone calls, which defeats the whole

purpose. You can go to any working Border Collie website or discussion

group currently and find many examples of this happening, including this

one. Oftentimes, the best way to solve a "crisis" is to let some time pass.

 

 

Are you saying that only "50 or so" people sign up for these "electronic web based communication devices", or that only 50 or so have an impact? Far more than 50 are signed up for all the ones I know of. A very few, or even one person (or director), with the ear of a director, can get a proposal before the board. We may or may not eventually get wind of it before a vote if Herbert finds the time to go to a minimum of four different venues to notify as many as possible. Unfortunately, Mike, 10 to 15 percent of an organization's members USUALLY carry the water for the organization. That's human nature, and this organization is no different. The rest "go along to get along".

 

Quote:

If communication to the membership is a problem, and this is always a challenge, there has to be a better way to solve it than to move away from a representative form of decision making. The working dog community has always made decisions on basically a consensus basis. Oftentimes it can be cumbersome and slow, but there is still not a better way of operating.

 

 

I think your assertion that we currently have "a representative form of decision making" is arguable, and another way is not offered, but you seem to say the way to improve communication is to discourage people from trying the test forum idea. One or two alternate "plans" were offered before this one. The "consensus" regarding the novice sanctioning, in my little corner of the universe, seemed to be different from that of the directors. What made that doubly confusing and contentious was that a good number of the members had no idea it was on the horizon until the "steamroller" was moving. Additionally, most discussing it were doing so from a position of ignorance of the actual content of the proposal or the stated reasons for it. Yes, the working dog community's decisions have always been based on "consensus", but on whose "consensus"?

 

Regards Always,

 

Gary

[amc]

And another.....

 

My reply to Robin French's ideas and concerns on BC Boards.

 

Quote:

I would not propose to Eileen that she (or anyone else) take on a project like the "test forum", where only members can join. That's where the work is, in maintaining membership, verifying who gets to join, etc.

 

 

You can ask Amy, but, so far, I have not found the task particularly onerous. But then, I don't operate a board with far more members, such as BC Boards.

 

Quote:

What i would propose is just another section on these boards, along with a sticky asking that only members actually post, though anyone can read. I would imagine that would only take a few minutes to set up and there would be no maintenance as it would be self-policing.

 

 

Would that work as well as the "Ask the Expert" sub-forum, on which people often have to be reminded to leave it for the expert? There's no way self-policing" would work with the number of people participating on BC Boards. Will someone be assigned to check who is posting for membership in the USBCHA? I think access to the table (of discussion of association matters) is a privilege of membership (and associate membership), and would, in fact, attract more members.

 

Gary

[amc]

And one final response:

 

This comment from "Blackacre" on BC Boards puzzles me.

 

Quote:

I'm also reluctant to sign on to what appears to me to be an end run around the Board by one or two members with the apparent intent of presenting them with a fait accompli, in the hopes of pressuring them into signing on. If it's an idea worth their (and our) consideration, it should be presented in the usual way, by adding it to the agenda of the annual members' meeting, where the appropriate wording to amend the constitution and/or by-laws can be voted on and input can be solicited. If the motion fails there, your right and privilege is to elect a more compliant board--if you can. Don't get me wrong, I am favour of a certain degree of transparency and accountability, but it needs to be done the right way. We're a small organization of volunteers, and alienating the people we've elected is not the way to go about making a change.

 

 

This was hardly an "end run". I discussed this with Herbert in person in early January of this year. His response to me was for me and Amy to put together a proposal for the board and submit it. We did, and this is part of it. Now, maybe Herbert thought I would just let it die like most people's ideas do when they are tasked to put something together, but I think Herbert knows me better than that. To be honest, and to his credit, he is not red-hot about it, at least the ideal concept we propose. To label this as "alienating the people we've elected" is a miss-characterization. The BOD got this before the members did. Are some saying we had no right to inform the members in addition to the BOD?

 

Gary

[Sue R]

I can see that this issue is a lot more complicated than I thought when it was first proposed and seemed like a good idea to me, from my naive novice standpoint.

 

I wish the discussion was taking place in one location instead of two or three, with "he said, she said". Perhaps that is indicative of the great divide of opinion that we are seeing with regard to just this one debate, not to mention the many other topics that are of concern to the HA.

 

I do think the core concern is better communication between the HA officers and the HA membership, and I would really like to see that happen in whatever way is most productive. I have faith in the President and BOD and their efforts, but I'd also like to be aware of issues and considerations that are being discussed.

 

I would like to express my appreciation for all the time and effort the officers of the HA expend for the benefit of the working Border Collie.

[Wendy V]

I wish the discussion was taking place in one location instead of two or three, with "he said, she said".

 

I believe this is one of the aims of the dedicated forum, which is to consolidate communications to one place.

[Eileen Stein]

I want to leave the BoD of the HA to do whatever they want to do, and would not have posted on this topic at all, except that Gary was quoted by Carol Campion as having said:

 

For those discussing this on BC Boards, please understand that Eileen Stein was approached to do something like this, but declined for the reason that it was too management-intensive due to her involvement with BC Boards. That is why this was developed

.

 

What I was asked about by Amy was providing read-only access for HA members to the Board of Directors' private forum. I said I couldn't undertake to do that because of the amount of management time involved in ensuring security of access with the number of members the HA has (I won't spell out here the details of what would be involved -- please take my word for it). I wasn't asked about a members-only discussion forum here, or about setting up a separate board.

 

What i would propose is just another section on these boards, along with a sticky asking that only members actually post, though anyone can read. I would imagine that would only take a few minutes to set up and there would be no maintenance as it would be self-policing.

 

I could certainly do that -- adding a new "USBCHA Members" forum to the Private section of the Boards, stating that only members should post. I could also set up a members-only discussion forum on a password system, either with read-only access for non-members or with no access for non-members. A password system is less secure than checking each forum registrant against HA membership rolls -- it is probably secure enough for a members discussion forum but not secure enough IMO for giving access to the private Directors forum.

 

Finally, because of the oddity of Gary's asking others to post his comments here, I want to make it clear that he is welcome to post here, and that his not doing so is of his own choosing.

[Sue R]

Thank you, Eileen, for offering this clarification and new options for better communication and discussion.

 

And, thank you for all that you do.

[amc]

Andrea wrote:

Curious, since we already have this:

USBCHA yahoo group that hasn't been used in years, probably since Mike Canaday's time.

 

and she referred to this group again earlier today.

 

IIRC, that group, entitled usbchpres and started by Mike Canaday when he was President, required members to join the group and submit all questions/comments to him privately. There was no back-and-forth, hence it wasn't really worth reading. Started in 12/2002, it only logged 19 posts through 5/2004. I think it's clear that the format of forums such as these are far superior to Yahoo or even Google Groups.

 

I appreciate Eileen's generous offer to create yet another space on this Board for HA members but I still feel that attaching it more closely to the USBCHA website and thus keeping all the HA stuff centralized will make it easier to keep on track. I love these Boards and read them several times a day, but I do find myself getting lost in a topic and forgetting to go back to another topic which I had been interested in also. Could be that my brain is too linear...

[bcollie]

I am a director on our local fair. Since it is run by the state, we have to abide by the Bagley-Keene Act which states that all meetings involving 3 or more board members must have a 10 day notice with an agenda posted in advance. It is a pain sometimes but the good thing about it is that when we make controversial decisions, everyone knows in advance and can provide up to 3 minutes of input. This is good because we want to make the right decision and one that is supported by our 'members'. Their comments are often helpful in our deliberations and we take less flack later over decisions made. I am not advocating anything this complicated for the HA but I do think that that it would be beneficial to the organization if the membership were notified in advance of major decisions and were able to comment. As someone else stated, we are fortunate in District 1 that our directors do solicit our input but it sounds like this isn't necessarily true everywhere. So, short of having each and every director contact their members and solicit input, the idea of the forum, where members could hear in advance of upcoming major decisions (not everyday housekeeping ones) and provide some input, would be simpler, and better for the long term success of the organization. Just my thoughts from experiences gained serving on other boards.

[blackacre]

Where to post, where to post? Rather tedious communicating with Gary via Amy, but, never mind, I expect he's reading. No directors in sight either, but I expect they're reading too. So (duplicate of as yet un-posted missive to Sheepdog-L):

I find it notable that no one on the Board of Directors has weighed in, even if only to tell us that they hate the idea--or that they like one of the alternatives suggested, or have a better one. Or that they feel it has not been brought to their attention through the right channels or . . . something.

In other words, you've got me half-way convinced Gary. Yikes!

Andrea

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

even if only to tell us that they hate the idea--or that they like one of the alternatives suggested, or have a better one.

 

Or that they are not on the internet that much, and lambing/calving is underway in much of the continent? But, it is a very good point - it's an unfortunate coincidence that they remain uncommunicative.

[Eileen Stein]

I find it notable that no one on the Board of Directors has weighed in, even if only to tell us that they hate the idea--or that they like one of the alternatives suggested, or have a better one. Or that they feel it has not been brought to their attention through the right channels or . . . something.

 

Well, the Directors are the ultimate decision-makers here, so I assume the point of Gary and Amy making this proposal known to the membership and inviting them to start posting on the new forum is to get members to let the Directors know what feelings, if any, they have on the subject. Presumably the Directors are getting input privately as well as publicly from any members who want to give it, and will take that input into account -- along with their own thoughts, concerns and judgments -- when they make the decision. There doesn't seem to me to be any point in the Directors making their feelings known to us in advance of that. What would we do with that information? We're not the ones who have to decide.

[Guest herbertholmes]

I cannot speak for al the directors but in my case,I do not want to debate my ideas and thoughts on a subject with up to 750 people. It takes all the energy a person needs to expend debating with the 20 other directors. I read the post pertaining to this subject and others dealing with the usbcha very often. I do not post because on some venues my ideas get trashed pretty hard. So, it is best to see people reaction and use that in weighing on the directors forum. the directors will give this subject the attention they as individuals feel it deserves. It seems that some of us feel that because we think it is a "hot" topic, that all the other directors must feel the same way. It simply does not work that way. So I would say to the proponents of any idea, be a little patient, because you certainly will not get anything positive thru lack of patience.

herbert

[Mike Neary]

This discussion is starting to play itself out here just as I predict things will work if this proposal passes. 1.) A handful of people are being very vocal about this proposal 2.) the biggest majority of members (is there really 750? I'd have predicted 400) have remained publicly silent and 3.) the current directors are being mildly trashed for not participating in a HA forum that has not even been approved as a vehicle for conducting association business.

 

I just came off as a director for the HA. Let me assure you, there is some spirited discussion that goes on in regards to association business. Often, business was brought up by specific directors that came from the membership.

 

I agree with Herbert, "I cannot speak for al the directors but in my case,I do not want to debate my ideas and thoughts on a subject with up to 750 people. It takes all the energy a person needs to expend debating with the 20 other directors". What a mess that would be. It's no way to run an organization. It's not sensical.

 

Communication with the membership is always a challenge. This proposal is not the way to solve that challenge. I'm not sure what the best method is, but I do know it is not this method.

 

I have now posted twice on this subject, which is a personal record. That's how much I think this idea will make for bad policy. It will drive away otherwise good directors that don't want to be lambasted on a regular basis. Good reasonable directors that are our peers, not some mysterious person that can be trashed around if they don't agree with a vocal minority.

 

There is a very clear process to change the HA if it is so desired. Each district has 2 directors, there are 3 at large directors, a President, a vice-president and a secretary. At least half of the directorships are up each year for election. Any member in good standing can be nominated to run as a director. You can even nominate yourself. Directors are voted on by their peers, other members, fellow handlers. It is a democracy, with day to day business run by those elected representatives, not by propositions and a small committee that says they speak for 750 members. I guess I'm not very keen to change a pure democratic process unless I can be sure it will be improved upon.

 

mneary

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

The point Eileen made, and Mike's follow up, are very good ones (and an angle that I'd only vaguely considered previously).

 

During a decision making process, a decision-maker participating in debate needs to air every consideration on their mind, every point that concerns them, flesh out arguments and modify viewpoints as they interact with other decision-makers.

 

It would be utter madness to expose that process to those who will not ultimately be making the decisions. A decision-maker should not have to be responsible for the path of reasoning (or even emotion) that led him or her to a choice, only that choice.

 

I suddenly have visions of statements being taken out of context and distributed to those who don't have access to these forums - "Brenda said such and such during the debate on white or purple sticks at the post!" That sort of scenario is just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure.

 

Another scenario is that the forum would be little more than a puppet theater, where the directors go through the motions of making decisions, carefully scripted for public consumption, having been forced to hash things out the old fashioned way via phone, at trials, and personal e-mails.

 

There is much deconstructive potential here.

 

The C-Span analogy is laughable. The real decisions of Congress are made in closed sessions, or in fact informally, or are driven by the bureaucratic machine.

[amc]

Folks,

 

We've said over and over....if the BOD wishes, they can have their private, not readable by anyone but themselves, space on the new forum, just as they have here. They can do their business there. Other spots on the new forum would provide places to post agenda items, news, questions to the members....and so forth.

 

What on earth is so dangerous about that? It seems so logical to keep discussions of HA 'things' under one roof, so to speak.

[Laurae]

Naive (probably irrelevant) opinion of an outsider here:

From reading everything on this forum, the WS forum and Sheepdog-L, it seems like the thing most people want is a forum (or something) where the members are informed what discussions are on the table prior to final decisions being made. The thing that most people don't want is endless back-and-forth debate between a vocal minority and the board. Why not set up a forum where the issues on the table are announced, non-board members (or board members if they desire) can discuss them among themselves on this new forum, and the board members can look at these discussions and take them into account (or not) in their own closed discussions on the private sections of this forum (or that forum; whatever, they could still be private)?

[Wendy V]

I would hate that the part of the proposal that allows for members viewing of board deliberations, the part of the proposal of which most strongly object to, is a deal-killer for the part that makes the most sense, that is, a forum that puts HA proposals on the table for discussion amoungst members. Michael, dearest, can't a man of your experience come up with an idea for improving the communication between members and the board? Do you sign off of even a mild suggestion? I don't mean to pick on you, because you know that you have my admiration, but to dismiss the vailidity of forum to disperse relavent information out-of-hand seems reckless, given that many have expressed the desire for greater transparency of board operations.

[Mike Neary]

Amy wrote (I can't figure out how to do the fancy little quote thing....)

 

<Folks,

 

We've said over and over....if the BOD wishes, they can have their private, not readable by anyone but themselves, space on the new forum, just as they have here. They can do their business there. Other spots on the new forum would provide places to post agenda items, news, questions to the members....and so forth.

 

What on earth is so dangerous about that? It seems so logical to keep discussions of HA 'things' under one roof, so to speak.>

 

When has it been said over and over, Amy? I've never seen that anywhere. Not on this forum, not on sheepdog-l. The original proposal was that any member or associate member could monitor discussion of the board without being able to participate. That is my main objection. It's bad policy for all the reasons I have stated earlier.

 

It seems like a good idea to have a place to post agenda items, current business, etc. But that is not how this started, not even close. The HA already has a site, actually a useful site, with minutes and such. Why can't that site be used or modified? Because the original intent of this proposal was for folks to be able to "eavesdrop" onto the directors as they hash out the business they were elected to conduct.

 

Actually, I think Herbert has done a very good job the last couple of years participating in the public forums when business that may be pseudocontroversial is before the board.

 

This whole business of starting a new forum to discuss this topic I find objectionable. It is not a forum sanctioned by the HA, just a few members. I don't know what was wrong with discussing this in existing public forums frequented by the working dog people. Then, when all current directors don't sign up for a non-official forum, they are lambasted.

 

I want to keep reminding everyone, the current directors are uncompensated peers. You will find all of them here http://www.usbcha.com/Officers_&_Directors.htm, with phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

 

mneary