[Wpfw-lsb] RE: Agendizing Matters for LSB Meetings
sarahbittle at hotmail.com
Thu May 20 15:56:17 PDT 2004
Simin, et al,
I realize that you have asked for input from everyone--however, there
are a few items which I can clarify and/or address.
"The problem has been that everytime someone brings up a question
it is ignored by Jim and answered by Sara..."
I don't think Jim is ignoring your questions. I know that Jim doesn't
always have e-mail access, and that his computer has had a virus. He
doesn't check e-mail that often.
Perhaps if I explicate my own fears on this matter, it will open the
dialogue up a bit. If every agenda is put together by the whole committee,
the process will take much longer, and be much more complicated than it is
at the moment. If you want to talk about a whole lot of e-mails, I can't
even imagine how many e-mails it would require to approve and finish. And
as I've mentioned before, I work a 55 hour a week job. Jim works full time
as well. And many board members do not check e-mail every day. So there is
functionally no way to get total approval from every board member. You
mention that it need not all fall on my shoulders. However, I have had no
one, beyond Tracey, Mike, and Joni, step forward to offer assistance in the
functional work of getting the secretarial work done.
Further, I am very worried about the agenda items we are not getting
to. We should have gotten to committee reports, but we did not. I
appreciate your post Simin, because I think it takes a step in the right
direction of a more civil dialogue. Criticisim need not be hurtful. It can
be constructive. To that end, I have set a date for suggestions to the
agenda, i.e. the Saturday before the meeting at 6 PM.
However, it is possible for me, or any secretary, to be objective, and
fair, and include items that are submitted, even if they are not ones that I
like or wish were there. For example, at Luzette's request, I made sure
her motion was not only on the agenda, but placed near the front. I did not
vote for the motion, nor did I endorse it. However, I respected her right
as a board member to have it addressed. Even given the recent ugliness
between the two of us, I would make the same decision again.
Why do we distrust before we trust? I want so much, as I'm sure so
many of you do as well, for this board to succeed. But this need to behave
as if we are all under suspicion is tearing us up, and making us seem just
as innefective as the board before us. We have only been together for 4
months. I wish we could give it a chance to suceed before tearing it down.
I genuinly believe, Siimin, that you are trying to make sure that this
process is fair and democratic. But before we go so far as to mandate each
and every item, may I suggest that we give it a chance to function? E-mail
me your agenda items. I can gaurantee that not every one will get there as
quickly as you might like. However, we will get to them. Before we go this
route, let's try to trust and work together. This goes not only for this
process, but for our work with station staff, and all of our work in
committees and with each other. We need not force each other's hands. We
need not be adversaries.
>From: Simin Royanian <ciwhr at yahoo.com>
>To: Sarah Bittle <sarahbittle at hotmail.com>, robrobin at erols.com,
>mrjbrown at aol.com, wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
>Subject: RE: Agendizing Matters for LSB Meetings
>Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
>This is addressed to Jim Brown and the whole of LSB
>for determination. It is not to be just answered by
>Sarah. The problem has been that everytime someone
>brings up a question it is ignored by Jim and answered
>by Sara and then Sara thinks people are unfairly
>The issues raised are not personal attacks on anybody.
>They are political and procedural issues of
>In fact ,I do not want to waste time arguing in EM's
>the decision for setting up agenda and the priority
>for items. This issue HAS TO BE ON THE AGENDA NEXT
>--- Sarah Bittle <sarahbittle at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Rob,
> > I cannot answer all your questions, but will
> > attempt to answer those I can. Up till now, the
> >review of the agenda has been somewhat informal. For
> > the past two months, it has had to be. As I've
> > mentioned before, my father has been ill and I have
> >had to take over his affairs.
>I was not aware that it is up to the Secretary to
>deside the answers to the questions raised about the
>process for seting up agendas. Eventhough the agenda
>may be sent out by the secretary, it has to be
>developed by the Chair with input from the LSB.
>The process for puting items in agenda should have
>been clear from the meeting. Several persons, incluing
>me, have asked this same question before.
>In addition all the burden of taking care of this
>issues must not be put on one person, the secratary,
>so that a family emergency creats undue burden on her
>and delays our process
> >... I will include agenda items that have been
> > submitted to me before that date. However, I want
> >to also mention something. It will not always
> > be possible to include every agenda item suggested.
>That is probably true, but who is going to judge which
>item will be included and which one will not be
> > We are running behind on some very essential
> >business matters.
>Yes, but to know how agendas are set is very essential
>and has not been decided or clarified.
> > Finally, we have to put the
> > attendence record straight for the March 16th
> >meeting of the whole. So the schedule is really
>Several of us have brought this point to the
>atttention of alll that one of the meetings under
>consideration was a meeting of the committee of all
>and attendace at that meeting must not be counted
>So I hope that this item will be in the form of a
>quick motion to change the notes to reflect that and
>not a long discussion.
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Domains Claim yours for only $14.70/year
Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win
$1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
More information about the Wpfw-lsb