link to Home Page

Board Meeting

July 16, 2000

Session Start: Sun Jul 16 13:00:43 2000
[13:12] (Nancy) This is Nancy at the keyboard, and I'd like to call the meeting to order.
[13:14] (Gerard) 5 real persons in the channel
[13:14] (Nancy) We have 6 Board Members present - Nancy, Ron, Helena on phone here, Roger, Gerard, Jurian.
[13:14] (Nancy) A quorum is 5.
[13:14] (Nancy) The 1st Agenda Item is merely a status report. If there are no questions, I'll move to Item 2.
[13:15] (Jurian) No questions here
[13:15] (Roger) No questions here
[13:15] (Gerard) No questions
[13:15] (Nancy) Brent Freemont is present, to clarify his $1,500 gift - purpose, etc.
[13:15] (Nancy) I'm open to a motion to accept this gift, with the designation.
[13:16] (Roger) I move to accept Brent's gift with stated designation.
[13:16] (Jurian) I second that move
[13:16] (Nancy) I do have one question of Brent. It was not clear if you meant the funds to apply from this point forward, as I'd like to use it to cover 2000 and 2001.
[13:17] (Nancy) Please clarify, Brent, before we vote.
[13:17] (Brent) Yes, this is acceptable with me.
[13:18] (Nancy) A motion has been made and seconded to accept Brent's gift, with the designation that this cover costs for 2000 and 2001. All in favor say Yes, opposed No.
[13:18] (Jurian) Yes
[13:18] (Gerard) Yes
[13:19] (Nancy) Yes from Nancy, Ron, and Shirley.
[13:19] (Nancy) The motion passes.
[13:20] (Nancy) Item 3 is Ron's Quarterly Report.
[13:20] (Nancy) In addition, I've outlined 3 ongoing projects that need additional funding to continue.
[13:21] (Nancy) This is a link from the Agenda, and these projects are Hydroponics, Aquaponics, and Admin & Ops.
[13:22] (Nancy) Ron did an analysis of the cow tanks as fish tanks, with Harvest Moon, and determined that additional PVC and a Gould Pump would be needed, etc.
[13:22] (Nancy) Hydroponics, for instance, has required us to buy a backup Halide bulb in case of a malfunction.
[13:23] (Nancy) If anything, this is a reflection of bad estimating, but we need to keep our ongoing project going, for these relatively small items and expenses.
[13:25] (Nancy) We are also anticipating, have been promised, a very generous donation in December/January from Nicholas. This would more than replenish these discretionary accounts, and allow the servers to go online and other new projects to start.
[13:25] (Nancy) Are there any questions on the discretionary accounts, and overages?
[13:25] (Jurian) None here
[13:26] (Nancy) During the month that we started these accounts, to keep the Board from having to approve each $20 expense, we stated that if an annual account needed an increase, that the expenditures would be laid before the Board. I've done that, etc. here.
[13:27] (Roger) Fine, no questions here.
[13:27] (Nancy) If there are no questions, then I'd entertain a motion to increase the accounts as detailed. This would mean that we have authorized apx. $2,000 more than we have, but this extra $2,000 will not be called upon during 2000.
[13:28] (Nancy) Ron makes a motion to increase the amounts as detailed.
[13:28] (Nancy) Shirley seconds the motion.
[13:29] (Nancy) A motion has been made and seconded to increase the 3 discretionary accounts as detailed in Item 3. All in favor say Yes, opposed No.
[13:29] (Roger) So now there are two motions and seconds?
[13:29] (Roger) Did I miss a vote?
[13:29] (Jurian) Yes
[13:30] (Nancy) Roger, the motion to accept Brent's gift passed, with a quorum of 5.
[13:30] (Nancy) Nancy, Ron, and Shirley vote Yes.
[13:30] (Roger) Oh, well then, for the record, I also voted Yes.
[13:31] (Roger) And Yes for the current motion as well.
[13:31] (Nancy) I would like to point out that a review of our progress is possible from photos on the web, worm recipes to be added in a day or so, and the Sauk County article is also proof that our projects are progressing.
[13:31] (Nancy) The motion passes (I'm assuming that Jurian's Yes was to the vote).
[13:32] (Jurian) It was
[13:32] (Nancy) Jurian, my husband Ernie is in process of shipping the servers, and then we will talk about how to get you online to them!
[13:32] (Jurian) Good, can't wait :-)
[13:33] (Nancy) I actually moved through Item 4 with that last vote.
[13:33] (Nancy) Now for Agenda Item 5.
[13:33] (Nancy) With Clipper's resignation this past month, we now have 2 Board Seats open.
[13:34] (Nancy) During discussion on the tt-inc mailing list, Sol in essence was nominated, accepted, and the nomination seconded.
[13:34] (Nancy) We also picked up about 15 new members, recently.
[13:35] (Nancy) The Bylaws call for the Board to approve a mid-year election, and I am placing this issue before the Board now for consideration. Comments?
[13:35] (Gerard) No comments from my side
[13:36] (Jurian) None here
[13:36] (Nancy) If there is no discussion, then I'd entertain a motion to hold a mid-year election, with a time frame as suggested or ..
[13:38] (Roger) I can't get Netscape up so I am not sure which item it is, but isn't there an item on the agenda about qualifications?
[13:38] (Roger) Perhaps we should address that item before we open up a mid-year election.
[13:39] (Nancy) Roger, yes, I just noticed this also.
[13:39] (Nancy) I combined these two issues in Agenda Item 5.
[13:40] (Nancy) I drafted a Bylaw change, and posted it on the tt-inc mailing list almost a month ago, with no discussion objecting to the wording.
[13:40] (Nancy) This is a link off the Agenda, and basically states that a candidate's general qualification should be stated, (such as Sol was an attorney), but not enough detail to allow Internet harrasment.
[13:41] (Nancy) Only enough detail to allow Q&A by members to verify the candidates qualifications.
[13:42] (Nancy) We're not, at this time, sending detectives out to dig about in candidates backgrounds, nor do we plan to at this time.
[13:42] (Roger) Or any time?
[13:43] (Gerard) I don't think it will be necessary ...
[13:43] (Nancy) Roger, if a donor gave us several million, would we not want to discover, for instance, whether your President had a criminal record, or your Treasurer had a record for embezzlement? YES, we should for those types of funds, as the detective costs would be, relatively, minimal!
[13:44] (Nancy) Most jobs that require this type of responsibility have such background checks as a given.
[13:44] (Nancy) You cannot be a CPA without being qualified, attorneys can be dis-barred, etc.
[13:45] (Jurian) As long as it isn't done without telling the person or the board
[13:45] (Roger) I think that would be the issue of the donor. If we received such a donation tomorrow, would we be compelled to conduct a search?
[13:45] (Roger) Why?
[13:45] (Nancy) Shirley has asked if this qualification statement would apply to directors already seated.
[13:46] (Jurian) Good question
[13:46] (Nancy) My answer would be that since elections are coming up in January/February, that qualifications would be reviewed at this time.
[13:47] (Nancy) Roger, a heavy donor would not require US to do the search, but could do so on their own. If you have something to confess, now's the time :-)
[13:47] (Jurian) But who decides if someone is qualified?
[13:47] (Jurian) OK I confess, I'm slightly insane! :)
[13:47] (Nancy) Jurian, the last election, only names were mentioned and no qualifications stated.
[13:48] (Roger) That was my point - the donor should do the search or verification, not the Inc.
[13:48] (Nancy) The members decide! We are just stating, in the Bylaws, that they should be given this information so they CAN decide.
[13:48] (Jurian) Right, OK then, no problem I guess.
[13:49] (Nancy) Ron and Shirley (who are on the phone together) feel that the nature of the qualifications should be stated, i.e. what qualifications are required.
[13:49] (Roger) Like I stated earlier, I cannot get a browser working at this time so I cannot see the agenda, let alone the bylaw change. What is the short list of questions?
[13:50] (Nancy) My draft of the Bylaws only states "general qualifications", not specifying what those might be.
[13:50] (Nancy) We could amend this wording, or perhaps let the membership decide if a potential directors qualifications, as stated, as clear enough!
[13:51] (Nancy) For instance, if a candidate says "I get up every morning and have never killed anyone", the membership may want more.
[13:52] (Roger) And how do they ask for more, and how do we limit the depth of the questioning?
[13:52] (Nancy) If a candidate states, as Sol did, his background as an attorney, or as George did, his current membership on his church Board, then the membership may ask a few questions and be stistified.
[13:52] (Nancy) To date, we have NO such discussion, just an election of the faithful, the good-ol-boys, so to speak. (and ol-girls too :-)
[13:53] (Nancy) Roger, if a candidate feels their privacy invaded, and refuses to answer, and the questioning is ridiculous, then the majority of the membership would vote for them.
[13:53] (Roger) I agree - to date the board has been made up, primarily, of those interested in serving on it.
[13:54] (Nancy) If a question is valid, and the candidate refuses to answer in general terms, then the membership may find them evasive.
[13:54] (Nancy) Roger, in fact, we have not had a run-off during the elections, a fact I consider sad. Competition is not a problem to those qualified.
[13:55] (Roger) I fear that this corporation may take a turn in a direction we cannot immediately foresee. Especially if existing board members with all good intentions are replaced by obviously more qualified.
[13:56] (Nancy) The wording of the Bylaw amendment states that the nomination should outline the "general qualifications" of a candidate, and in accepting, the candidate should confirm these and expand upon them if appropriate.
[13:56] (Roger) Individuals who may not have the same goals as the current membership.
[13:57] (Nancy) So, I should have nominated Sol by stating he seems to have an awareness of corporate functions, and has stated a background in law. Sol in accepting would confirm this.
[13:57] (Nancy) Roger, all members MUST be contributing members of the Troubled Times web site, so are assumed to have the same goals.
[13:58] (Roger) These are indeed excellent qualifications for a board member of any corporation.
[13:58] (Roger) What has Sol's primary contribution been?
[13:58] (Nancy) We may grow from a startup group of 12, to the current membership of 45, to perhaps 100 or 1,000 in the next year.
[13:59] (Nancy) Growth should not be avoided, but directed. And open discussion is ALWAYS beneficial.
[13:59] (Nancy) As a nonprofit, we must, for instance, have open Board Meetings, ergo the logs on the web.
[14:00] (Nancy) I'm not at my computer, but he has contributed pages, creative writing and ideas, just as you have. I recall, for instance, a discussion in Hygiene TOPIC on the need for frequent baths, etc.
[14:02] (Nancy) Also, a members contributions may not just be web pages. Gerard, for instance, works mostly behind the scenes. This does not negate his contributions. Jurian is primarily an IRC support, but has been invaluable in the Unix server development, just starting this gift!
[14:02] (Nancy) So it must be a look at not only the contributions and track record, but the qualifications also.
[14:02] (Nancy) If someone does not understand a project plan, what this means, or a budget, then they cannot follow the Board agenda, or know how to vote!
[14:03] (Roger) At present we have no levels of security and we indeed should have. I support the by-law change and feel that board members should be found qualified on the basis of more than just interest. I, however, think we should carefully outline a basic set of qualifications to begin the Q&A process of new nominees.
[14:03] (Nancy) Imagine a 2 year old deciding whether you should get a driver's license or not. They have no basis, and might be erratic, though well intentioned!
[14:04] (Roger) ?
[14:04] (Roger) Do you mean an 18 year old?
[14:04] (Roger) Is age to be one of the qualifications?
[14:05] (Nancy) Roger, I agree, and worded the draft of changes to state "Due to the open nature of the elections, held on the Internet, particulars that would expose the nominee to privacy violations or harrassment will not be required."
[14:05] (Jurian) 18+ (ie: adult) would be the only age restriction I would find acceptable
[14:05] (Roger) I agree with you Jurian.
[14:06] (Nancy) The Bylaws would allow a nominee to state "none of your business" to a question on their bank balance, but should respond to a question on the types of jobs they have held.
[14:07] (Nancy) Roger, I'm trying to put this into perspective. If you, or Jurian, had a 2 year old ruling on your driver's license, you'd question his qualifications.
[14:07] (Roger) And what if, by personal choice, a candidate has worked no jobs involving the level of responsibility he or she may be capable of handling? Does that make the candidate unqualified?
[14:08] (Nancy) This is relative to someone voting on project plans, or a budget, while never having done a plan or budget in their life! Or run a project, or driven something home to success.
[14:08] (Roger) Of course, each candidate will be evaluated on a case by case basis, but I think a skeleton should be drafted.
[14:08] (Nancy) Roger, Ron says to your question, "yes, it does".
[14:09] (Nancy) Experience counts, as it is a proof of ability and judgement.
[14:09] (Roger) So the fact that I have attempted to run three sole propreitorships and failed at each one would make me incapable of handling the responsibility of board membership.
[14:09] (Nancy) Remember, the membership decides, they VOTE the board in!
[14:10] (Roger) I suppose that's my confession.
[14:10] (Nancy) We are not listing qualifications here, as these may change as time passes, but a discussion, annually, should be done! To date, we go on faith, utterly.
[14:11] (Roger) Of course, I am currently running a successful, though very part-time, business.
[14:11] (Nancy) Roger, well, at least you know what causes failure! This may be a star qualification, depending upon the alternative nominees.
[14:11] (Roger) I suppose.
[14:11] (Roger) Though I may not vote for myself on those qualifications alone.
[14:11] (Nancy) Roger, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. Most small businesses fail, statistically.
[14:12] (Nancy) Roger, nowhere in the Bylaws does it state that you must vote for yourself :-)
[14:12] (Roger) Exactly, but my qualifications for this board are not my business experience or lack thereof. It is my "good head on your shoulders" that qualifies me most.
[14:13] (Nancy) If there is no further discussion, I'd entertain a motion to hold a mid-year election, with a date range (2week for nominations, 2 week for elections?) and the Bylaw change as worded.
[14:13] (Roger) And how would I prove that?
[14:14] (Nancy) Remember, if we find the Bylaw wording needs to be amended, this can be done by the Board! Nothing is written in granite. This is a work in process, to some degree, and we learn as we go.
[14:14] (Roger) So qualifications of candidates for the mid-year election are as they have always been?
[14:14] (Nancy) Roger, your good head is gauged by the membership, based on your track record all around. Flakes are, frankly, pretty quickly identified.
[14:15] (Roger) How is candidacy to be handled for this mid-year election, if approved by the board?
[14:15] (Nancy) Since you are not coming up for election, until January, then you have a bit of time before having to deal with this, Roger :-)
[14:16] (Nancy) Are we going to back away from this qualification thing, or vote on it!
[14:16] (Roger) Not a problem, I have nothing to hide...
[14:16] (Nancy) I'd entertain a motion.
[14:17] (Roger) Your call for a motion was on the mid-year election, not the qualification thing.
[14:17] (Nancy) I change my call for a motion to be more comprehensive.
[14:18] (Nancy) In fact, I cannot call for a motion, just indicate that one seems to be in order. The chair cannot move, etc.
[14:18] (Roger) Sorry, language difficulty.
[14:19] (Nancy) Ron moves that we accept the Bylaw change as in the Agenda, as a single vote.
[14:19] (Nancy) A 2nd?
[14:19] (Nancy) Shirley 2nds this motion.
[14:20] (Nancy) A motion has been made and seconded to accept the Bylaw amendment to require a nominee to have their general qualifications open before the membership during elections. All in favor say Yes, opposed No.
[14:21] (Jurian) Yes
[14:21] (Roger) As it has been a few days since I read the change and I cannot read it presently (equipment limitations) I vote No.
[14:21] (Nancy) Nancy and Ron and Shirley say Yes.
[14:21] (Gerard) yes
[14:21] (Nancy) The motion passes.
[14:22] (Nancy) Ron moves that mid-year elections be held as outlined in the Agenda.
[14:22] (Nancy) Shirley 2nds the motion.
[14:23] (Nancy) A motion has been made and seconded to hold mid-year elections for 2 open director seats,with 2 weeks for nomination, 2 weeks for election.
[14:23] (Roger) Wait a minute, please?
[14:23] (Nancy) All in favor say Yes, opposed No.
[14:23] (Nancy) Nancy, Ron, and Shirley Yes.
[14:24] (Jurian) Yes
[14:24] (Gerard) yes
[14:24] (Nancy) The motion passes with a quorum of 5.
[14:24] (Roger) Hmmm
[14:25] (Nancy) Agenda Item 6 is discussion of Michel's qualifications as Board Member, specifically his statements at the last meeting as quoted in the Agenda link.
[14:25] (Nancy) Ron has formally called for Michel to resign, on the tt-inc mailing list.
[14:25] (Nancy) I now open the floor to discussion.
[14:26] (Jurian) I do not think that removing people with a different opinion, even if others know it is wrong, is a good thing. It just keeps us all alert. I see no real reason to have Michel removed.
[14:27] (Nancy) Shirley seconds the call for Michel's resignation, because she does not believe that Board directors can accuse fellow Board directors of what amounts to fraudulent dealings without any evidence to prove the accusation.
[14:27] (Gerard) I think the same about it. I see no reason to have Michel removed.
[14:28] (Nancy) Jurian, Shirley states that it was not an OPINION, it was an accusation.
[14:29] (Jurian) It was a question as far as I remember
[14:29] (Roger) Tempers got out of hand last month and things were stated in ways that are easily misunderstood. I agree with Gerard and Jurian.
[14:29] (Nancy) I would like to point out that Michel revealed an understanding of the corporation as self serving, NOT a public benefit corp, and I was frankly horrified.
[14:30] (Jurian) If that is his understanding, we should work to correct it, show him why he's wrong, and this is in no way accomplished by removing him.
[14:30] (Nancy) Roger, Michel repeated at least twice, that he felt the OTHER BOARD MEMBERS would not benefit if projects were only at the headquarters.
[14:31] (Gerard) Then he might have made a mistake.. I don't think it was his intention to disrupt the Inc.
[14:31] (Nancy) This is in direct opposition to our status as a public benefit corporation, with education of the public as the primary goal!
[14:31] (Nancy) Geard, I quoted him directly, these were HIS words!
[14:32] (Gerard) I think he knows that by know.. the purpose of the Inc and such
[14:32] (Roger) If his understanding is flawed, that can be corrected without harm to the Inc. The openness of these proceedings ensures that.
[14:32] (Nancy) Ron says, Michel demonstrated that he does not understand the meaning of nonprofit and self dealing, and is therefore unfit to serve as a member ofthe board!
[14:32] (Roger) What of his other qualifications?
[14:33] (Jurian) How would simply removing anyone with a wrong opinion look to the outside world?
[14:33] (Jurian) Not good I would think.
[14:33] (Nancy) Guys, what should a board member walk in with, as a MINIMUM qualification!
[14:33] (Roger) That was what I tried to discuss earlier when you cut me off.
[14:33] (Jurian) I don't know if we can define a minimum qualification.
[14:34] (Nancy) Are we a kindergarden here? Do we bumble along in this way? At what point is damage done to the corporate image!
[14:34] (Nancy) Roger, I didn't cut you off, there was a motion and a second.
[14:34] (Roger) I think we damage our image if we remove Michel in this way for this reason, without his presence to answer.
[14:35] (Jurian) I agree with Roger.
[14:35] (Nancy) Roger, if you wanted a minimum qualification stated, in the Byaws, they why did you not SAY so.
[14:35] (Roger) I did say so.
[14:35] (Jurian) He did
[14:35] (Nancy) Ron says, Roger, we damage our image if we do NOT remove a board member who does NOT understand our Bylaws.
[14:36] (Nancy) Are we a club, here, or a corporation? Do we want donations, or just to pamper each other?
[14:36] (Gerard) It's not because Michel doesn't want to attend this meeting, he is day off and he is not home yet
[14:36] (Gerard) I think.
[14:37] (Jurian) whatever happened to "forgive people for their mistakes". I do not see how simply removing him would do any good, or even how it would un-do the damage done.
[14:37] (Gerard) I know that we are not a club
[14:37] (Nancy) Ron would like to remind the board that we are talking about putting this issue before the membership, not voting Michel off the board at this meeting. This is a membership decision.
[14:38] (Nancy) Roger, you were fussing about qualifications, worried about what they would be, but did NOT propose any wording change!
[14:38] (Roger) Here is my statement: [14:01] (Roger) At present we have no levels of security and we indeed should have. I support the by-law change and feel that board members should be found qualified on the basis of more than just interest. I, however, think we should carefully outline a basic set of qualifications to begin the Q&A process of new nominees.
[14:39] (Roger) Look at the log
[14:39] (Nancy) Ron says, it is a moot point, we voted upon it.
[14:39] (Nancy) Ron says, and it passed.
[14:39] (Roger) Yes, we did, and I voted no.
[14:40] (Roger) because you overlooked my statements and pressed for the motion.
[14:41] (Nancy) Shirley says, it isn't only the Bylaws that Michel was not understanding. He does not seem to have grasped what the GOALS of this corporation are, and that in itself is a basis for requesting the membership to vote on his removal.
[14:41] (Roger) Ask Shirley if she has corresponded with Michel directly and has make this determination based on that correspondence.
[14:42] (Nancy) Roger, had you stated a wording change, and moved for this, I would not have overlooked this. But you dawdled.
[14:42] (Jurian) He simply stated how it appeared to him. Even if that appearance was completely wrong, that isn't grounds for requesting the membership to remove him
[14:42] (Roger) I discussed, not dawdled. You want discussion? Or simple acquiesence?
[14:43] (Nancy) Shirley says, I don't have to correspond with him, it is obvious from the log. If he had understood the goals of the corporation, he could never had said what he did.
[14:43] (Roger) We often say things we don't mean when pressured or upset.
[14:44] (Nancy) Roger, you fussed, but did not move after some back and forth. This is a board meeting, not a chat.
[14:44] (Gerard) His words where a bit based on a discussion Jurian, he and I had for a while. I think Jurian remembers that, right?
[14:45] (Jurian) Shirley: no offense, but how can you form an opinion about someone from just a single log, without even talking with him about it?
[14:45] (Jurian) Gerard: yes
[14:45] (Nancy) Ron says, we have had discussion on this item, I think it is time to put this issue before the membership on tt-inc, and a vote.
[14:46] (Gerard) That discussion we had back then was in the Dutch language.
[14:46] (Nancy) Shirley says, I want to make a motion to put Michel's removal before the membership and let the membership vote on it.
[14:46] (Nancy) Shirley says, because if the board does not do that, then the status quo remains.
[14:47] (Jurian) What Michel said, stated HOW HE VIEWS the Inc, if that is wrong, we should correct his view, not simply get rid of him. Doesn't seem to be very STO to simply get rid of anyone who doesn't seem to agree with you...
[14:47] (Roger) What is the status quo?
[14:48] (Nancy) Jurian, Shirley says it is not a matter of forming an opinion. Throughtout this whole venture, all the people dealing with projects at headquarters have bent over backwards to ensure that there is no self dealing. This is consistent with the goals of the corporation. (more)
[14:49] (Nancy) Shirley continues, anyone who can say the things that Michel has said cannot possibly have any understanding of our basic goals.
[14:50] (Roger) So the precedent we will be setting is that if someone is elected to the board on qualifications unstated in our bylaws and states an opinion that is counter to our goals, we will remove him or her immediately.
[14:50] (Gerard) May I repeat that the words from Michel were based on a discussion, and it might be that he was a bit upset about something? Correct me if I am wrong Jurian. PS I know about the goals of Troubled Times and Troubled Times Inc. As a early day member, I saw it grow from the start
[14:51] (Nancy) Ron says, Jurian, this is not a matter of agreeing with an indiviual, this is a matter of agreeing with a formal statement of purpose in the Bylaws.
[14:53] (Jurian) If he had felt that the bylaws resembled the truth, he probably wouldn't have said what he did. Sure, his choice of words wasn't a good one, and it may certainly have offended some people, but it just shows that there is a certain unclarity, and THAT should be resolved, not just by removing Michel.
[14:53] (Nancy) Jurian, Shirley says, if we don't put the vote to the membership, nothing will be done, as the board is obviously split down the middle. The vote is not whether the board should remove Michel or ask for his resignation, but to ask the membership to vote on this.
[14:53] (Nancy) Shirley says, no offense taken, Jurian.
[14:54] (Nancy) Ron seconds Shirley's call for a motion to put the vote to the membership.
[14:54] (Roger) How many of the membership that will be considering his removal are aware of all his work for the Inc.?
[14:55] (Roger) Will they consider all or just what they are told in one email call for a vote?
[14:55] (Nancy) A motion has been made and seconded to place the matter of Michel's removal as a board member before the membership, which elected him in the first place. All in favor say Yes, opposed No.
[14:55] (Roger) NO
[14:55] (Jurian) NO
[14:55] (Gerard) No
[14:55] (Nancy) Nancy and Ronand Shirley say Yes.
[14:56] (Aron) No
[14:56] (Nancy) Roger, this is for Michel to defend, on tt-inc, or YOU or Jurian or Gerard! I note Michel avoided this meeting, hid from the issue, so much for his defense of himself!
[14:56] (Nancy) The motion does not pass.
[14:57] (Gerard) He didn't avoided this meeting, he is day of with his girl friend.
[14:57] (Roger) Well, my fear was that the membership does not know Michel and would not take time to research his work before blindly voting him out.
[14:57] (Nancy) Item 7 on the Agenda is a policy discussion, relevant to how to avoid having the nonprofit inundated with funding requests from folks who are just wanting to outfit their survival sites.
[14:58] (Nancy) Roger, are you unable to put forth a defense of Michel? Or he himself? In other words, you are saying that it looks BAD, and they would vote him out, so therefore, no vote!
[14:59] (Nancy) The facts speak for themselves! You just don't like the way the facts look!
[14:59] (Roger) Not true.
[14:59] (Roger) I am all to familiar with how things work. The masses follow the loadest voices...
[14:59] (Nancy) Ron says, lets get on with the next item.
[15:00] (Roger) It is a sad day.
[15:00] (Nancy) Roger, then BE the loudest voice!
[15:00] (Jurian) Forgive, but do not forget.
[15:01] (Roger) Second chances, but not third ones.
[15:01] (Nancy) Ron has proposed a Breach of Contract possibility, so that someone proposing a grant proposal, wanting funds, should state the benefit of this, the purpose, a plan, etc., and if they don't deliver, then action can be taken.
[15:02] (Nancy) I posted a possible solution on the tt-inc, in which all assets owned by the corporation must be returned to the corporation at1/1/2003, or be purchased by the site owners.
[15:02] (Jurian) A plan can only take one so far, if the plan fails due to exterior reasons, would that be grounds enough for 'action' to be taken?
[15:02] (Nancy) Discussion? Ideas? Please do not just fuss, but offer ALTERNATIVE policy solutions.
[15:03] (Nancy) Jurian, please give me YOUR ideas on how we prevent folks from suddenly popping up and suggesting a projects, just when they want their survival site funded.
[15:04] (Nancy) WHAT policy guards would you put into place? We have had a suggestion, during this past 2 months, that a monolithic dome construction should be funded! What is the educational value of this?
[15:04] (Jurian) of course they need a good plan, and they need to prove it will provide information, and experience to the Inc..
[15:05] (Nancy) We have also had a suggestion that the nonprofit should spend it's funds on land purchase, so that someone could participate! Is this the BEST use of the corporate funds?
[15:05] (Nancy) Put yourself in a donor's shoes, and ask why the heck they should give any money to such plans!
[15:06] (Nancy) They want to see results! The BEST for the money spent! No business, no corporation, bumbles along like that!
[15:06] (Jurian) Because they've been proven to give USEFUL information to the Inc, and thus to everyone who can read the website
[15:06] (Nancy) I give you an example, Jurian. You are going to beworking with the servers, as you already KNOW this, are a wiz.
[15:06] (Nancy) Should we spent money to send someone to school, so they could learn this? This is the best way to proceed?
[15:07] (Roger) What is the proposal?
[15:07] (Nancy) I would say, as a CEO, that this would 1.not be a best use of funds, and 2. be an unnecessary delay.
[15:07] (Jurian) It depends on the available options
[15:07] (Roger) (Sorry, again, I cannot get a browser to load.)
[15:07] (Nancy) Jurian, how to build a monolithic dome is very well documented already.
[15:07] (Nancy) So is how to keep bees, etc.
[15:08] (Nancy) Roger, it helps to read or print off theAgenda ahead of the meeting.
[15:08] (Jurian) Then that would not be eligible for funding from the Inc.
[15:08] (Roger) So is gardening and there are seed sources out there already, yet we have a seed team.
[15:08] (Roger) Yea, yea. I did not anticipate these problems with my PC. Forgive me?
[15:09] (Nancy) Jurian, if someone asked for schooling, so THEY could be the Unix wiz, I'd vote against that! Clearly usingYOU would be the proper route! This isa n example of just being "kind" to every request made by a friend, and running a corporation!!!
[15:09] (Jurian) But, for example, HAM radio stations and nets are documented as well, I can still see the relevance of HELPING people by providing a PART of the funding needed to participate in the HAM net we're planning to set up.
[15:10] (Jurian) Nancy: and I'd agree with that vote completely.
[15:10] (Nancy) Jurian, a short wave as Internet replacement was a stated goal, in the Bylaws of the corporation, upon incorporation!!!! Not buying land for non-landed board members!
[15:10] (Roger) What is this issue with land?
[15:11] (Jurian) Well then we agree there, don't we? :-)
[15:11] (Roger) I am itching to make a motion but unclear as to how I might word it...
[15:11] (Nancy) Jurian, if one wants to build a network, then do we use the hands at hand, who already know short wave and have equipment, or do we say that all 6 billion folks on the planet should get their land purchased, and equipment funded, to be kind and fair??
[15:11] (Nancy) If you ran a business like this, would you close or continue?
[15:12] (Nancy) Roger, this is your problem.
[15:12] (Jurian) No, of course not all, but for SOME people, like, I can imagine having a couple of VERY strong / advanced stations on every continent will benefit everyone
[15:13] (Nancy) So, getting back to Agenda Item 7, what might the policy or Bylaw changes be that would guard against proposals that simply wnat to fund survival sites?
[15:13] (Nancy) Jurian, we agree on that as well :-)
[15:13] (Nancy) The issue I'm addressing is how to maximize the buck, biggest bang for the buck, best use of the $$, etc.
[15:14] (Nancy) Ron says, this discussion can be best carried on tt-inc, and continued at the next board meeting. I move to adjourn.
[15:14] (Roger) I don't think there is a wording we can provide that will guard against that intent. Perhaps a lawyer could draft it...
[15:15] (Jurian) Every request should be carefully examined to see if it will be of any use to the Inc in general, not just for those persons... People who can garantee that the project will 'deliver', should get funding, at least partially.
[15:15] (Nancy) Roger, I agree, and maybe Sol can show his qualifications during this election period by drafting something!
[15:15] (Roger) Yeah!
[15:15] (Roger) Let's ask him...
[15:15] (Roger) I second Ron's motion.
[15:16] (Nancy) Jurian, good thinking, to prioritize the proposals. How would you ensure the "guarantee"?
[15:16] (Nancy) A motion has been made and seconded to adjoun, to continue the discussion on tt-inc. All in favor say Yes,opposed Nol
[15:16] (Nancy) Nancy, Ron, and Shirley say Yes.
[15:17] (Jurian) Require a GOOD plan, have it open for ALL of the inc to view. If it is accepted, then that would have to be enough as guarantee.
[15:17] (Jurian) (Not just the board, all of it.)
[15:17] (Roger) Just like with the HQ and the original project proposals.
[15:17] (Roger) Yes
[15:18] (Jurian) It is going to be a public benefit project anyway, so there would not be any reason to keep it secret
[15:18] (Jurian) Yes
[15:19] (Nancy) The motion passes, the meeting is adjourned.
[15:19] (Gerard) Yes
[15:19] (Nancy) Note, I'd appreciate a log! From more than one source!
[15:19] (Nancy) Gotta go!
[15:19] (Gerard) Forgot my vote sorry
[15:19] (Gerard)Yes
Session Close: Sun Jul 16 15:23:47 2000