kenf@darkstar.cso.uiuc.edu (Ken Fortenberry) (04/17/91)
I read in the April 15 Digital News that a three page "white paper" has been written which outlines why the proposed reorganization plan would be harmful. Since we will sonn be asked to vote on the reorgan- ization plan I would very much like to read this document. Could someone who has a copy of the "white paper" post it to this newsgroup ? Thanks, Ken Fortenberry kenf@darkstar.cso.uiuc.edu
killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.184758.23639@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kenf@darkstar.cso.uiuc.edu (Ken Fortenberry) writes: > > I read in the April 15 Digital News that a three page "white paper" > has been written which outlines why the proposed reorganization plan > would be harmful. Since we will sonn be asked to vote on the reorgan- > ization plan I would very much like to read this document. > Could someone who has a copy of the "white paper" post it to this > newsgroup ? We will be posting this next week - watch this newsgroup...
jmi@dac.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr16.184758.23639@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kenf@darkstar.cso.uiuc.edu (Ken Fortenberry) writes: > > I read in the April 15 Digital News that a three page "white paper" > has been written which outlines why the proposed reorganization plan > would be harmful. Since we will sonn be asked to vote on the reorgan- > ization plan I would very much like to read this document. > Could someone who has a copy of the "white paper" post it to this > newsgroup ? > > Thanks, > > Ken Fortenberry > kenf@darkstar.cso.uiuc.edu Ken, There are many of DECUS members who have had quite a bit to say on the re-org. The change in bylaws is not supported by everyone in "leadership". In fact, the way that this entire incedent has been (IMO) railroaded from the beginning is found, by some, to be enough justification for the "vote" on the bylaws not to be held. While I have specific concerns, I will attempt to address why there is a "con" document and why it's not being published is blatently unfair. After the "Board" determined that thay were going to have the vote for the change they created three groups. The first group would create the new bylaws, the second would create a transition plan and the third would create a sales pitch, oops, I mean a concepts document. The voters would then be sent a 400 word "pro" statement, a 400 word "con" statement the bylaws and the 3000 word sales pitch, oops, I mean concept document. The "concept document" has no force. It is just the way "they" (the supporters of the new bylaws) see the future of DECUS under the new bylaws. In no way are any of the items in the "concepts document" enforcable. For instance, the standing committees all serve at the pleasure of the President of the Board. These committees are all chaired by a board member, appointed by the President. There is no way of ensuring the impartiality of these committees and although the concept document states that most of the members of the individual standing committees should not be board members, there is no reason why they don't have to be (according to the bylaws). As a member, you will see over 3400 words in support of the change in the bylaws, and 400 words against. It appears the the President of the Board has been asked, and has refused, to include the equivelent of a "con" concepts document, but the President has said that it will not be sent to the membership. Now, in your own mind, you call it. One side gets 3400+ words to sell the idea, the other gets 400 to try to sell you on *not* changing the bylaws... the side which gets the 3400+ words is the side that has control over the information that you receive... When you read those 3400+ words, remember... there are lot's of words you aren't seeing that are *NOT* in support of the change in the bylaws. jmi speaking for myself and not for any DECUS entity! jmi@dac.mdcbbs.com
killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen) (04/20/91)
FYI - RE: WHITE PAPER A lot of people feel strongly about the limit of 400 words the DECUS Board placed on the CON document while giving themselves unlimited space via the concepts document. For this reason I suspect you may see a few postings over the next week or so about the proposed by-law change. The white paper will be titled "The CON White Paper" and be signed by DECUS volunteers. It should be posted next week. FYI - RE: Ballot Packet You will be getting a ballot packet that contains.... - An intro statement from LDEC (Elections Committee) - The Pro statement - The Con statement - The "concepts document" - The new by-laws Please understand the "concepts document" for what it is. It is a non-binding best case description of how the chapter *MAY* function under these proposed by-laws. Since it is non-binding it is basically a very biased sales job by the Board to sell the change. I strongly suggest you read the by-laws first before reading the "concepts document". Additionally you may read over the next week or so a posting from somebody claiming volunteer issues have been addressed. Please ask that person where in the by-laws the point at issue was addressed. Often when the Board has claimed issues have been addressed they are referring to the non-binding "concepts document" and not the binding by-laws. The question you might ask why did they so carefully address these issues in the non-binding "concept document" rather than the by-laws? I have often felt a good button for the Board to wear would be "Read my lips - you can trust the concepts document".