link to Home Page

Board Meeting

January 21, 2001

18:56:14| (Jurian) Ok, lets come to order, and hereby mark this board meeting as started.
18:56:19| (Jurian) Our first item on the agena is: Approval of last meetings minutes
18:56:25| (Jurian) Is there any objection to the minutes, as posted on the web?
18:56:41| (Roger) None here
18:56:47| (Nancy) None from Shirley or Nancy.
18:56:49| (Brent) none here
18:56:59| (Gerard) none here
18:57:27| (Jurian) Ok, then they are hereby accepted.
18:57:37| (Jurian) Next item, Report on the Treasurer's Quarterly Financial Statement. Nancy?
18:57:59| (Nancy) I'm going to post the Agenda text now.
18:58:00| (Nancy) Treasurer's Quarterly Financial Statement - Report by Nancy
18:58:01| (Nancy) Fourth quarter statement for 2000 is also the draft Annual Statement, to be included in the Annual Report. Not reflected in this statement are recent donations of $300 from Knowledge Systems, non-designated, and $100 from John Kelso, designated to Seed TEAM support. Current balance in the bank, with all outstanding checks cashed but excluding the 2001 donations mentioned above, is $8,893.53 - more than sufficient to cover on-going projects.
18:58:33| (Jurian) didn't get any further then "cover on-going projects"
18:58:37| (Nancy) (more)
18:58:50| (Nancy) An anticipated donation from the Julia Dula Foundation has not been received as yet. This statement is a draft as it presents confusion. Ron treated the TV Clip as an asset, downposting this with development expenses, so it is a negative asset at present rather than project expenses and incidental income when we sell a clip for $5 to individuals. I and the CPA firm are correcting this. We will also be condensing the physical assets into three categories - Seed Gardens, Hydroponics Lab, and Video & Servers.
18:59:35| (Nancy) I will have the finalized statement for the Annual Report.
19:00:10| (Nancy) I have nothing to Add beyond this. Basically we have $9,300 in cash, apx $13,000 in physical assets.
19:00:34| (Shaul) hi everyone, good to see you
19:00:53| (Roger) Hello Sol, the meeting is in progress...
19:00:55| (Brent) Morning Sol
19:00:55| (Jurian) Hi, we've already started, are currently at item 2
19:00:59| (Shaul) soryy I'm late
19:01:06| (Shaul) couldn't connect to my new provider
19:01:21| (Jurian) no problem.
19:01:37| (Nancy) I will be noting on tt-inc when the Annual Report financial statement gets updated, and reviewed by Jan.
19:01:58| (Jurian) Ok.
19:02:08| (Brent) very good
19:02:09| (Gerard) Hi Sol
19:02:10| (Jurian) Any questions/notes regarding the Treasurer's Quarterly Financial Statement ?
19:02:20| (Gerard) not from me
19:02:27| (Shaul) no
19:02:31| (Roger) Looks good to me.
19:02:31| (Brent) none here
19:02:36| (Jurian) Good :-)
19:02:44| (Jurian) Third item, Discussion about the Annual Report. Any comments/notes/things to discuss here?
19:03:15| (Nancy) Annual Report - Discussion
19:03:15| (Nancy) A draft of the Annual Report, to be a link with other Annual Reports from the nonprofit home page, was made available to the Membership and Board after the end of year 2000. This link is not yet in place. The only comment on content being from Mary, who objected to the graphic photo of earthworms being prepared for recipes.
19:03:41| (Roger) I missed the picture that Mary objected to. Was it bad? Or was she talking about the worm picture that is there?
19:03:57| (Shaul) it does look kind of gruesome, with someone cutting what looks like live worms,
19:03:58| (Nancy) Roger, the bloody chopped worms.
19:04:03| (Shaul) but it brings the point accross, I think
19:04:08| (Jurian) I think the worms picture is a good thing, and should be in there!
19:04:22| (Brent) I agree, a good picture...
19:04:26| (Shaul) I agree. It shows what it's really made of
19:04:27| (Jurian) As was said on the list, it sure beats a picture of a bowl of soup
19:04:33| (Nancy) I might try to shrink the photos, so they are not so big.
19:04:52| (Roger) Maybe my color defficiency shields me from the blood, but all I see is a knife and some worms. Not too graphic to me.
19:04:59| (Shaul) I think it looks fine as is, there's no getting away from the fact that we're offering worm recepies!
19:05:13| (Nancy) Shirley says, "It shows how things are going to BE!"
19:05:25| (Brent) Yes, people should get used to how they look!
19:05:30| (Nancy) Shirley says, "The more graphic, the better."
19:05:30| (Roger) Exactly Shirley. I think it should stay as it is!
19:05:55| (Shaul) but maybe add the bowl of soup anyway, so the "final product" is seen as well...
19:06:16| (Brent) not a bad idea...before and after shots
19:06:19| (Nancy) Sol, Shirley and I agree. I'll add the soup photo.
19:06:29| (Jurian) Sol: yeah, but should that be in the annual report? That'd be better placed on the worm recipe page, wouldn't?
19:06:45| (Gerard) or on both ?
19:06:48| (Jurian) altho it wouldn't hurt :-)
19:06:51| (Shaul) yeah, why not both
19:07:08| (Roger) The soup photo will help. I really see no difference between bloody worms and bloody steak and the public should begin to
realize the lack of difference as well.
19:07:34| (Brent) good analogy, Roger
19:07:37| (Shaul) ughh...
19:07:39| (Shaul) you're right though.
19:07:43| (Roger) hehe
19:08:30| (Nancy) To clarify, I will include the final worm soup along with the bloody worms, in the Annual Report.
19:08:36| (Jurian) Agreed
19:08:49| (Brent) Yes, agreed
19:08:55| (Shaul) right
19:09:14| (Jurian) Anything else with regard to the annual report?
19:09:52| (Gerard) not from me
19:09:59| (Shaul) none here
19:10:27| (Roger) Good work. I'm printing this one out!
19:10:35| (Nancy) None from Shirley or Nancy.
19:10:43| (Jurian) Ok then, lets move on to the fifth item, a report on the annual nominations. Shirley?
19:10:50| (Nancy) Public Contact via 800 Number- Report by Nancy
19:10:51| (Nancy) In anticipation of non-Internet public contacts, an 800 number and PO Box for public contact were opened. The 30 minute documentary anticipated to develope interest in the public which may or may not have Internet access to the nonprofit's home page, was filmed over Labor Day, 2000 and polished by professional film technicians in Tarzana, CA over the holidays. This documentary is not a nonprofit project, but includes, in total, Geson's 4 minute
19:11:06| (Jurian) (whoops, my bad !)
19:11:16| (Nancy) TV clip which is a nonprofit asset, and references the nonprofit and Troubled Times web site as a source of solutions to survival and aftertime living. Board members were requested to call the 800 number to hear Shirley's answering machine message.
19:11:26| (Jurian) this is of course Item four, Report on the Public Contact via 800 Number !
19:11:40| (Shaul) right, it's ok
19:12:37| (Shaul) I'm sorry if I missed this, but where is this number published?
19:12:57| (Brent) Hmm, I don't remember getting the request to call, but I would be happy to
19:13:17| (Nancy) Sol, if you click on the Contact menu item at left on the nonprofit home page, the new PO box and 800 are there.
19:13:30| (Shaul) ok, I'll try that
19:13:36| (Roger) I also didn't get the number or read a request.
19:13:37| (Brent) Me too
19:13:53| (Roger) Shall we call right now?
19:14:06| (Shaul) go for it, why not. and tell us
19:14:09| (Nancy) For your info, I had wanted Shirley to record directly to tape, her message, as via Internet mail and my PC speakers, it is faint on the tape. We've worked out the logistics of this, and her strong voice message will be forthcoming.
19:14:15| (Brent) I'll wait till after the meeting...
19:14:39| (Jurian) neither did I, but now we know where to find it, feel free to make a quick call so we know what we're talking about
19:14:54| (Shaul) you're right, that can wait until after the meeting, so we can move along
19:15:06| (Nancy) Maybe nobody got my request! I sent it out over a month ago, and maybe something went amiss, like I failed (gak).
19:15:27| (Jurian) or egroups ate it, dont worry about it, just resend it :)
19:15:29| (Shaul) even if so it's no biggie, we'll try it out now
19:15:52| (Roger) More like we just missed it...calling now..
19:15:59| (Shaul) ah, cool.
19:16:07| (Jurian) Ok, we'll wait a sec to hear what roger has to say about it :-)
19:16:08| (Gerard) ;)
19:16:18| (Gerard) :)
19:16:24| (Shaul) rrrinngg.... rrrrrinnnggg...
19:16:42| (Gerard) (remove the ;) )
19:17:05| (Roger) Hehe...pretty neat. I like the message. There is a significant bit of interference but I could understand the message.
19:17:11| (Roger) Shirley has a nice accent.
19:17:26| (Shaul) I'll try it from here as well.
19:17:41| (Jurian) Ok
19:17:43| (Roger) The pace of the message was excellent and it wraps up our mission quite well.
19:18:03| (Nancy) The producer of the 30 minuted TV documentary states that film technician professionals from his fathers film production company have polished the video, and the draft is a heartbeat away from being sent to me for final review. I have lined up several Public Access TV applicants. This is about to happen!
19:18:04| (Roger) I did not leave a message.
19:18:09| (Shaul) maybe the wording should be published for the membership?
19:18:27| (Shaul) (I mean Shirley's message)
19:18:28| (Gerard) sounds good about the Public acces TV
19:18:43| (Jurian) Sol: might be usefull yes
19:18:46| (Shaul) That does sound excellent, absolutely. High time
19:18:53| (Jurian) Yes, it sure does! :-)
19:19:18| (Nancy) Sol, good suggestion, and I'll do that!
19:19:24| (Shaul) cool
19:19:35| (Brent) Plus, you already have Public TV applicants lined up, in your area?
19:19:38| (Jurian) Nancy: Is there any chance it'll be available for download somewhere? Or will it be shown on european TV as well?
19:20:25| (Shaul) Yes, I'd like to ask about the promotion of that thing as well.
19:20:42| (Shaul) How will it happen, will everyone have to look for the PBS station which'll want to take it?
19:21:00| (Gerard) The download will to be large in mb my guess.. for good quality
19:21:21| (Brent) Or just Public access TV, do you have that in Europe and Israel?
19:21:24| (Jurian) Yes, but a realvideo clip would be acceptable I think
19:21:29| (Shaul) I won't be able to download a 30 minute clip here
19:21:44| (Shaul) We don't have what you call "public access tv" here.
19:21:47| (Nancy) Public Access TV is only in the US, but the 30 minute video can be made available to ANYONE who has a station lined up. The producer only wants to send the video, or a BetaCAM if required, to the TV stations directly, not individuals.
19:21:51| (Gerard) The same over here ...
19:22:03| (Gerard) no public acces TV
19:22:09| (Nancy) No, not on the Internet, we don't have streaming video as yet at our disposal.
19:22:16| (Brent) Understandable, Nancy
19:22:26| (Jurian) it doesn't need to be streaming, we can just have a normal downloadable clip
19:22:43| (Shaul) so, how will the promotion be handled - or is that not an issue right now?
19:23:51| (Shaul) (I mean, maybe I can contact someone here about showing it as well, that's why I'm asking)
19:24:09| (Nancy) Jurian, there is not enough space on the alpha site for this to be placed. Crunch time!
19:24:31| (Jurian) Ok, it'll have to wait for the unix servers then, no real problem
19:24:32| (Brent) Sol, Jurian: PBS would be the only options in Europe and the Middle East?
19:24:57| (Nancy) I put out a request for PATV applicants, and got half dozen good responses - from Cal to east Coast, and in Canada. Many
have producers of regular TV stations interested also.
19:25:05| (Shaul) Well, here the main national channel runs plenty of "public service" program
19:25:16| (Jurian) Well, we have local TV stations which we could ask, but those of couse only have a small audience
19:25:20| (Shaul) the point is to get a producer interested, like Nancy says
19:25:52| (Shaul) So, my understanding is that we're handling the promotion ourselves, am I right?
19:25:55| (Brent) I see
19:25:58| (Gerard) right ... but even a small audience could be enough to draw more interrest i think
19:26:11| (Jurian) Getting it to be shown on discovery, worldwide, would be a very good thing, I think :-)
19:26:16| (Brent) I agree Gerard
19:26:26| (Nancy) The 30 minute documentary producer is not rich, paying for all of this himself, but is interested in promotion, obviously. If you have a TV station, we'll get them supplied, etc.
19:26:32| (Shaul) Yeah, right...
19:26:46| (Shaul) (that was for Jurian's comment way above)
19:27:02| (Jurian) well, right now it may be unlikely, but maybe in a year or two, that'll have changed
19:27:25| (Jurian) as by then it'll be fairly obvious things are happening, to the general public, I think
19:27:35| (Shaul) ok, I know some people in television here, but they'd need to see the clip ahead of time.
19:28:10| (Nancy) The 30 minute thing is my talking head, about the 12th (Planet X, etc.) and the nonprofit solutions, along with aninmations about the passage, history, etc. At the end, Geson's 4 minute clip plays, which has our URL along with ZetaTalk.
19:28:23| (Brent) too bad we can't stream it on the web yet, for preview by Producers
19:28:26| (Nancy) ZetaTalk is downplayed and not mentioned, except for this URL display on Geson's clip.
19:28:46| (Shaul) So who are you introduced as?
19:29:03| (Shaul) if not as the Zeta emissary, I mean
19:29:55| (Nancy) Sol, as associated with the nonprofit.
19:30:28| (Shaul) ah, right. And what do we give as the reason for the nonprofit's existence?
19:30:31| (Nancy) Also, not related to nonprofit projects but the nonprofit will benefit, perhaps, a couple announcments.
19:31:22| (Nancy) 1. I was the guest speaker at MUFON/Gulf Breese past weekend, guest of Don Ware, who is internationally known Lt. Colonel in Air Force, MUFON investigator during Gulf Breese.
19:31:54| (Nancy) Sol, geo changes and concerned folks wanting to prepare. History of 3,600. Sitchin, etc.
19:32:12| (Shaul) great stuff. should work on some at least.
19:33:00| (Nancy) 2. Coast to Coast magazine interviewed me, and I as ZetaTalk re cataclysmic changes may get an article in there in Feb mag. This is Art Bell's mag.
19:33:18| (Shaul) He has a wide readership, this is great.
19:33:43| (Jurian) Sure is :-)
19:33:51| (Brent) what about an interview on air, Nancy?
19:34:05| (Brent) any possability?
19:34:15| (Gerard) yes it is great yes ...
19:35:15| (Gerard) Brent: you mean on coast to coast or so ?
19:35:32| (Brent) Yes Gerard
19:35:35| (Nancy) The interview is not a PROMISE to be included in the mag. But if so, they interviewer stated that often online radio guests are first introduced via the mag. We shall see ...
19:36:20| (Brent) Yes, lets hope it works out
19:36:23| (Nancy) I think I'm overdue to be on Art Bell, especially because of ZetaTalk accuracy.
19:37:25| (Jurian) Ok people, lets not get too far from the topic (Report on the Public Contact via 800 Number) please :-)
19:37:39| (Brent) I agree, and since Jeff Rense has backed off, Art Bell would be an excellent next step
19:37:44| (Shaul) you're absoluely right, Jurian.
19:37:55| (Brent) sorry Jurian :)
19:38:09| (Gerard) yes Jurian
19:38:09| (Nancy) My appologies. Just pointing out that this type of attention leads folks, via links from the ZetaTalk home page, to the nonprofit home page.
19:38:32| (Shaul) oh, absolutely
19:38:40| (Jurian) No problem, we can of course continue this after we've completed the items on the agenda, as this IS very interesting at least.
19:39:29| (Shaul) moving on then?
19:39:41| (Jurian) Heh, ok then, unless there are any other comments about the 800 number?
19:40:04| (Nancy) None here, from Shirley or myself.
19:40:06| (Shaul) not from me
19:40:11| (Brent) not here
19:40:16| (Jurian) Ok then, the fifth item, a Report on the Annual Nominations by shirley
19:40:22| (Nancy) Annual Nominations - Report by Shirley
19:40:23| (Nancy) Nominations for positions subject to annual election by the Membership have been proceeding, during this month of January. To date, accepted nominations for the positions of President, Vice President, Administrative VP, Secretary, and Treasurer have been made, with 5 additional nominations for Board. Officers are automatically on the Board. Three additional nominations for Board have not yet been accepted, which if accepted would bring the total
19:40:36| (Nancy) It appears there my be no contested seats, and begs the question of whether a Membership votecall is necessary if there is no contest.
19:41:07| (Shaul) I would just like to comment that Officers are NOT automatically on the Board, but this is only a technicality.
19:41:28| (Shaul) We can agree that the membership implied that these people are being voted for the Board first
19:41:54| (Roger) Sol, the interpretation is that a nomination for officership implies a nomination to the Board.
19:42:12| (Roger) (as well)
19:42:19| (Brent) Does the membership understand this?
19:42:25| (Nancy) Shirley says "I will not do a votecall if there is no contest. It would be a futile exercise. Nominations have 2 more weeks to run, and if there are no more nominations, I'm going to close the votecall.
19:42:27| (Shaul) right, "implies", and it's enough for me - but that's not what it says
19:43:18| (Shaul) Shirley's right, if there's just enough nominees for seats - then it'd be a waste of time
19:43:41| (Shaul) But we did have an election last summer with three people running for three seats...
19:43:44| (Jurian) Agreed, that'd be voting while already knowing the end result, useless
19:43:56| (Gerard) right
19:44:27| (Shaul) Do we have a provision for what to do if not all the Board seats are filled
19:44:33| (Shaul) (which looks mighty likely right now)
19:44:55| (Nancy) Jurian, you're right, and in the past we had the Membership vote on Internet Comm and Internal Auditor, which are not positions requiring an election. So, can always change for the better.
19:45:18| (Jurian) Agreed :-)
19:45:45| (Nancy) Sol, the Bylaws state that empty Board seats can result in a mid-year election, if the Board things appropriate.
19:45:48| (Jurian) Sol: not sure, I'm guessing that that'd just make it likely to have mid-year elections to try and fill those seats again
19:45:57| (Jurian) Ok :-)
19:46:06| (Shaul) you both said the same thing... I guess that's it then.
19:46:25| (Jurian) Great minds think alike, heh
19:46:33| (Shaul) hehehehe...
19:46:54| (Shaul) we may run into quorum problems later, and we'll have to solve them.
19:47:02| (Shaul) for now it's fine, as you say.
19:47:11| (Brent) some nominees still need to accept. I wonder if they understand this.
19:47:17| (Nancy) The issue falls to who is willing to spend the time, to show up for meetings, etc. This changes when we have a surge of new members, as we did last summer.
19:47:19| (Shaul) they do, they do.
19:47:28| (Shaul) (that was to Brent)
19:47:30| (Jurian) Might be usefull to state that again on the list, just so everyone knows for sure
19:47:48| (Nancy) Sol, a quorum is HALF the Board, so is will be less if we have less, etc.
19:47:50| (Roger) I agree with Jurian.
19:47:54| (Shaul) Absolutely. egg those guys on a bit, although there's still almost two weeks to go
19:48:17| (Jurian) I can never hurt to tell them again :-)
19:48:36| (Brent) sure, a gentle reminder
19:48:54| (Jurian) (that was supposed to say it, instead of I )
19:48:54| (Roger) I know it is considered to be in bad taste to nominate yourself, but I wonder if that is a possibility. There are members thay I do not know, let alone know their qualifications.
19:48:59| (Nancy) Jurian and Roger, could you restate what you're agreeing on? Put what on the list?
19:48:59| (Shaul) you're right, Nancy, I just looked it up in the Bylaws. The quorum is 50% of current Directors, no matter how many we have
19:49:20| (Jurian) Nancy: a reminder that people need to accept their nominations
19:49:25| (Jurian) or decline
19:49:45| (Roger) If they are qualified, could they post such qualifications and then be "seconded" for nomination?
19:50:16| (Nancy) Shirley says "If they don't read the messages, then they don't deserve to be on the Board."
19:50:28| (Jurian) And that is of course also true
19:50:36| (Shaul) she's right, she's right...
19:50:38| (Brent) hehe, you go Shirley!
19:51:08| (Gerard) :)
19:51:09| (Jurian) and it is fairly clear that you either accept or decline, as Shirley's reports to the list clearly state the status of the nominee
19:51:18| (Nancy) last year we had Geson and Pat and David on the Board, and they never showed up for meetings. If we nudge folks, then we get this. We need COMMITTED involvement, etc., else it does run us into quorum problems.
19:51:31| (Shaul) Well, it looks like we'll have at least as many active members on the Board next year as now, which is satisfactory
19:51:37| (Gerard) Right Nancy ...
19:52:22| (Brent) Nancy and Shirley are right, no sense having board members that don't show up.
19:52:35| (Nancy) Sol, right, and some new ones _ Mary, Jan, and maybe George.
19:52:37| (Jurian) Agreed, that'd only work against us
19:53:21| (Roger) So, what about self posting of qualifications? Could this be a venue for obtaining more nominations? There may be members that would be interested in being on the Board, but no one knows if they are qualified and so they aren't nominated.
19:53:59| (Jurian) Roger: I'm not at all sure if its allow to nominate oneself, but if it is, it might give us some interesting results, and they would still have to be seconded anyway.
19:54:50| (Brent) I don't see anything wrong with the posting of ones qualifications.
19:54:52| (Shaul) sorry, kicked off...
19:55:01| (Shaul) ouch...
19:55:29| (Jurian) Brent: nor do I, we just need to make sure it's legally allowed :-)
19:55:40| (Jurian) altho I can see no reason why it wouldn't be
19:55:46| (Nancy) Shirley says "No. Board members have to be nominated by the Membership."
19:56:06| (Roger) Sol, we are wondering (well, I am at least) if it is possible to nominate oneself.
19:56:07| (Brent) Even if they posted their qualifications, they would still have to be nominated.
19:56:07| (Nancy) Shirley says, "It's not appropriate."
19:56:27| (Shaul) It's just not going to happen on our group, whether it's permissible or no
19:56:37| (Shaul) people won't push themselves, we're not that kind of group, I don't think
19:56:38| (Nancy) For one thing, if the ONLY person knowing a nominee is the nominee, then they can say ANYTHING about themselves, and who's to know?
19:56:57| (Brent) good point Nancy
19:57:08| (Shaul) it's true. People have to know this person from their postings, it can't be someone unknown
19:57:26| (Roger) This may be true, but we could solicate qualifications from interested members and then nominate...
19:57:50| (Shaul) let's put it that way. Do you have anoyne in mind?
19:57:58| (Nancy) Also, they get to be members based on TT web content, or project contributions to the nonprofit directly, so they ARE known, as individuals. Just not Board quality, per the Membership's view.
19:58:46| (Roger) And how is the Membership to differentiate Board quality if personal qualifications are not known?
19:58:48| (Jurian) Do all members *know* the *other* members tho? I do not think so
19:59:05| (Gerard) :)
19:59:19| (Shaul) not in the biblical sense, I hope...
19:59:22| (Jurian) I think asking members who are willing to serve on the board to post their qualifications may be a good thing
19:59:32| (Nancy) Roger, the tt-inc is a forum. If they are not using this, then the fact that they are NOT known, is their fault!
19:59:54| (Shaul) I agree with Nancy
20:00:02| (Nancy) Shirley says, "What if their contributions don't reflect their inability, too!"
20:00:18| (Roger) This is a good point Shirley.
20:00:26| (Jurian) Some "lurk" but can be potentially good board members, I think?
20:00:56| (Shaul) if they're lurkers on the tt-inc - then they don't care enough to lead
20:01:05| (Roger) My curiosity is rather we could or perhaps should solicite the membership for interested parties to post their qualifications.
20:01:40| (Shaul) There's no harm in doing that, at least it'll give some sort of indication about some members we don't know yet
20:01:45| (Nancy) Jurian, lurking inplies the same passivity we struggled with - board members who didn't show up, etc. Lurking=too busy or not interested. Either way, not good Board members.
20:02:02| (Jurian) True
20:02:32| (Shaul) that's right, I don't think we want the same situation as now, with nearly half the Board not showing up to meetings
20:02:41| (Brent) True, so why solicite people who are too busy or not interested in leadership?
20:02:48| (Jurian) Agreed Sol, thats a bad thing
20:02:51| (Gerard) we had that problem of boardmeeting that couldn't continieu or being started because people din't show up ...
20:03:04| (Shaul) well, just as a sporting point, Brent, as an excercise to get people more involved.
20:03:22| (Nancy) Shirley says "I'm in control of the nomination and voting process. And for this year, at least, it's staying the way it is. If the membership doensn't like it, then let them get off their butts and vote in a different Secretary next year."
20:03:52| (Jurian) Heh, well said :-)
20:03:54| (Brent) Yes, with a full board, the quorium need is higher! ( answering Gerard)
20:04:21| (Shaul) way to go, Shirely!
20:04:52| (Jurian) Brent: exactly, so we need people who will show up at least 80% of the time (rather more) :)
20:04:56| (Brent) Sol: I see your point, just getting people to talk....
20:05:05| (Nancy) This is a volunteer organization. If they are members, but not volunteering to get involved, then they will not make good board members.
20:05:11| (Shaul) right, we can think about it later on.
20:05:22| (Shaul) (that was in answer to Brent)
20:05:35| (Brent) Jurian: agreed, smaller, dedicated board, smaller quorium needed.
20:05:44| (Jurian) yeah
20:05:49| (Shaul) yup
20:05:52| (Nancy) Mary is an example. She's involved. Who knew her from just her TT web site contributions alone? She's been nominated and is on the roster for election.
20:06:06| (Brent) Sol: OK
20:06:37| (Jurian) Agreed, Mary is involved, was one of the few who voted on the bylaw change as well
20:06:39| (Brent) Yes, Mary will be a good addition, I think.
20:07:21| (Nancy) This is an example of the process. She was an unknown, but became known to the membership via her involvement.
20:07:22| (Roger) Moving on?
20:07:39| (Shaul) yes, absolutely, moving on
20:07:42| (Jurian) Ok,
20:07:48| (Jurian) Sixth item, Report on the Exclusion Bylaw Change, by yours truly. :-)
20:08:06| (Jurian) A proposed Bylaw change that would allow the recruiter to post a votecall to the Board prior to issuing an invitation in cases were a potentially eligible individual clearly does not understand the policies and procedures of membership in the nonprofit,
20:08:06| (Nancy) Exclusion Bylaw Change - Report by Jurian
20:08:07| (Nancy) A proposed a Bylaw change that would allow the recruiter to post a votecall to the Board prior to issuing an invitation in cases were a potentially eligible individual clearly does not understand the policies and procedures of membership in the nonprofit, or would violate the spirit and intent of the noprofit mission if a member, was placed before the Membership for approval. This votecall is in process at the moment. This change was requested b
20:08:18| (Jurian) (whoops! :) )
20:08:54| (Shaul) the lady's ahead of you
20:08:56| (Nancy) Shirley says "Jurian, check your e-mail for a status from her, re this."
20:09:27| (Jurian) Ah, thanks!
20:09:47| (Jurian) Voting by Board Members was closed on Jan 13, and voting by the membership began, since the bylaw was approved by the Board. Six Board members voted, which means the bylaw passes.
20:10:03| (Jurian) Of our membership, eight have voted, and all voted yes to the change. If no-one else votes by the closing date, which is Feb 13, the bylaw will have been approved, with all the rest of the membership abstaining.
20:10:39| (Jurian) I don't think there's anything else to report about this item, any questions/notes ?
20:11:04| (Roger) Due Board members need to vote again as regular members?
20:11:10| (Shaul) well,not exactly about this item, but I just wanted to ask - have we ever closed anything about the 14-day waiting or non-waiting period?
20:11:29| (Shaul) do applicants wait their 14 days ON the list or OFF the list?
20:11:36| (Roger) Due = Do
20:11:54| (Jurian) Roger: I don't think so, seeing as we already voted on it, it wouldn't make much sense to me any way
20:12:03| (Shaul) (Roger - accroding to parliamentary procedure - no)
20:13:12| (Jurian) Sol: Not sure, anyone who *is* sure on that question?
20:13:33| (Roger) I don't think that was resolved.
20:13:37| (Nancy) I think the votecall to membership is to see if the majority approve, or not, the issue. It appears all are approving. Board members, as members, should vote. The earlier votecall of the board was to determine YES, put it to the membership.
20:13:37| (Shaul) I don't think anyone here is sure about it, and that's why I'm asking
20:15:00| (Brent) Hmm,I was with Jurian, but if I need to vote as a member, I will.
20:15:04| (Nancy) The Bylaws state that a votecall is placed before the membership if the Board things the issue appropriate. Of course, there can be referendums and such, be this was what the Board approval required was about.
20:15:28| (Jurian) NancyL: ok, so we all vote on the list as well? No problem I guess, everyone, get your votes out in time then! :)
20:16:15| (Nancy) Shirley says "I asked the Board to approve, so by implication, they DID approve the change and vote on it."
20:16:20| (Shaul) That's kind of a waste of time though, no, to vote twice?
20:16:24| (Roger) I'll need a repost of the votecall (deleted it as I thought I had voted on it already).
20:16:30| (Nancy) In other words, they approved the change, so by implication, they want this before the membership.
20:16:48| (Nancy) So, I was wrong, and the Board does not need to vote on the issue before the membership, they alreayd DID!
20:16:59| (Shaul) As I recall, the vote was to approve the Bylaw itself, AS WELL as place the vote before the membership.
20:17:00| (Roger) Whew!
20:17:05| (Jurian) Ah, ok then, that's resolved then :-)
20:17:33| (Brent) Good, I won't vote again then :)
20:17:37| (Roger) So, our votes as Board members need to be added to the tally of the membership.
20:17:55| (Shaul) it's reasonable
20:17:58| (Brent) agreed Roger
20:18:08| (Jurian) Yeah, agreed
20:19:15| (Jurian) Ok, any other questions/comments ?
20:19:25| (Nancy) Shirley says "6 Board Members voted, and 8 Membership, total 14."
20:19:53| (Brent) be nice to have a better voter turnout......
20:20:26| (Nancy) Like the Presidential turnout in the US? Pretty low ...
20:20:33| (Shaul) thats part of the issue of increasing member involvement, which is something we'll need to deal with, I think
20:20:42| (Jurian) Yeah, but I guess if people were against it, they'd have voted no, and it's not like it's a 50/50 vote right now, all votes seem to be YES, so no real problem, I think
20:21:15| (Roger) hehe, no recount needed?
20:21:16| (Jurian) Sol: Agreed! Even if they agree with the general vote, they should still send in their vote!
20:21:24| (Jurian) Roger: unless some states object :P
20:21:35| (Shaul) states of mind
20:22:02| (Brent) good point, Jurian Sol: I agree, active members need to be more involved.
20:22:31| (Shaul) we'll have to discuss this later on, and also resolve the impasse with the Recruitment Committee. But not now.
20:23:02| (Brent) lets send Shirley after them! :) ( the membership)
20:23:08| (Shaul) yeah!
20:23:09| (Nancy) Sol, the RC thing was resolved, as the Bylaws were changed by Board vote as I recall (Nov?) to remove "apply by tt-inc" to just apply.
20:23:32| (Shaul) I don't mean that. I mean just generally what's going on there and everything
20:23:49| (Nancy) This means they apply, by whatever means, and the 14 day wait is OK, and THEN they get on tt-inc.
20:24:27| (Shaul) ah, ok, but do they wait the 14 days ON the tt-inc mailing list, or the DO NOT get accepted to the list until the 14 days are up?
20:25:02| (Nancy) Sol, I think George was waiting on this exclusion clause to be approved, no? We should request an update from him.
20:25:25| (Shaul) I don't think George understands our current stand on the 14 day business
20:25:41| (Shaul) and frankly, neither does anyone else. That's what I meant
20:25:46| (Shaul) .
20:26:11| (Nancy) Sol, my understanding. 1. they are eligible and recruited or apply, 2. they wait the 14 days while the RC announces on tt-inc their application, 3. they pass and get on tt-inc, are placed there by the RC, etc.
20:26:34| (Brent) NOT on the list...
20:26:41| (Shaul) I agree. But do they become members of the tt-inc mailing list right away?
20:26:42| (Brent) mail list
20:27:56| (Nancy) The point of confusion, for me, was that the Bylaw update last summer stated they "apply via tt-inc application" so they kind of hung there. We changed the Bylaw in Nov (?) to clarify, after discussion, so it now stated they just "apply" and the tt-in thing does not happen until AFTER 14 days.
20:28:19| (Jurian) right, so they wait, WITHOUT being on the list
20:29:02| (Brent) Yes, not on the mailing list, until the 14 days are up.
20:29:46| (Jurian) Right, so that's been clarified now. Satisfied Sol?
20:30:24| (Nancy) Jurian, for a guy just 19 years old, you show CEO qualities! Shirley and I both think so.
20:30:43| (Jurian) Thanks! :-) (altho I'm 20 now, grin)
20:30:47| (Gerard) yes... you are doing good Jurian :)
20:30:59| (Roger) hehe, imagine how he'll be at 25!
20:31:19| (Jurian) hopefully better :P
20:31:21| (Brent) Yes, Jurian, excellent leadership qualities!
20:31:38| (Roger) Leader and advisor and pillar in his community.
20:31:40| (Nancy) I think you did a good job reining me in when I was digressing :-)
20:32:01| (Jurian) Heh, wasn't easy! :P
20:32:59| (Brent) lets hope Sol returns shortly....
20:33:10| (Jurian) Ok, are there any other questions regarding this item? If not, we'll continue, as we still have a quorum..
20:33:26| (Jurian) Yeah, hope he does..
20:33:52| (Jurian) Ok, another item, which was not on the agenda, but I think is certainly worth discussing. Several months ago, we discussed the cell phone for Ron. As he is presently not communicating with us, the question was raised, did he receive the funds to acquire the phone yet, or has this been postponed?
20:34:23| (Nancy) No, no expense submitted, no payment made.
20:34:47| (Nancy) The Board has approved a number of expenditures, where no funds have been outlays.
20:35:23| (Nancy) This includes Bermed Shelter, radio antenna, accounts for Wendy and Michael for their projects, etc.
20:35:42| (Roger) Also, Jan has posted an email to tt-inc wherein he offers to take up the tt-radio responsibilities if the board so desires in Ron's absense.
20:36:16| (Nancy) But Jurian is correct that the account for Ron was approved, and theoretically could be tapped. How do you want to handle this, Jurian?
20:36:54| (Nancy) Correction!
20:37:21| (Nancy) Shirley says "It wasn't approved. Ron was supposed to go out and find another cell phone, and report back, and has not done so!"
20:38:28| (Brent) Thats what I thought, the board thought that his prices were too high, and he was to find a cheaper solution.
20:39:13| (Nancy) Open accounts are discretionary funds for ongoing projects (Hydroponics, etc.) and Wendy's and Michael's. All other funding was to approve, in theory or spirit, but checks cannot be written unless a PI comes before the Board with a specific plan, per my understanding.
20:39:44| (Jurian) Good :-)
20:40:17| (Jurian) I guess that has been sufficiently clarified then, unless there are any other questions about this?
20:40:28| (Roger) Nope.
20:40:36| (Brent) none here
20:40:56| (Nancy) There were designated donations, where we accepted but the funds have not been spent. Bermed shelter, radio antenna. At some point, the nonprofit may be in a position to actualize these designations.
20:41:15| (Nancy) All other expenditures are as a result of project plans, approved by the Board, with stated funding approved, etc.
20:42:02| (Nancy) The Bylaws state this, and our approved Policy, also.
20:42:18| (Nancy) What is the Board's thinking on letting Jan be the radio guy?
20:42:37| (Roger) I okay with it!
20:42:37| (Nancy) I have an e-mail pending, from someone asking a question, as he cannot get a response from Ron.
20:42:37| (Jurian) I'm all for it
20:42:57| (Roger) Of course, Clipper is also gaining on the curve!
20:43:05| (Gerard) Yes, saw that ..
20:43:05| (Brent) He seems very enthusiastic, I'm for it.
20:43:25| (Roger) (The learning curve, that is.)
20:43:27| (Gerard) i think Jan will do okay :)
20:43:35| (Nancy) Shirley and I both approve this PI change too, are in favor.
20:44:17| (Nancy) Ron was not impressed with Clipper's participation on the radio team, as he purchased CB equipment, not short wave, for same dollar and had the choice!
20:44:24| (Roger) Seems to be an unofficially unaminous vote ;)
20:44:40| (Nancy) He also had not done his homework, studies, per Ron, who had many discussion with me on this.
20:44:42| (Jurian) I suggest Jan and Clipper work together closely, maybe get an intercontinental packet/voice relay working, if possible
20:45:07| (Roger) That would be outstanding!
20:45:28| (Brent) does Clipper have shortwave Equipment now, or still CB?
20:45:40| (Jurian) heh, that's a good question :)
20:45:52| (Nancy) Shirley says "Let Jan take over the radio project, and HE will decide who he wants to work with."
20:46:09| (Jurian) Agreed Shirley, that'd make the most sense :)
20:46:11| (Roger) yep! Jan certainly will.
20:46:16| (Brent) Shirley has a good point
20:47:23| (Nancy) Roger, last I heard, he was asking Ron about some equipment, which is best, etc., so I think he does not have short wave equipment as yet.
20:47:24| (Roger) So, Jan steps up in Ron's place?
20:47:45| (Roger) (I'm volunteering to post the response.)
20:47:54| (Jurian) Ok then, looks like we're all in favor of Jan taking over the radio project.
20:47:57| (Nancy) Jurian has an unofficial votecall here, I think, and it passed, did it not?
20:48:33| (Jurian) It sure looks that way! :-)
20:49:15| (Jurian) Ok then, Jan will take over as radio project manager, as he offered.
20:49:51| (Roger) I have a short and sweet email message ready to send, if there are no objections.
20:50:09| (Jurian) None here
20:50:17| (Brent) sounds good Roger
20:50:26| (Gerard) no objections
20:50:38| (Roger) Okay, posted to tt-inc.
20:50:57| (Jurian) Ok then, any other questions/items to deal with? if not, we'll continue with the final item!
20:51:29| (Nancy) President-at-Large - Vote or NOT
20:51:29| (Nancy) Jurian has served this past month as President-at-Large. This position needs to be filled for the forthcoming month of February. The annual elections process has only Brent as an accepted nomination for President, but elections will not take place until February.
20:51:58| (Roger) Gerard seems to be the next person in line. I nominate him for the job!
20:52:17| (Gerard) i though so .. that you would nominate me :)
20:52:19| (Nancy) Shirley says "I nominate Brent." Nancy seconds this nomination.
20:53:19| (Brent) is it considered poor form to accept PAL just before elections? Or should we let Gerard do it?
20:53:21| (Nancy) Brent will probably BE the President by that time.
20:53:35| (Nancy) If we have no contest, thus no election needed, he will be the President by Feb 1st.
20:53:59| (Jurian) As Brent has been nominated to be president, I think it'd make sense to have him be PaL for these few days
20:54:16| (Nancy) How awkward to have a PaL, with the real Pres standing by, etc.
20:54:21| (Gerard) Yes, right
20:55:21| (Jurian) Not that I don't think you'd do a good job Gerard, cause I know you would, but I don't think being a PaL these few days will be particularly useful
20:55:37| (Roger) Save for the honor.
20:55:49| (Jurian) Exactly
20:55:55| (Roger) (and acceptance of his peers.)
20:56:03| (Gerard) thnx Jurian :)
20:56:12| (Brent) I see, well since I seem to be in an uncontested election, I will accept PAL/regular presidential duties.
20:56:43| (Jurian) So, unless you'd really like to be PaL, gerard, I vote for Brent
20:57:05| (Jurian) do we need to make this any more official by stating our votes? or is it clear enough this way?
20:57:25| (Nancy) It could cause conflicts. If the PaL says x, and Brent says y, then we have a conflict. Best not to get into that situ.
20:58:07| (Brent) Comments, Gerard?
20:58:43| (Gerard) No comments.. i am sure you would do a good job Brent being PAL and president later on
20:59:57| (Brent) Well, thank you Gererd! :)
21:00:01| (Nancy) The timing is bad, as Brent may be Pres by Feb 1st.
21:00:23| (Jurian) It is very likely he will be
21:01:00| (Nancy) Needed to be done before Feb 8th (the official end of nominations) is 1. set the Feb date, 2. accumulate an Agenda for the Feb date.
21:01:54| (Nancy) In this, there is a need to have the same hand at the helm, through Feb into the Feb meeting. Best is Brent does it all.
21:01:56| (Brent) OK, I'll get right on it!
21:02:24| (Jurian) Ok, so are we all in agreement here? Brent will be PaL. Any objections?
21:03:45| (Jurian) I'll take that as a no then :-)
21:03:52| (Jurian) Ok then, so.. in good tradition.. *runs over to Brent* Tag! you're it! :P
21:04:01| (Nancy) Shirley and I have no objections to Brent, correct.
21:04:13| (Roger) hehehehe
21:04:22| (Brent) hehehehe, thanks Jurian :)
21:04:38| (Jurian) heh, who am I to break this rather new tradition? :P
21:04:48| (Jurian) Congratulations Brent! :)
21:05:47| (Brent) Thank you all, I'll do my best to live up to expectations! :)
21:06:27| (Jurian) heh, ok then.. that wasn't so bad after all, it's been my pleasure :-)
21:06:47| (Brent) You have done an excellent Job, Jurian!
21:06:49| (Jurian) Do we want to continue the discussion we had earlier about the video production ? :)
21:06:53| (Jurian) Thanks :-)
21:06:59| (Roger) I move to adjourn this meeting!
21:07:34| (Brent) I'll second, we can discuss after the meeting, if we want
21:08:56| (Jurian) Agreed, the meeting is hereby adjourned!
21:09:45| (Roger) (Assuming there are enough yes votes.)
21:10:05| (Brent) oops!
21:10:11| (Jurian) heh, well, are there any no-votes? :)
21:10:24| (Roger) none here.
21:10:30| (Roger) :0
21:10:31| (Brent) none here
21:10:36| (Nancy) Snirley and I vote to adjourn.
21:10:43| (Roger) (whoops) :)
21:10:45| (Jurian) Ok, that's official then :-)
21:10:46| (Gerard) yes
21:11:22| (Roger) Gerard, was that a yes to adjourn or a yes you have a no-vote?
21:12:15| (Gerard) a yes to adjourn
21:13:04| (Roger) hehe
21:13:33| (Brent) Is there interest in discussing the Video Production?
21:13:53| (Nancy) Don't forget to send the logs to Shirley!