|
Post by Andrey Geva on Feb 3, 2005 9:54:09 GMT -6
On the December 18, 2004 Board meeting with the presence of the Division secretary we all agreed that we would like to have a Division membership meeting. A month latter on January 22, 2005 after getting no response from the Division officers 7 members of our Division delivered the writen request for the meeting to the secretary who passed it to the Chairwomen. According to our bylaws “special meetings may be called any time and place by the Chairman, and shall be called by the Chairman upon the written request of not less than five (5) members of the Division”. Today is February 3 but the requested meeting was not called yet. So what should we do now? Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Feb 3, 2005 13:57:34 GMT -6
Andrey:
According to your posting it's been since December 18 that the desire for a special division meeting has been formally put forward. On January 23, a letter was signed by 7 petitioners to request the meeting. Discussions follwed and the date of February 11 was proposed and agreed by several people.
What has been missing all along is follow-up and official calling of the meeting by the Chairman. It appears that she will not accede to the request to have this meeting in a timely manner. Since she does not want the meeting and we want it, and she is the one mandated to call the meeting, there is an obvious conflict of interest on her part.
I suggest to have the meeting promptly on February 11 and handle as first item of the agenda this conflict of interest, and then proceed with the rest of the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Poinard on Feb 4, 2005 11:13:25 GMT -6
Andrey: According to your posting it's been since December 18 that the desire for a special division meeting has been formally put forward. On January 23, a letter was signed by 7 petitioners to request the meeting. Doesn't that mean January 23rd is when it became a formal request? Just a random observation. I'm not Matt D. (but I play him on TV)
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Feb 7, 2005 14:31:41 GMT -6
It was formally put forward by the Board at the meeting Dec. 18th, in which every person that was on the board as a club representative has indicated it was our understanding to put forth a meeting request in our minutes. We followed up with another formal request Jan. 23rd in a letter signed by at least 5 members of the division and had two extra in case there were membership issues any one of them were not aware of.
As I have discussed with the others at the meeting, this is the second formal request for the meeting with the first request not being understood as a request by one of the parties. That is why the confusion in this issue. The majority, if not unaminous opinion of the club representatives present, thought that we had a meeting request in hand. We submitted it again by letter. Now the by-law changes that have been waiting since August to be incorporated or voted on will be delayed again.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Feb 8, 2005 13:44:04 GMT -6
Just got my notification in the mail today for the meeting on March 4 at 6 pm.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Feb 8, 2005 21:53:59 GMT -6
Just got my notification in the mail today for the meeting on March 4 at 6 pm. Dan I gather this makes it official until we get ours in the mail. So now the date is March 4, which is 3 days after the March 1 deadline for certain changes to take place according to the existing by-laws. Why did it have to take so long? Why couldn't the Chairman accept the suggested date of February 11? Anyway, provided March 4 doesn't preclude any change we want to make to the existing system, we'll live with it. Now the problem is going through the proposed amendments as interpreted and written by Matt. Is everyone OK with this process? Does everyone understand clearly what the propositions say and don't say? Any taker out there...any one...any one....
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Feb 9, 2005 12:28:47 GMT -6
Flamberge is looking for someone to explain it all: Easy-its as clear as mud! Okay, I'll try to 'splain some of the changes as my poor, twisted mind interprets them. I seem to have a few minutes on my hands today...Vote how you want, but show up and VOTE!!! As long as everyone understands the following: 1. We have to have a sense of humor about all of this. 2. You read each and every word of the Propositions and if you're still awake, form an opinion. 3. If you don't have the time or inclination to do #2, vote with the Executive Committee or the Division Board. Recommendations of each group follow the Propositions. Prop I- Uh, no 'kick-off' meeting...that's pretty clear. One less meeting to be obligated to hold. Prop 2- If you can't vote, why would we bother to notify you specially of a meeting? You can talk all you want, but you're not voting. So there. If the dog ate your mail, sorry. Prop 3 & 6- ooo, here's a choice. 3 or 6, 3 or 6...Prop 3 says-ah heck, the Executive Committe wants 3, the Division Board likes 6. I'll go with 6. It means that You can't do the following: if you really have a lot of time on your hands, and you want to, you, the club owner can have more than one club, and your minions can infiltrate the Division Board and gobble up all the votes. Division Board likes one person who owns lots of 'clubs' to have one and only one vote. That clever Division Board. Prop 4- If we don't know you're 18 because you didn't inform us formally that you are 18, ya aint' gonna vote in no elections for the Division. We don't care what your passport or driver's license says. We have to know how many people are going to vote before the election. Prop 5-Can't be two things at the same time. Division Officer or Division Board member. If you could be both, you'd have two heads and that would be just wrong. Pick one. Prop 7-It fits in there with 3 and 6, but the Executive committee likes it. choices, choices, choices.... Prop 8 and 11. The executive committee likes 8, the board likes 11. I like 11, too. Not so constricting. Oh yeah, its about when we have that fun annual Division meeting. Can't wait. Prop 9 and 17. It's easier to get a ballot with Prop 17...am I reading that right? Prop 10- This is about actually finding people that would like to go to a meeting. Say there's an "issue"-at present, all you have to do is get 5 signatures on a nicely worded letter, and the chair has to call an executive meeting. The ammendment wants it to be 5 people or 10% of the Div. members entitled to vote ( number that fluctuates) whichever is greater. Let's nix that one. Any five people that agree on something and care enough to call a meeting and go to it, should be able to do so. Prop 12-very clever...Instead of dealing with a run-off on the same day (the old way), Prop 12 has us waiting 15 days to have a run-off with a new meeting. So you have to get everyone to the meeting place-again-and vote, again. New ballots distributed, the works. Time and money. Naah, let's get it overwith in one day and get back to fencing. Prop 13-If someone wants to be both Secretary AND Treasurer, go for it. Prop 14-I'm getting a headache. The Executive Committee likes 14, the Board still likes no. 9. Prop 15. Oh, I like this one. It says, "you can call a meeting, but because I'm the Grand Poo-bah of the division, uh, I mean president, I can manipulate the date to suit my own agenda, not that I have one, because, really, I'm here for fencing." Prop 16-Too many words-owie!But I do like the last line-"Myst be no less than 15 days". A game, we're gonna play Myst? Prop 17. This is as confusing as any California ballot. Ah-nold, I'm am confused.... I'm sure someone won't like me poking fun at all these Propositions, but I can't help it. I'm sure I've gotten some of them interpreted completely back assward. Like I said, I had an extra few minutes today... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Feb 9, 2005 23:25:51 GMT -6
Donkey should be thanked for bringing a much needed levity and a fine sense of humor to our tragicomic situation brought by our collective laissez-faire attitude and personal problems of the few. He, as did Moliere with his comedies, 'castigat ridendo mores' -- corrects our moral perspectives through laughter -- and gives the best explanation so far of Matt's verbal and logical contortionisms...
|
|
|
Post by Poinard on Feb 10, 2005 6:41:50 GMT -6
Matt's? Weren't about half or more of those props from the board? Or do you contend the board is Matt's puppet? THAT'S IT!!!!! It's NOT Louise or Mauro or Andrey or Augie who is the Machiavellian maestro of our cacophonous Division symphony. Matt D is the master puppeteer in this Grand Guignol!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Feb 10, 2005 12:25:11 GMT -6
Matt's? Weren't about half or more of those props from the board? Or do you contend the board is Matt's puppet? ...... Matt D is the master puppeteer in this Grand Guignol!!!! The props from the board were written and interpreted by Matt as he states. I don't assert that the board is Matt's puppet, though one or two may agree with Matt if/when they think they uderstand him. Matt le grand guignol? Well, grand Guignol is an adjective describing any dramatic entertainment featuring the violently gruesome and gory. No, Matt has many problems, as we all do, but a penchant for dramatic entertainment etc., isn't one his attributes. This is the way he operates, this is the way he thinks. Anyone is free to draw his/her own conclusions. Matt goes on a limb -- and the existing by-laws have "allowed" him to do so -- when he wears two hats. It's like being pregnant and not pregnant at the same time....you just can't, but he thinks he can. Combine this with his honest desire to keep everything clear and precise, and he makes a mess of everything, unable to distinguish between what is trivial (e.g., the Prop to determine the age of a voter) and the essential (e.g., conflict of interest and voting procedures). It's hard to be both objective and kind about Matt and his thinking process, but we must be cognizant of this problem. Do we want to go through this ridiculous path with him and therefore play in the hands of those who want to keep the status quo, or do we want to start anew with a clean slate? And if the latter, which way is both fair to the majority and effective to produce the desired results in this lifetime. Those who are aware of the deliberating process of the past months, know that the simple task of calling a meeting, any meeting, even amongst consenting participants, generates megabytes of e-mail from Matt just to determine IF there is a meeting, if so WHERE and WHEN, after checking ad nauseam all the diriment impediments to every step of this determination. And this is BEFORE calling the meeting. The path Matt chose to add, patch up, tidy up, modify the existing by-laws, given his natural inclination to handle any question or problem, no matter how trivial, is in my opinion the path to nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Poinard on Feb 10, 2005 12:57:13 GMT -6
Matt goes on a limb -- and the existing by-laws have "allowed" him to do so -- when he wears two hats. It's like being pregnant and not pregnant at the same time....you just can't, but he thinks he can. I'm sorry, I really have to disagree on two levels. First, I take it as an article of faith that there are people sufficiently honest AND reasonable to be able to assume different, even contrary roles... switching hats, as it were. To presume otherwise would be to assume that a coach like, say Andrey or Augie, could not fairly referee a bout if one of their students was fencing. ...and I will assert that both men DO fairly referee, regardless of who fences before them. Coach and referee? Both? Switch hats? Pregnant and Not? Here we come to my second disagreement: the whole pregnant and not pregnant allusion. This is summoned forth rhetorically far too often and generally improperly. First you would have to make a convincing arguement that what you describe with Matt are two completely contradictory, mutually-exclusive states. You assert this, but do not prove this. Until then, the pregnant/not pregnant reference reads like the loose and flawed rhetoric of a modern politician.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Feb 11, 2005 15:55:27 GMT -6
I'm sorry, I really have to disagree on two levels. First, I take it as an article of faith that there are people sufficiently honest AND reasonable to be able to assume different, even contrary roles... switching hats, as it were. To presume otherwise would be to assume that a coach like, say Andrey or Augie, could not fairly referee a bout if one of their students was fencing. ...and I will assert that both men DO fairly referee, regardless of who fences before them. Coach and referee? Both? Switch hats? Pregnant and Not? Here we come to my second disagreement: the whole pregnant and not pregnant allusion. This is summoned forth rhetorically far too often and generally improperly. First you would have to make a convincing arguement that what you describe with Matt are two completely contradictory, mutually-exclusive states. You assert this, but do not prove this. Until then, the pregnant/not pregnant reference reads like the loose and flawed rhetoric of a modern politician. You don't mind, don't you, if I try to put some order in your spelling, your use of incorrect words, and hopefully your way of thinking. All this in the spirit that everyone has the right and the freedom to express his/her thoughts anyway he/she wants. No need to be offensive or demeaning, but let's all use a common language. 1. Spelling ... of your pen name "Poinard" This applies only if you intend to use the word which describes a short dagger usually with a slender square or triangular blade. The correct English spelling is "Poniard," NOT Poinard. It derives from the French poignard, from poign, fist, which in turns derives from Latin pugnus, fist. It is also used in French and other languages to indicate in a verb form a sneak attack by stabbing someone in the back.... So choose either the English form "Poniard" or the French form "Poignard." 2. Incorrect use of words in your quoted posting "allusion" means an indirect reference. You could use the more general term "reference" which implies a specific mention, in this case the pregnant/non-pregnant topic. Mention is a synonym of reference, allusion is not. You should have used instead the word ANALOGY, which describes similarity in SOME respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar, like pregnant/non-pregnant with the conflict of interest for someone like Matt wanting to wear two hats. Notice that by definition every analogy MUST BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.... another way to explain an analogy....with another analogy. "...summoned forth rhetorically...": here we get a bundle: (a) "summon" means to call together; to request to appear; in law, to order to appear in court after the issuance of a summons; to order to take a specified action; to call forth. (b) "summon forth," though used, is redundant. In the case of the analogy with the pregnant/non-pregnant statement, just say "used." (c) "rhetorically" has the primary meaning of using language effectively and persuasively (which I try to do), and the secondary meaning of using language in a way that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous. If the latter was your intention, you show an aggression that your pen name, once spelled correctly, would justify, but that was not called for by my analogy. Your last paragraph, once these points are understood, becomes gratuitously redundant. 3. Thinking process and formulation of personal opinions Once we have straightened up the linguistics above, and we all agree on the meaning and proper usage of the words we employ, we can dwell in the thinking process and personal opinions. I respect your opinion that what I and others see as a conflict of interest is not a major issue, given the analogy with the referees which you put forward. I hope that you will also respect my opinion, shared by others, that this conflict of interest IS to be avoided. Reading through, with enormous pain and suffering, the seventeen Propositions composed by Matt, and with great relief and a smile, the explanation in vulgata forma of the same provided by Donkey, I see only two major issues: (1) conflict of interest, and (2) election rules for the EC. If you disagree, or if you have other issues, engage in a fruitful and substantive dialogue on the issues, but don't nitpick few analogies which you have difficulty understanding. It's like trying to explain a joke: either you get it or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Colichemarde on Feb 11, 2005 17:55:50 GMT -6
WOW. And you said of Matt "he makes a mess of everything, unable to distinguish between what is trivial... and the essential." Seriously, one of the attributes of quick electronic replies (bulletin boards, emails, etc) is a great frequency of mis-spelled words or words picked swiftly and inaccurately. With haste comes error. I also saw the spelling issue with his name and YES, since most of us are fencers we ALL KNEW what his name meant (spelling errors or no). We also know the definition of YOUR users name and, yes, mine. Oddly enough, we are not all microencephalic twits. Still, I knew what Poinard was saying. As to WHERE you were going with that pedantic drivel is beyond me. If this is an indication of the class of people who now populate the sport fencing millieu, I'm glad I'm out. I'll now execute Cobb's Traverse.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Feb 13, 2005 20:31:55 GMT -6
..... one of the attributes of quick electronic replies (bulletin boards, emails, etc) is a great frequency of mis-spelled words or words picked swiftly and inaccurately. With haste comes error. ..... we are not all microencephalic twits. ...... As to WHERE you were going with that pedantic drivel is beyond me...... I'll now execute Cobb's Traverse. My dear Colichemarde, remember what your teachers taught you way back then..."haste makes waste." Don't use the excuse of quick reply electronic posting to accept ignorance and/or mental confusion. Proofreading before posting will reduce the chance of making asinine statements using wrong words. This applies to Poniard (Eng.) or Poignard (Fr.) and you. Are you two the same person? The other thing to remember going back to what should have been your primary education, is that a major activity then, and now, is READING AND COMPREHENSION. You and your alter ego have a problem with the second part of this activity. Since you question where the discussion is going -- that comprehension thing again -- I tried to bring the discussion down to the basic topic about the Special Division Meeting cutting through the chaff of Matt's verbiage and trying to recognize the humorus and valid contribution by Donkey to this discussion. I stated before, and I repeat now, my respect for anyone's opinion on the issues. You recur to insults against those of us who hold a different opinion. What are you afraid of? Why do you have such an inferiority complex to feel the need to (a) justify one who nitpicks analogies, and (b) not wanting to address these issues? Even if your opinion is that the issues are non issues, just present your point of view and explain why you are for or against any of them. No need to call me names or speculate about the size of my encephalous. I welcome your contribution to the discussion in particular if you disagree with me. I do have an open mind and I am always ready and willing to learn. I hope that you are too. Finally, I invite you not to execute a Cobb's Traverse but stay in the bout.
|
|