Ed, Thank you for broaching these difficult questions that I raised. I think they need to be addressed clearly and you have made a commendable start.
BTW, thanks for the prestigious "Dr" salutation, but alas I am but a humble community college professor. Gary On May 17, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Edward Frank wrote: > ENTS, > > Dr. Gary Beluzo posted a series of questions about the future of > ENTS and suggested we are on a cross-roads of sort to determine the > future of the organization. I agree, but not in the sense that Gary > means. I think the growing number of ENTS members and a broader > diversity of ideas is the future of ENTS. I believe that by making > this suggested change would serve both to promote the broader goals > of a diverse membership and to promote our scientific goals at the > same time. Simply organizing the discussions into two broad > categories for easier management and accessibility would be a > benefit, while members would retain full access and right to > participate in all of the discussions. Not choosing this option I > believe would be harmful as the number of posts grow, it is becoming > more chaotic and harder to find those posts of particular interest > to you. This I think will put a damper on participation and > membership growth in the long term. > > As for Gary's specific questions: > > 1. What is ENTS? What IS the primary mission, what are the > intended goals, and who decides the future path now that the > "membership" is over 300? > 2. Who is ENTS? Is it the original core group with additional > members looking on or is it the sum total of the current membership > which includes many non-scientific folks. > 3. Who should decide where ENTS goes and what it becomes? Should > there be a core group of officers that create policy and "official" > members vote on that policy? Should the vote be binding? > 4. Is ENTS to become a more formal organization with things like > membership dues in addition to a Bulletin, annual rendezvous, and > special conferences? Is ENTS a casual gathering and membership? > 5. Can and should ENTS become everything to everyone? > > 1) I believe the primary mission of ENTS is as stated in the mission > statement. "The Eastern Native Tree Society (ENTS) is a cyberspace > interest group devoted to the celebration of trees and forests of > the eastern North America and around the world, through art, poetry, > music, mythology, science, medicine, wood crafts, and collecting > research data for a variety of purposes. " Our mission is all of > these things. To collect research data we must develop better and > refine existing measurement techniques. Some members are interested > primarily in and focused on this aspect of the mission statement. > At times I think there is a backlash among the non-measurement > people against the people involved in scientific goals of the > organization. > > 2) Who is ENTS? ENTS is the sum total of the current participating > membership. I think it is only reasonable that those members that > are actively participating have a greater say than those who do > not. I also think that people who have worked for a long time to > make the ENTS organization viable and to help it grow should have > more of a say than more recent members. Ideas on what ENTS should > or should not do are posted to the list for everyone to discuss. > Everyone is encouraged to make comments and suggestions and really > not major decisions that I can think of have ever been made without > this public discussion. In every discussion people disagree about > what should be done. Eventually a general consensus is reached > among the most active members and a decision is made. I lobbied for > a long time, over a year or more, before the decision was finally > made to get our own domain name and website. > > 3) Who should have the final say? In this respect I must point out > that ENTS is not a membership organization as defined under the non- > profit regulations. Members do not pay dues, nor do they have a > vote on policy matters. The officers of the organization have the > legal right to make all of the decisions. I am not an officer, I do > not have a vote. That said the officers of the organization are > extremely responsive to the wants and needs of the average member > and are always working to to encourage participation by these > members in all aspects of the organization. > > 5) ENTS can't be everything to everyone. As it is set up ENTS is a > scientific organization and not a political organization. Clearly > many people have strong political leanings and these are expressed > in the discussion list, but are not an overtly political > organization. I think everyone want the organization to have > influence on how our forests, parks, and trees are managed. This is > best accomplished by growing the organization and by producing the > scientific results that can impact public policy. Toward that end I > think it is important that the organization support these scientific > research efforts. > > 4) The future of ENTS. That is the question of the day. Currently > ENTS is a subgroup of the Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest, and > therefore a 501(c) scientific organization under that primary > group. There has been some discussion of formally organizing ENTS > as a separate group under our own bylaws and our own Non-profit > status. That will cost perhaps $2000 to accomplish. I could try to > write the bylaws myself and likely get away cheaper (I bought a > book) for less money but I have no experience in doing so under > current regulations . In these bylaws we could structure ENTS as we > saw fit. I would like to see the group run by a Board of Directors > that included both permanent members - the current officers - and > elected members chosen by the general membership. We could create > formal committees on different subjects - a scientific steering > committee for example. Meeting could be held at our semi-annual > gatherings. Day to day activities would be run by the officers. > This would facilitate the chance of getting external funding for > research projects and the like, but would create operating cost that > we currently do not have. It is likely that membership dues might > need to be charged and more money to keep track of would mean more > paperwork... It would require more time spent on organizational > activities than the organization requires currently. The are pros > and cons. This option is a good topic for further discussion. > > Ed Frank > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
