[sac-forum] Re: This upcoming meeting and the amendment discussion.



Thad Robosson wrote:

Stan Gorodenski wrote:

I am at odds with these rules. This is my only motivation on this issue. Only a 10 minute question and answer period? Only 10 minutes for the Pro side, 10 for the Con side? Only five speakers on each side allowed? No rebuttle to counter false or misleading information given by the other side? I would like SAC to be a club where everyone has the opportunity to make their voice heard, and not be cut off by rules of five members, two minutes, ten minutes, etc. because time has to be made for the evening's speaker.




Stan, while I do agree with "everyone has the opportunity to make their voice heard", it is largely
impractical to do that. How many of the membership will attend a meeting if there were
no astronomy speaker that evening? How many would feel cheated if they showed up
and were suddenly subject to a "business meeting".


I completely disagree. If it is an important issue to members, they will show up. Ask Gene Lucas about the mass that showed up at a PAS meeting many years ago for a business meeting. Also, we have had, for example, meetings without speakers where it is a show and tell or to sell equipment. Members attended.

I'm sorry, I just can't see that working
out for the better. But there is something else to consider. At this point, nearly 12 hours after
making that announcement, I have only received ONE request to speak. So I ask, where
are the masses asking to be heard? Should we hold a special meeting just for this one person?


Only one day into your announcement and you are already proclaiming not many will be interested in expressing their views? In any event, this is besides the point. The point is we should make sure people have the opportunity to express their views, not prejudge that there will not be many.

As noble


I do not look upon it as a "noble" idea. This to me is the way a club should be run.

and respectful your ideal forum is, it is doubtful that more than a few would take
advantage of it.

My sole intention with the format of the upcoming meeting was to provide a FAIR forum


I think I have already made my points that these rules do not provide a FAIR forum, except in the instance where there is not much interest, but you cannot say with certainty there will not be much interest at the meeting at this point in time.


for both sides without debate that could easily get beyond control.


Naturally, we do not want a meeting to get out of control where fists start flying (and chairs), but on the other hand we should not be trying to structure a meeting designed to prevent a full discussion merely prevent a heated (as you said in your previous email message) discussion, which by itself is not bad or necessarily mean a meeting is out of control.

Stan



Other related posts: