Motion about additional, exclusionary AMC elists
6. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded __________, that in the nature of honesty and congeniality, that AMC agrees not to create secondary AMC-lists that exclude members from discussion on such lists. If AMC feels that a member has been acting in a manner inconsistent with AMC's desires, it should be honest enough to include that member within its discussions.
Explanation: Members should be able to defend themselves without a kangaroo court.
Financial costs: Nada.
Further Explanation: None required.
Robin’s thoughts:
I don’t have a problem with this, in general, although I’d rewrite the motion more simply:
…that all current AMC members shall be included on the distribution of AMC-centered communications.
Explanation: It is not collegial nor ethical to create and use secondary AMC elists, teleconferences, forums, etc that exclude some AMC members from discussion. If some on the AMC feel that a colleague has been acting in a manner inconsistent with AMC's desires, they should be forthright enough to include that member within its discussions.
That said, do we really need such a motion to carve in stone what is essentially an ethical directive? And would such a motion condemn any off-list discussion about colleagues by two or more AMC members? Would this be a slippery slope forbidding us to talk with one another about one another?
I’m not sure how I feel about this proposed motion and I look forward to hearing others’ views.
4 comments:
This is the motion I most disagree with. Of course the spirit of it is admirable and I do agree that if the AMC or its individual members feel that an AMC member is behaving inappropriately, then that member should be included in the discussions. However, the motion is completely unenforceable, other than that whatever extracurricular discussions that take place will not take place on AML's servers. Or will someone tap my phone in case I don't report every time someone calls to put a bug in my ear about their pet issue?
Also, this issue is already covered in the AMC Code of Conduct, where we are instructed that we should first approach the colleague in question before using other venues.
Oh, and "kangaroo court" reference in an official explanation? You've got to be kidding me.
It should be noted that alternate AMC-lists have already been used against at least one AMC member. The door has been cracked.
This is a feel-good motion that even if passed would have no practical effect. People will communicate with whom they wish, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Heck, if it was only a few people I could configure my e-mail software to act as a rudimentary list server, and nobody would be any the wiser. It's gonna happen, like it or not.
So, to sum up -
The AMC consists of Robin, Leah, maybe one anonymous chickenshit, and 18 or 19 people who don't want to say anything in front of the membership.
Have I got that right?
Post a Comment