Proposed new USBCHA Forum

[Shoofly]

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.

 

Hear, hear! I agree wholeheartedly Mike.

 

What's wrong with just posting the agenda on sheepdog-l and being done with it? Everyone in trialing either reads it or hears about it, it's become the unofficial entry and results and announcements venue as it is. The BOD already has a private area on this board to discuss topics so there's no need for another, newer one. If the agenda is posted, members can talk about it here or on sheepdog-l or the WSD board. Directors obviously already watch those spaces.

[Mike Neary]

My god I wish I knew how to do that little quote thing when the goddess of goose dogs starts to refer to me as "Michael, dearest", "man of experience", and "have my admiration". Actually, I suspect you'd rather kick my ass, but you're too nice and sweet to say it in public.

 

How can someone be against mom and Apple pie? There is nothing wrong with trying to improve communication throughout the organization. It would be great. But that is not how this started, not at all. It all started because a couple of members wanted to be able to read the postings on the private sections of this board dedicated to the directors of the HA. Hence, that's why it was thought a brand new forum was needed. That is how it started, and I don't care what kind of "mission creep" is occurring, that was the original intent. And as I've discussed ad naseum, that part of the proposal is bad news.

 

Yes, it is simple, post current topics and motions under discussion on the HA website which is located here http://www.usbcha.com/sheepdog.htm, so those members that are interested can contact directors. It doesn't take a "special" (I wish they had an Austin Powers icon for that "special") website to do that. The existing site could work just fine.

 

I need to talk to you sometime Wendy, dearest. I'll call you, unless you think we need our own private forum(insert stupid smiley face thing here)?

 

mn

[Wendy V]

 

Does this help?

[Mike Neary]

Oh yeah, sure, just like you to rub it in!!

[feas]

This is great. I have stopped recording Springer just to keep up on this.

 

By the way, I have started my own forum to discuss my own ideas on how thing should be run. I have the only logon and it is read only so I my thoughts don't get cluttered with all of my other thoughts on the idea.

 

ineffectuality

 

 

 

In all seriousness. Thank you to all the directors and the time you spend on HA issues. You were called upon and stepped up to accept the responsibility.

 

We all have great opportunities with which to work along some amazing animals and meet new friends with similar interest even if we may be at different levels and skills.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Egads!

 

Who invited him? Now I'll be setting up my own anti-Jason forum - I'd say look for me there, but I'm the only member!

 

Mike, you've shown a great deal of sense and patience on this matter and I hope you keep posting. Here's the quote thingy:

 

You can do it a couple ways:

 

First, you can highlight the text you want to turn into a neat quote thingy, then go up and hit the little icon/button that appears next to the smiley face. You should see the following bracketed code appear around your text:

 

[quo te] This is what I want to show up in a quote box [/quo te] I had to put a space in the word "Quote" so it wouldn't actually use the code to make a box.

 

The other way you can do it is just to type the above code before and after the text - it's a bracket ([), then the word "quote", then close the bracket (]), then your quoted text, then at the end you have to tell it that that is the end of the quoted text. You do that by typing a bracket ([), then a "/", then "quote", then the close bracket again (]).

[Gary Scott]

Well, Mike, I yielded, and registered, because I just couldn't let some of your assertions go unremarked upon.

 

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.

 

No directors have been "mildly trashed" for not participating. I have done all but beg them to at least look at what is the heart of a proposal Amy and I were asked to create.

 

 

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.

 

This is in no doubt.

 

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.

 

I am baffled by this statement from Herbert. No director has to debate anyone but other directors unless he/she wants to. They can completely ignore the member section of the forum if they want to. As the forum is currently configured, NO ONE but directors can post in the Directors section.

 

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 implore you, or anyone else, to offer something other than "I'm not sure what the best method is, but I do know it is not this method", and the tired old ineffective methods tried in the past.

 

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.

 

Do you seriously think not having this forum will somehow inhibit anyone prone to lambasting from doing it? At least on this forum, COMPLETE control is exercised by the directors themselves.

 

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.

 

Who, may I ask, other than directors, is trying to speak for 750 members? The board will either vote for this or against this. If against, the forum will disappear. Period. And if it does, do any of you think the directors will be less vulnerable to criticism. That's preposterous.

 

Ask any questions that may come to mind. I'll try to answer.

 

Thanks,

 

Gary

[Gary Scott]

There is nothing wrong with trying to improve communication throughout the organization. It would be great. But that is not how this started, not at all. It all started because a couple of members wanted to be able to read the postings on the private sections of this board dedicated to the directors of the HA. Hence, that's why it was thought a brand new forum was needed. That is how it started, and I don't care what kind of "mission creep" is occurring, that was the original intent. And as I've discussed ad naseum, that part of the proposal is bad news.

 

Mike,

 

You're wrong about this, and I have a pretty good idea why you think it. I sent you an email explaining the evolution.

 

Regards,

 

Gary

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

They can completely ignore the member section of the forum if they want to.

 

The problem is, one can't, once the dirt starts flying around. When the natural deliberation of an issue is turned into an object for public discussion, people will misunderstand things, take them out of context, overreact if the horse they back seems to waver in his or her resolve (while he or she might just be sounding out the concerns of a fellow director).

 

When the process of decision making becomes public, the directors will spend way too much time having to clarify, explain themselves, reintegrate things into their proper context. No organization conducts business in this way - unless it's one where the true decisions are made elsewhere, the decision-makers don't matter anyway, and the members have little interest in their doings.

 

I appreciate your contribution here, by the way, Gary.

[Gary Scott]

The problem is, one can't, once the dirt starts flying around. When the natural deliberation of an issue is turned into an object for public discussion, people will misunderstand things, take them out of context, overreact if the horse they back seems to waver in his or her resolve (while he or she might just be sounding out the concerns of a fellow director).

 

When the process of decision making becomes public, the directors will spend way too much time having to clarify, explain themselves, reintegrate things into their proper context. No organization conducts business in this way - unless it's one where the true decisions are made elsewhere, the decision-makers don't matter anyway, and the members have little interest in their doings.

 

I appreciate your contribution here, by the way, Gary.

 

Actually, I think the real problem is many of you have resolutely attached your objections to one aspect of the initial configuration that is imminently flexible. What I am trying to get across is that the USBCHA Board of Directors will have ABSOLUTE control of all aspects of the proposed forum. It will be owned, operated, moderated by them and whoever they appoint to carry out the required duties.

 

Do you think ABSOLUTE control over ALL ASPECTS of forum operation somehow results in MORE overreaction on the part of members than already exists at places where the BOD doesn't have absolute control? Every comment on the proposed forum will be from an actual MEMBER of the association.

 

Do you think a one-venue approach to information flow somehow INCREASES the workload of the directors and officers?

 

Do you think a one-venue approach somehow makes it MORE COMPLICATED for MEMBERS of the USBCHA to inform directors who are interested in what the opinions of the members are on what the BOD might be considering?

 

I don't want anyone to take offense, but I realize I am answering questions of and trying to explain this to some people who actually aren't members of the USBCHA because of how this venue is organized, but I think the effort just might help more fully educate others, who are members, as well.

 

I will be more than happy to discuss this until the BOD makes its decision.

 

Regards,

 

Gary

[Eileen Stein]

Well, I guess I'm going to comment on this after all.

 

The problem that has been identified:

• Members do not have notice of what measures are under consideration by the HA Board of Directors at a stage where they could make their feelings known to their directors.
  

The obvious solutions:

• When the Board (or the President) feels that an issue under discussion is important enough or controversial enough that it would be beneficial for the membership to give input about it, it is posted to the "Agenda" page of the HA website: "The following proposal is under consideration by the BoD. Please contact your directors with any thoughts you may have." They then delay the vote for X days (a week?) to allow interested members to email, phone, or otherwise contact their directors.
   
   
  
• Individual directors inform the members they represent about issues under discussion and seek their input. If a member is not satisfied with the level of information and consultation s/he receives from his/her director, do not vote to re-elect that director, and run yourself (or draft a candidate to run) on a platform of full consultation with the membership. (Does this seem unrealistic? If so, it's probably because (1) the pool of qualified people willing to undertake the uncompensated work of serving as a director is too small to find one who will also satisfy your consultation demands, and (2) most members do not consider this an important criterion to impose for election, and are willing to entrust the business of running the organization to those they elect to do it. Think about that.)
  

Things that would NOT be a good solution:

• Establishing an official HA discussion forum. First, this does not address the problem identified, which was members not knowing what the directors are considering. Once members have this knowledge -- from the Agenda page or from their Directors -- it is just as easy and more direct to convey their thoughts to their Directors by email as it is to post them to a discussion forum.
  

Second, there are already several venues where HA matters can be discussed (and will continue to be discussed, whether or not an official HA forum is implemented) -- Sheepdog-L, Working Stockdog Forum, BC Boards, to give three examples. Directors are free to read these forums to gauge membership sentiment on an issue, without having to pay for and moderate a separate HA forum. More important, the HA is not tainted by any unfortunate turns the discussion may take on those forums, as it would be by things said on an official HA forum. For example, members may post that the Finals at XXXX sucked and therefore the 2009 Finals should not be held at XXXX. Or that YYYY is a terrible judge, and should not be chosen for the finals. Or that novice trials should not be sanctioned because novices don't know enough and aren't good enough for their trials to be considered real trials (leading to hurt feelings and outraged posts from associate members). Discussions will become heated, sarcastic and nasty. When this happens on the existing forums, it may leave a bad taste in people's mouths, but that bad taste is connected to the individuals involved or to the particular forum involved. It does not spill over to affect people's feelings about the HA. But the things said on an official HA forum

would

cause negative feelings toward the HA.

 

Also, something would have to be done about these posts. Decisions would have to be made about what rules to impose on posts, and decisions would have to be made about whether individual posts conform to those rules ("respectful," "civil," etc.) enough to be left up, or are so contrary to those rules that they should be deleted before more people can read them. Which in turn will lead to further argument, allegations of favoritism, and further bad feeling. Who is going to make these decisions, which are often quite difficult? Is it work that we want to impose on our uncompensated officers and directors? And again, when I as moderator make decisions like that on the BC Boards, the fallout is directed only at me. On an official HA site, it would be directed at the organization. I think this would be very likely to lead to more member discontent, not less.

• Allowing read-only access for members to the Board of Directors private forum. There may be organizations that operate this way, but I don't know of any. All my experience with organizations tells me that if this were adopted, real discussion of issues by the Board would simply move elsewhere. For the sake of the HA's finances, I hope it doesn't move back to conference calls. Emailing, while much less efficient than a bulletin board forum, would be preferable to that.
  

 

In closing, I want to make it clear that whatever the Board decides is fine with me. I'm of the "elect 'em, and then let 'em get on with it" school.

[Gary Scott]

Well, I guess I'm going to comment on this after all.

 

The problem that has been identified:

Members do not have notice of what measures are under consideration by the HA Board of Directors at a stage where they could make their feelings known to their directors.

Actually, "a" problem that has been identified.

 

 

The obvious solutions:

When the Board (or the President) feels that an issue under discussion is important enough or controversial enough that it would be beneficial for the membership to give input about it, it is posted to the "Agenda" page of the HA website: "The following proposal is under consideration by the BoD. Please contact your directors with any thoughts you may have." They then delay the vote for X days (a week?) to allow interested members to email, phone, or otherwise contact their directors.

Surprisingly, a while back I mentioned one item under consideration, which had been languishing at the HA site for two weeks, on a forum and a fair number of readers had not been aware of it as best I could determine.

 

 

Individual directors inform the members they represent about issues under discussion and seek their input. If a member is not satisfied with the level of information and consultation s/he receives from his/her member, do not vote to re-elect that member, and run yourself (or draft a candidate to run) on a platform of full consultation with the membership. (Does this seem unrealistic? If so, it's probably because (1) the pool of qualified people willing to undertake the uncompensated work of serving as a director is too small to find one who will also satisfy your consultation demands

Notification of members of issues under discussion is much, much simplified under a single-venue approach. If only ONE director does it, and I do know of one who does it very well (there may be others), ALL members will learn of it. I guess two years waiting for a term to expire in order to try to elect a director who will inform his/her district's members appropriately isn't too long to wait.

 

 

(2) most members do not consider this an important criterion to impose for election, and are willing to entrust the business of running the organization to those they elect to do it. Think about that.)

I think you're jumping to a conclusion on this, colored by your own opinion on the issue. Most members have not been polled, nor do most members participate in the debate. Like virtually all organizations, 10 or 15 percent of the members carry the load, formulate the policy, do the hard work. Most of the rest reap the benefits. It's just human nature.

 

 

If a member is not satisfied with the level of information and consultation s/he receives from his/her member, do not vote to re-elect that member, and run yourself (or draft a candidate to run) on a platform of full consultation with the membership.

This argument always surfaces, and really, I think, is so obvious it is becoming trite.

 

 

Things that would NOT be a good solution:

Establishing an official HA discussion forum. First, this does not address the problem identified, which was members not knowing what the directors are considering. Once members have this knowledge -- from the Agenda page or from their Directors -- it is just as easy and more direct to convey their thoughts to their Directors by email as it is to post them to a discussion forum.

This is simply not true.

 

 

Second, there are already several venues where HA matters can be discussed (and will continue to be discussed, whether or not an official HA forum is implemented) -- Sheepdog-L, Working Stockdog Forum, BC Boards, to give three examples. Directors are free to read these forums to gauge membership sentiment on an issue, without having to pay for and moderate a separate HA forum. More important, the HA is not tainted by any unfortunate turns the discussion may take on those forums, as it would be by things said on an official HA forum. For example, members may post that the Finals at XXXX sucked and therefore the 2009 Finals should not be held at XXXX. Or that YYYY is a terrible judge, and should not be chosen for the finals. Or that novice trials should not be sanctioned because novices don't know enough and aren't good enough for their trials to be considered real trials (leading to hurt feelings and outraged posts from associate members). Discussions will become heated, sarcastic and nasty. When this happens on the existing forums, it may leave a bad taste in people's mouths, but that bad taste is connected to the individuals involved or to the particular forum involved. It does not spill over to affect people's feelings about the HA. But the things said on an official HA forum would cause negative feelings toward the HA.

For part of this: So, you think members won't be a little more circumspect about what they post on a members-only forum under the complete control of the BOD and frequented only by their "peers"? I'm sometimes cynical, but not that cynical.

And the rest: See the a previous response above.

 

 

Also, something would have to be done about these posts. Decisions would have to be made about what rules to impose on posts, and decisions would have to be made about whether individual posts conform to those rules ("respectful," "civil," etc.) enough to be left up, or are so contrary to those rules that they should be deleted before more people can read them. Which in turn will lead to further argument, allegations of favoritism, and further bad feeling. Who is going to make these decisions, which are often quite difficult? Is it work that we want to impose on our uncompensated officers and directors? And again, when I as moderator make decisions like that on the BC Boards, the fallout is directed only at me. On an official HA site, it would be directed at the organization. I think this would be very likely to lead to more member discontent, not less.

Apparently, you think less of your peers than I do. I consider all the rest of the internet analogous to the wild, wild, west, and the members-only venue analogous to Fort Apache, a haven from the marauders.

 

 

Allowing read-only access for members to the Board of Directors private forum. There may be organizations that operate this way, but I don't know of any. All my experience with organizations tells me that if this were adopted, real discussion of issues by the Board would simply move elsewhere. For the sake of the HA's finances, I hope it doesn't move back to conference calls. Emailing, while much less efficient than a bulletin board forum, would be preferable to that.

All those guys that went to the moon could have been killed, but they weren't. All kinds of bad things can happen. This has never been done, and it is easy to throw around scenarios that could happen. The fact is, the board can opt for this, or NOT opt for this. It's their choice. The nay-sayers always predominate when something new is tried. I didn't take a great deal of time to rebut all the potential negatives Eileen has pointed out in the entire post because I have already done so here and elsewhere.

 

 

In closing, I want to make it clear that whatever the Board decides is fine with me. I'm of the "elect 'em, and then let 'em get on with it" school.

I also want to say, in closing, "Let the Board's will be done".

 

Regards,

 

Gary

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I think the effort just might help more fully educate others, who are members, as well.

 

I think your efforts are to be commended. I know it's a lot of work running around, putting out fires of misinformation, clarifying things for people who don't seem to have read the original proposal thoroughly enough, dealing with people who get hot under the collar over largely irrelevant points that they got secondhand anyway.

 

Hmm.

 

[insert irony smiley here]

 

I am, however, quite serious about your (and those others working on it) efforts to address this issue and get the ball rolling on some solutions.

 

And, I might point out that this issue has highlighted another one, the current disconnect between "HA Members" and those on the sidelines who are not members, but who also care about these issues. I for one have realized it's time to get on board again - not because I overvalue my own opinion (I won't be eligible for full membership until I've gotten my pup trained up), but to show support for those who are making these decisions and doing, in my opinion, a largely thankless job well.

 

USBCHA Application for Membership

[Gary Scott]

I for one have realized it's time to get on board again - not because I overvalue my own opinion (I won't be eligible for full membership until I've gotten my pup trained up), but.....

 

Associate members, in addition to full members, of the USBCHA are utilizing the test forum during this discussion period, an ACTUAL, SPECIFIC, CONCRETE benefit of associate membership.

 

Gary

[Gary Scott]

Just as an aside, let me ask a few questions.

 

How many here knew that a USBCHA forum board meeting was going to be held on 06 Feb 2008, before it was held?

 

How many of you knew that a vote on a motion that might be of interest to many of you here would be conducted at that meeting, the date of which you did not know?

 

Before the internet was used, how many of you knew when board meetings were going to be held?

 

How did the minutes of that meeting get from here to the USBCHA web site, and is that the most efficient, easiest way to get it done?

 

Had you wanted to comment on that proposed motion, before the meeting you didn't know about, how many forums would you have had to go to to be sure your opinion was registered, 1, 2, 3, ...?

 

And, I guess, the ultimate question. How many of you cared?

 

Regards,

 

Gary

[Eileen Stein]

Surprisingly, a while back I mentioned one item under consideration, which had been languishing at the HA site for two weeks, on a forum and a fair number of readers had not been aware of it as best I could determine.

 

Hey, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. If the information is posted on the HA site, it has been made available to members. If members are not as anxious to go to the site and see what's posted as you think they should be, that's not really much of a problem, and it's one you can solve if you are so inclined by re-posting the information on the forums you frequent.

 

Notification of members of issues under discussion is much, much simplified under a single-venue approach. If only ONE director does it, and I do know of one who does it very well (there may be others), ALL members will learn of it.

 

The Agenda page of the HA website is a single venue. Notification by posting on the Agenda page of the HA website will make it known to all members who care to look. In addition, individual directors may wish to establish lines of communication with those in the district they represent.

 

I guess two years waiting for a term to expire in order to try to elect a director who will inform his/her district's members appropriately isn't too long to wait.

 

I think you're jumping to a conclusion on this [i.e., whether most members consider consultation with members an important criterion to impose for election], colored by your own opinion on the issue. Most members have not been polled, nor do most members participate in the debate.

 

Directors who don't inform their members appropriately (in the opinion of some) have been re-elected for years. And the fact that that most members don't participate in the debate suggests that this issue is not important to them.

 

Like virtually all organizations, 10 or 15 percent of the members carry the load, formulate the policy, do the hard work. Most of the rest reap the benefits. It's just human nature.

 

That is very, very true. But I don't consider posting on a discussion forum to be carrying the load, formulating the policy, or doing the hard work. To some, it is recreation. To others, it is a waste of time.

 

"Establishing an official HA discussion forum . . . does not address the problem identified, which was members not knowing what the directors are considering. Once members have this knowledge -- from the Agenda page or from their Directors -- it is just as easy and more direct to convey their thoughts to their Directors by email as it is to post them to a discussion forum."

 

This is simply not true.

 

In what way?

 

So, you think members won't be a little more circumspect about what they post on a members-only forum under the complete control of the BOD and frequented only by their "peers"? I'm sometimes cynical, but not that cynical.

 

Some may be a little more circumspect. Some may think they are being more circumspect, but may have a poor grasp of what is appropriate and/or a poor grip on their temper. And some may not be more circumspect. I don't see why they would be, really. If they would post something on a public board where they know both their peers and others read, why would they tone it down on a board that was only read by their peers? I will give you an example of a post I have removed from these Boards. One HA member posted that another HA member (identified by name) was not fit to hold office in the HA because he was so dishonest and incompetent that people would not let him set out sheep at trials in his district. That poster knew that other HA members were reading here, including the person named. If he would post that here, why wouldn't he post it on an HA board, if one existed? And far more frequent would be all the borderline nasty posts where someone would have to decide whether the bounds of civility had been exceeded. Members who thought that decision-maker was too tough would grouse about it in other forums, complain to Herbert, etc. Members who thought that decision-maker was too lenient would avoid the HA board because of its contentious and unpleasant atmosphere. If you think there is cause for grievance about communication with the HA membership now (which I admit I personally don't), I think an official HA discussion board would be a surefire way to multiply those grievances a hundredfold.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Well, to start with the last question first:

 

If I cared, I'd call my directors. Dean Holcomb and Norma Stewart. There's two - so I'll get one or the other pretty quick. Dean I know quite well, I know Norma well enough that I know she's very nice and approachable.

 

I know that if I asked, one or the other would be perfectly willing to keep me abreast of what's going on. I certainly know Dean isn't shy!

 

As an associate member, I'd then have the option of expressing my concerns - to the people who are best situated to act on those concerns, rather than a wider public which may or may not include them.

 

In the wider public arena, bandwidth is competitive - it's all about how big a fish you appear to be, as to how valid your opinion is perceived to be (this is what empowers trolls - they create a bigger "footprint" and get more bandwidth). I don't foresee any manner of regulating or restriction of access getting around that fact.

[Gary Scott]

Hey, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. If the information is posted on the HA site, it has been made available to members. If members are not as anxious to go to the site and see what's posted as you think they should be, that's not really much of a problem, and it's one you can solve if you are so inclined by re-posting the information on the forums you frequent.

The Agenda page of the HA website is a single venue. Notification by posting on the Agenda page of the HA website will make it known to all members who care to look. In addition, individual directors may wish to establish lines of communication with those in the district they represent.

Ok, once more, with feeling. EVERYTHING WILL BE AT THE SAME LOCATION. That is not an insignificant benefit.

 

 

Directors who don't inform their members appropriately (in the opinion of some) have been re-elected for years. And the fact that that most members don't participate in the debate suggests that this issue is not important to them.

I hope I don't detect thinly veiled-director bashing here. (It's a joke.)

 

 

I don't consider posting on a discussion forum to be carrying the load, formulating the policy, or doing the hard work. To some, it is recreation. To others, it is a waste of time.

Hmmm. Maybe many, each carrying part of the load, could be seen as a "group" carry? I hope the implication isn't that forums such as these aren't helping to "carry" the load. These are a lot of work for none of it to be shared "load carrying".

 

 

"Establishing an official HA discussion forum . . . does not address the problem identified, which was members not knowing what the directors are considering. Once members have this knowledge -- from the Agenda page or from their Directors -- it is just as easy and more direct to convey their thoughts to their Directors by email as it is to post them to a discussion forum."

 

This is simply not true.

 

 

In what way?

Simply because it is knowable a posteriori.

 

 

Some may be a little more circumspect. Some may think they are being more circumspect, but may have a poor grasp of what is appropriate and/or a poor grip on their temper. And some may not be more circumspect. I don't see why they would be, really. If they would post something on a public board where they know both their peers and others read, why would they tone it down on a board that was only read by their peers? I will give you an example of a post I have removed from these Boards. One HA member posted that another HA member (identified by name) was not fit to hold office in the HA because he was so dishonest and incompetent that people would not let him set out sheep at trials in his district. That poster knew that other HA members were reading here, including the person named. If he would post that here, why wouldn't he post it on an HA board, if one existed? And far more frequent would be all the borderline nasty posts where someone would have to decide whether the bounds of civility had been exceeded. Members who thought that decision-maker was too tough would grouse about it in other forums, complain to Herbert, etc. Members who thought that decision-maker was too lenient would avoid the HA board because of its contentious and unpleasant atmosphere. If you think there is cause for grievance about communication with the HA membership now (which I admit I personally don't), I think an official HA discussion board would be a surefire way to multiply those grievances a hundredfold.

I can only say, from a previous life: "You gotta expect a few losses in a big operation." We're all adults here, I think.

 

Regards,

 

Gary

[Albion Urdank]

This proposal might work if the membership would be allowed to observe board discussions of particularly important issues, rather than every item that comes before it. There are many items that require tact and delicacy, because particular individuals may be involved, which requires confidentiality. On the other hand, issues of import and of broad interest to the membership, particularly if they are controversial, would usefully be observed and commented upon by the members when the board deliberates on them. Last year, I proposed an amendment to one of our existing rules that I thought the membership should have had a chance to vote on. I was told that the board had to discuss it first and vote on whether to pass it on to the membership for its consideration. I submitted my amendment. It was moved and seconded and discussion prodeeded. I hadn't heard anything about it for weeks. Finally I asked one of my Directors and was told: "Hadn't anybody told you what happened?" I said "No." Then I was told that after several rounds of discussion, the board member who had originally moved the propsal decided to withdraw it because the weight of opinion seemed to be moving in the direction of rejection. The amendment was something that would have simply codified what we all have come to expect, as a matter of customary practice and elementary fairness in the conduct of trials, and yet didn't actually exist in writing (and which became apparent to me because of an incident which had occurred). The arguments that I had heard which were made against it were thoroughly wrong-headed, in my view, and I didn't think supporters of the amendment had engaged effectively in debate. They seemed to have been cowed, actually, and were perhaps themselves not comfortable with argumentation (they had moved and seconded it thinking no doubt that this was a no-brainer, and that everyone of course would support it). Had the general membership been privy to the board's deliberation, the discussion would have taken a different turn, and the outcome might have been changed. I was told by my Director that at least I could take comfort in the knowledge that some Directors were at least thinking about what I had proposed and were privately sympathentic. I didn't really think that this was enough. What particularly irked me, too, was that no one showed the common courtesy to inform me about what had transpired until I finally asked. Indeed, I wasn't even told that the proposed amendment was on the board's agenda, and needless to say the agenda of this meeting did not as far as I could tell get posted to the usbcha website. If the board itself doesn't actually sanction Amy's test, I don't see any point in undertaking it. But if it is willing to do so, on selected issues of importance, then I'd be game.

 

Albion

 

PS If a board member can't speak freely because the membership is lurking, the s/he shouldn't be on the board, in my view, because the Directorship is a public trust.

[Eileen Stein]

Hmmm. Maybe many, each carrying part of the load, could be seen as a "group" carry? I hope the implication isn't that forums such as these aren't helping to "carry" the load. These are a lot of work for none of it to be shared "load carrying".

 

I would never say that forums such as these don't do any good. Obviously, I think they can do quite a bit of good in many ways. But I think the hard work of running an organization effectively is done elsewhere. Members certainly make a contribution by making their ideas and views known to their directors, but IMO the most efficient and productive way of doing that is by contacting them directly.

[juliepoudrier]

The problem I have with the members having to contact their directors directly thing is that if I don't know what's going on before the BOD then I have no idea that I should be contacting my directors with my opinions. If I knew what was slated for discussion I would be more than happy to contact my directors. But I think it's a bit silly to think that all members of a district should routinely contact their directors to beg for information about what's going on so we can then provide our opinions. What are we supposed to do--call once a week or month just to ask what's going on (and then hope that the timing of our call is such that it occurs before anything of significance goes before the board so we might have a snowball's chance of offering an opinion?). There must be a simple way of informing members about business before the board so that we have a chance to comment on it--directly to our directors via phone or e-mail is fine with me at that point.

 

J.

[Gary Scott]

This proposal might work if the membership would be allowed to observe board discussions of particularly important issues, rather than every item that comes before it. There are many items that require tact and delicacy, because particular individuals may be involved, which requires confidentiality. On the other hand, issues of import and of broad interest to the membership, particularly if they are controversial, would usefully be observed and commented upon by the members when the board deliberates on them. Last year, I proposed an amendment to one of our existing rules that I thought the membership should have had a chance to vote on. I was told that the board had to discuss it first and vote on whether to pass it on to the membership for its consideration. I submitted my amendment. It was moved and seconded and discussion prodeeded. I hadn't heard anything about it for weeks. Finally I asked one of my Directors and was told: "Hadn't anybody told you what happened?" I said "No." Then I was told that after several rounds of discussion, the board member who had originally moved the propsal decided to withdraw it because the weight of opinion seemed to be moving in the direction of rejection. The amendment was something that would have simply codified what we all have come to expect, as a matter of customary practice and elementary fairness in the conduct of trials, and yet didn't actually exist in writing (and which became apparent to me because of an incident which had occurred). The arguments that I had heard which were made against it were thoroughly wrong-headed, in my view, and I didn't think supporters of the amendment had engaged effectively in debate. They seemed to have been cowed, actually, and were perhaps themselves not comfortable with argumentation (they had moved and seconded it thinking no doubt that this was a no-brainer, and that everyone of course would support it). Had the general membership been privy to the board's deliberation, the discussion would have taken a different turn, and the outcome might have been changed. I was told by my Director that at least I could take comfort in the knowledge that some Directors were at least thinking about what I had proposed and were privately sympathentic. I didn't really think that this was enough. What particularly irked me, too, was that no one showed the common courtesy to inform me about what had transpired until I finally asked. Indeed, I wasn't even told that the proposed amendment was on the board's agenda, and needless to say the agenda of this meeting did not as far as I could tell get posted to the usbcha website. If the board itself doesn't actually sanction Amy's test, I don't see any point in undertaking it. But if it is willing to do so, on selected issues of importance, then I'd be game.

 

Albion

 

PS If a board member can't speak freely because the membership is lurking, the s/he shouldn't be on the board, in my view, because the Directorship is a public trust.

 

Albion,

 

Part of your post illustrates what seems to have been a common problem over the years. That problem is inadequate BOD to member communication and vice versa.

 

On the subject of "executive sessions" for highly sensitive issues: Those should be very rare. If needed, they could be handled through email, or the old stand-by of conference calls.

 

I don't think any of us want or need to see how much the HA was charged for electricity last month, or why it needs to buy a new computer. It's the ISSUES that effect us all that are of concern, and this members forum concept has the only real potential to improve that that I have seen or heard of so far.

 

Try the test forum and see if it looks workable, in some form, to you. Let your directors know what you think.

 

Regards,

 

Gary

[Gary Scott]

The problem I have with the members having to contact their directors directly thing is that if I don't know what's going on before the BOD then I have no idea that I should be contacting my directors with my opinions. If I knew what was slated for discussion I would be more than happy to contact my directors. But I think it's a bit silly to think that all members of a district should routinely contact their directors to beg for information about what's going on so we can then provide our opinions. What are we supposed to do--call once a week or month just to ask what's going on (and then hope that the timing of our call is such that it occurs before anything of significance goes before the board so we might have a snowball's chance of offering an opinion? There must be a simple way of informing members about business before the board so that we have a chance to comment on it--directly to our directors via phone or e-mail is fine with me at that point.

 

J.

 

Julie,

 

Your comments are why I think the test forum, or something like it makes eminent sense. With such a vehicle, there should be no reason the directors would need to contact us, or us them. Used properly, it would all be there.

 

I can't imagine a director wanting 50 or more phone calls at home in regard to some issue before the board. At something like the test forum, the member can record his/her comments for the director to peruse at his/her leisure. This is actually of benefit to the directors, but they seem locked-in to members being able to "mess" in their deliberations. REGULAR MEMBERS, AS IT IS NOW CONFIGURED, CANNOT POST IN THE DIRECTORS SECTION OF THE TEST FORUM. I guess I will have to make that statement at the end of every post until everyone is clear on it. By the way, that isn't aimed at you, but at others who haven't seemed to have gotten that message.

 

Thanks,

 

Gary

[Eileen Stein]

The problem I have with the members having to contact their directors directly thing is that if I don't know what's going on before the BOD then I have no idea that I should be contacting my directors with my opinions. If I knew what was slated for discussion I would be more than happy to contact my directors.

 

I totally agree. I think the answer is posting items that are under consideration on the Agenda page of the HA website, so members can easily find out what is slated for discussion.

 

I can't imagine a director wanting 50 or more phone calls at home in regard to some issue before the board.

 

Maybe so. But a director could peruse 50 emails at his/her leisure, without having to leave his/her own Inbox.

[Gary Scott]

I can't imagine a director wanting 50 or more phone calls at home in regard to some issue before the board.

 

Maybe so. But a director could peruse 50 emails at his/her leisure, without having to leave his/her own Inbox.

 

Which is easier to manage, and less of a nuisance, 50 emails in your inbox or 50 replies on a forum?

 

A forum is better than email for the same reason BC Boards is better than some kind of email attempt at conversation. With email, no one else sees what is being said. The "conversation" is important when it is about an issue that pertains to the entire membership.

 

Gary