Ed,
A. I agree with the Mission Statement.
B. I agree with your assessment of the membership.
C. I agree that the officers are responsive to the members and easily
approachable.
D. I continue to agree with you here. While the Mission Statement
covers the gamut of the tree world I feel to continue to be viable and on
the cutting edge we should retain a strong scientific background.
E. This idea has a lot of appeal to me, as it would not only offer
more opportunities for members to be active (if they desire) but would
continue to build upon our strong foundation of scientific integrity.
For me, I like the scientific approach-but became bored with the
amount of measuring data.
Phil
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Edward Frank
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:45 PM
To: ENTS Google
Subject: [ENTS] The Future of ENTS as an Organization
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]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
