Re: [UC] FoCP elections held

[Krfapt]

In a message dated 10/15/2004 3:08:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could somebody who was at the meeting let the rest of us know why the motion to create a dog run failed to progress?   I would be interested in knowing the positions of the FoCP Board members towards the creation of the park. Maybe next year someone will have to create a Dog Park slate of board candidates It had to do with two factors:   1) Procedural -- the implementation seemed to require an amendment to the by-laws, which would mean that the Board had to consider it first then bring it up to the general membership.   2) Tactical -- the motion was not the consensus of the Dog Committee, which hasn't yet presented its finding to the Board; there seemed to be general agreement that the work of the committee, which it appears will culminate in an examination of several alternatives with their benefits and liabilities, should be considered by the Board. As I understood it, this wouldn't preclude consideration of the motion by a particular member; the intent was to give a full hearing to a number of possible approaches.   Always at your service and ready for a dialog, Al Krigman Don't forget the city-wide Historic Designation Reform Task Force Forum, Oct 25 at Community College of Philadelphia. e-mail me (off-list, please) for details of the agenda, time, etc.