The motion of the board was that a committee would meet to formulate the survey:
MOTION by L. Holman and SECONDED by G.M. Stacy to approve the Rules Committee to discuss creating and distributing a survey regarding the use of holiday lights on the building.
Discussion ensued regarding the motion at hand.
The motion was approved. P. Seth and M. Ulaszek voted No. M. Dosen and S. Burdett Abstained.
I was suspicious, surveys can be slanted to get the desired results. I approached Laura Holman the board member who was apparently in charge of this committee, and asked to be included in the meeting. She told me that I would be informed and she was quite nice about it.
I went to the committee meeting prepared with suggestions for the survey. Aside from Laura there were three other board members. The whole system of committees is pretty fluid, any unit member can attend a meeting and by attending a meeting they become a member of that committee but only for that day, they can choose to not attend any more and not be a member again.
Anyway, along with Laura there were three other board members and when Laura said let's get down to the brass tacks of formulating the survey one of them said, whoa, hey, the board didn't decide that there should definitely be a survey, only that we talk about whether or not there will be one, and the other two board members rightaway chimed in with agreement to that interpretation. Laura and I thought otherwise, but now the discussion was open again and I had to plead my case all over again as I had at the board meeting. Had I known that this was going to happen I would have been prepared with more articulate arguments, but anyway after an hour of 'discussion,' (Those three board members vs me, Laura largely ambivalent) it was decided that there would indeed be a survey and that we would meet again to discuss its format, so you can see a long road remains to be hoed.
Passing strange I thought that those three other board members, who had all been at the board meeting, should misremember the motion of the board meeting in the same way. Reading the minutes I suppose one might argue that discuss creating might include discussing the possibility, but I maintain that if that was the case it would have been stated that way. And I was there and I know what I heard, and those other three board members who were all against it had an axe to grind in misrembering it.
After the meeting I looked up the minutes. We have a cumbersome website where stuff like that can be looked up and when I went there to look up the minutes of the meeting I learned that no minutes had been added since February, but I was provided a copy when I complained. I sent that statement to Laura along with my argument for what it meant. I guess I was seeking to somehow curry favor with her, but I don't think that succeeded because I haven't heard back from her. Come to think of it I haven't heard anything in the past few weeks about the formation of that survey either. I'll email Laura about that later today.
And that's where things stand.
I know I have gone on about this matter at length and I had already discussed some of this before, but the Dawgs hate it when I go on about some hypothetical matter so I thought they would find this more interesting. Also of course writing things down makes things much clearer for me than just thinking about them.
I am unclear from Beagles's narrative whether he won his case. I think the second paragraph should come before the first because that is the chronological order, looked at that way it looks like he did win his point. If he had named his grievance something about overtime pay it would have been more clear.
I think the discussion this is all leading up to are the merits of which is more important written rules or the people who enforce those rules, and I would like to have that discussion now, but it abstracting it from concrete cases makes it more hypothetical so I don't know if interest can be kept up.
No comments:
Post a Comment