Questions for S.C. candidates for monday's elections

[Joseph Mack NA3T]

Here are matters I would like addressed by candidates 
standing in monday's steering committee elections. 
If you were not in the current S.C., some of these 
questions will not apply to you. I can ask for your
replies, from the floor, as part of the election, 
or if you'd like to save time on monday, you can reply
here on the list.

Note to members: you don't have to vote for people
you don't want on the S.C. There are 4 places
vacant this year. If there are 3 candidates and
you only want 2 of them on the S.C., you only
need vote for 2.

Matters:

Bringing the S.C. members together for a meeting:

There is no way to require the S.C. to meet and
the S.C. can avoid dealing with S.C. matters by
just not answering a request to hold an S.C. meeting.

example 1: Election of Officers

After an election, the S.C. meets to elect officers
(chairman, treasurer, secretary, program chairman...).
I've always wanted this handled the night of elections,
but no-one else has ("we can do it later"). As a result 
this year, the S.C. didn't meet to elect officers for 
6 months. It would seem that 6 months is an unreasonably 
long time for an S.C. to wait to begin work, when it 
only exists for a year.

Do you agree? If so what did you do about it this year?

Would you support a resolution for the S.C. to at least
meet to elect its officers within a month of the elections?

example 2: Investigation of possible failure of previous 
Treasurer to fulfill the duties of treasurer.

In September, evidence was presented to the S.C. by
myself that the NCSA accounts had problems and 
that the previous treasurer Lisa Lorenzin has not 
fulfilled her duties as treasurer. My accusations
should have been investigated by the S.C. and the treasurer
either censured (possibly with removal from the S.C.) or
her work accepted as fulfilling her duties. Motions by
myself to censure Lisa or to accept her actions as fulfilling
her duties have not resulted in any resolution. My request for an S.C.
meeting before the election to discuss matters pending, such 
as the previous treasurer's activities, did not result 
in a meeting.

Do you think the matter of Lisa's role as treasurer should have
been investigated? Do you think the members are entitled to know
what happened? If so, why did you not act? Do you think in the 
absence of any investigation so far, the matter should be 
investigated as soon as possible, and the findings put 
before the members?

Example 3: Preparations for elections.

With an election system where a candidate can be elected by
only one vote (their own), I asked for an S.C. meeting to
address this issue in time to have a new system in place for
this election. This was not acted on.

Do you accept the current election system as a good one
for electing an S.C.? If not, what have you done about it?
If you haven't done anything about it, what will you do 
about it if you are elected?

Do you think that the S.C. addressed and resolved all 
problems satisfactorily this year? Do you see the current
system (of the S.C. coming together for a meeting only
when they feel like it) as working?

With the unwillingness of S.C. members to meet, would
you support a resolution requiring that the S.C.
meet 4 times a year, whether or not any particular member(s) 
thought it neccessary? (Presumably to make this work,
the motion would need to say something like "by the last 
NCSA meeting in each calendar quarter").

Matter: Accountability of S.C. members

Currently S.C. members pass or fail resolutions without
NCSA members knowing the way S.C. members voted or even
the existance of the resolutions. While NCSA members are 
welcome to attend S.C. meetings, they've never do.
Presumably as long as the talks are presented each
month, NCSA members don't really care and this is a normal
and reasonable stand by members. However without 
members knowing anything about the goings-on in the S.C.,
the S.C. is not accountable. Our elected representatives
in Congress publish their motions and lists of the 
representative's votes.

Do you think the minutes, matters of interest to the members,
motions presented, and voting of the S.C. should be made 
permanently available in a timely manner to the members 
(eg on a webpage)?

If so, would you support a resolution to that effect?

It is unlikely that the NCSA members know that all the S.C. 
members 2years ago, except myself, would rather cancel a 
meeting in the absence of a scheduled speaker, than go 
to the trouble of preparing a talk themselves. Do you 
think that an S.C. member who presumably is a computer 
professional (if not professional S.A.), should be able to 
give a 45minute presentation once a year on a topic of 
interest to the members? (I don't care if it's not on S.A. -
growing roses would be OK with me.)

Would you support a resolution requiring S.C. members to 
give upto one presentation a year in the absence of a 
scheduled speaker for a meeting?

Treasurer's Reports:

Legally the treasurer is required to give a report to the
members each calendar year. The treasurer also gives 
reports to the S.C. In many organisations like ours, 
a treasurer's report (which takes about 15secs) is given
to the members each month. The treasurer before me, 
used to call out his reports from the back of the room. 
I dropped the habit of giving the monthly report to members
but still gave the annual report and reports at S.C.
meetings.

Are you in favor of returning to the system where treasurer's
reports are given at the meetings each month?

----

Joe
Treasurer
-- 
Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml 
Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!