Today is day two of the AMC meeting. Yesterday went well. It was long and dull in parts. We broke it up into a bit of formal motion-discussion and voting and then long periods of "planning."
Planning Sessions
Most of the "planning" was listening to explanations of prior efforts and progress, followed by a few small group work. My table worked on aspects of the membership strategic goal. We identified, using the quarterly reports and our own knowledge, what the organization as a whole has accomplished in that area since July. And then we identified a bunch of pieces of data we wanted to have and track over time to help the AMC and staff stay on top of and react to and assess various aspects of the membership goal. I felt a bit patronized during the process, and my eyes glazed over a few times, but in general, it was useful and I'm feeling a bit more positive about this "strategic planning" stuff. Now if only we could get rid of all the fluffy words so I wouldn't be constantly wanting to shout out "but the emperor is naked!"
Tweeting
I tweeted as best I could during all this. Yes, De, I know you don't like Twitter, but it was much easier to use from my iphone than the AML Online Community ( I didn't have my laptop out during the meeting). If you are interested in the tweets about the whole day, including the things the various small groups came up with, go look at my twitter feed (to the right of this column).
Charter
The motion on the LG Charter passed with little discussion- what was left to say, really? I am soooooo glad to have that off my plate!
Discussion on LG Directories
We had some formal discussions about LG directories-- should they be allowed to email them, should they be allowed to create them at all, etc. Result is that LGs can make local directories but that we'll keep the rule that LGs can't email the electronic versions out of concern for member-privacy issues.
MIL Exchange program
We talked about the MIL program to send a few Americans to the European AG to give some LDWs, and to send some Europeans here to our AG for the same reason. Sounds useful and interesting. The Leadership Committee ( Peggy is chair) will choose candidates and the AMC will approve. (I think that's how it's going to work.)
Replacing RVCs
We talked about the options for replacing RVCs. Narrowed it down to:
* LocSecs choose
* LocSecs and Excomms choose
* Nominate regionally, elect nationally- each member has one vote to cast
* Nominate regionally, elect nationally- each member has ten votes to cast
* Elect and RVC and a spare the first time around
* Hold a full regional election
* Do nothing-- appoint a regional rep if we have to, and a non-voting rep if there are two RVCs who leave in a term.
All have merit. None are perfect. We had a series of straw polls to determine preferences so we could then direct the Bylaws Committee to craft the proposals. First round of straw votes showed a clear preference for the LocSec option, and fairly even splits for the other options. I voted for the Nom regionally, elect nationally with each member casting one vote option. In discussion, Burg explained why the LocSec option was legal. I pointed out that our membership had already told us that they don't think it's legal enough. Then he chewed me a new one.
The downside of the concern about the full regional election is the cost and the time it would take. The upside is that members in a region would really, no bones about it, get to vote for their representative. I then pointed to RVCs Lori, Marc, Betsy, and Ken (in my line of sight) and asked them how many members voted for them in the last election. The answer: none. My point is that if we held a regular style full regional replacement election, at least 60% of the time it would go fast and cost little, simple because there would be only one volunteer willing to do the job. And that all this howling about members should get to choose their representatives' replacements is kinda lame, since plenty of times, they have no choice the first time around.
Anyway, second straw poll had most "votes" (most in this case being about 8) supporting the LocSec option again, so the Bylaws Committee was instructed to go work on that. Guy asked for a poll to confirm that there would be at least 11 AMC members who would support that option, as otherwise it's useless for the bylaws Comm to spend time on it. We did yet another poll, and yes, it looks like more than 11 AMC members would support that method. I voted against it. So did Guy. I did not take notes and cannot recall who else voted against it. But this was a straw poll- not a formal vote. I doubt it will be in the official minutes.
Day is Done
We broke up, some went to a Site Selection meeting ( not me, so I have no idea what they discussed). We had dinner. I went to the Finance Committee meeting ( two hours!). We reviewed our motions we're making today, answered questions of committee members, looked at budget projections and balance sheets, gnashed our teeth, and pounded our chests. The thing that is clear to me, at least, is that we only have to borrow (from life dues principal) the amount listed in the motion before the AMC today. The rest of the ~$2 million spent on the lawsuit we had in reserve. The other finance motion is not about replaying that $2mil (we didn't borrow it, so who would we repay it to?), but about building our reserves back up until the net assets are positive on the balance sheet. I suggested an LDW presentation at the AG about how to find and read AMLs financial documents. Others scoffed that no members would attend such a presentation.
And then, a glass or two of wine in hospitality, and off to bed around 11pm.
No comments:
Post a Comment