This seems to be getting out of hand.
If I'm correct, there was a decision taken in committee to which the chair
objected and, as a result, resigned.
Is there nothing in place where a contentious issue may be placed before the
members or that an EGM could be called for?
I've been is situations where this has happened and, after a vote by the
members, all has settled down with those unable to accept the ruling
deciding that they would be forever at odds with the rest of the committee
and have resigned their post. That's their prerogative
The EGM can give an opportunity for all sides to discuss the problem in an
open manner.
Discussions "behind closed doors" often result in whisperings and suspicion.
Even when it's not called for in the rules, open discussions with members is
often a good idea.
We do, after all, vote people into the positions and can also vote them out
again (or at least not vote for them again).
At the moment we are hearing bits of things which, to my mind, smacks of
infighting and personal grudges ranging from "I'm not playing any more" to
"if you don't like it, tough, we don't need you".
This isn't doing any good at all.
Sometimes it's too late to announce that a decision has been taken and just
maybe (when politics can seem to take a part, for instance) it may be
appropriate to involve all the members in a vote or at least to ask their
opinion first (don't governments have enough of a problem with this?).
Whilst I realise that the committee is voted in to take these decisions,
there may be occasions when a simple committee majority just isn't enough.
A simple poll of the members would, I think, have been a good idea.
We run the severe risk of alienating sections of our membership here and we
need also to remember that the membership covers a rather wide area with
some unable to attend meetings either through distance, cost or health
reasons.
Has the society considered a proxy vote for these people?
If this matter isn't resolved in an open and public way, I can see a
fragmenting of the society into two or more camps.
We must, I think, put our own personal selves aside and think PIPES and what
is best for PIPES.
Innuendo and gossip isn't what we want to hear.
maybe a publishing of the minutes of the meeting concerned would help?
Without getting a concise record of what was said and done, we are forced to
glean what we can from emails. That's not good and will totally rely on how
vehement or eloquent the writer may be.
Let's have it all out in the open (isn't that what minutes are for???).
Colin Hill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Shaw" <d...@daveshaw.co.uk>
To: <annsess...@yahoo.co.uk>; <nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu>; "Francis Wood"
<oatenp...@googlemail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 4:32 PM
Subject: [NSP] Re: NPS President
I would like to support the views of Ann Sessoms and Francis wood
as they reflect my own but are so much more eloquently put.
There seems to be an orchestrated Gadarene rush towards what is
essentially a vote
of no confidence in the elected committee.
Where will it all end if they take the hump and resign en masse?
Dave Shaw
Dave Shaw, Northumbrian and Scottish Smallpipes, Irish Pipes and SHAW
Whistles
www.daveshaw.co.uk
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
