[Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee

[Michael Conard]

Joe,
I concur. My concern is that the AB will get too large to work effectively.
Splitting regions and giving each region a seat on the AB risks making it
too unwieldy a body. I'd like to see a smaller, more responsive board but I
see no way to do it without upsetting the apple cart. This is a difficult
issue.
 
Doc
 
  _____  

From: bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org [mailto:bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org]
On Behalf Of Joseph Sare
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:57 PM
To: bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
Subject: Re: [Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee
 
Doc,
 
I really have no personal issues about the size of the AB, or our ability to
work as a group.  I wouldn't suggest adding too many additional AB members
though.  There are some times where there can be a lot of different
discussions, or we can be slow on a particular topic, so that's the main
reason why I say this.  If you add too many more AB members, I think it'll
just add to these two things.  
 
Joe
 
Bdr. Joseph Sare, SFMC - K8FON
Regional Coordinator - STARFLEET Region 13
www.region13.org 
joseph.sare at gmail.com 
Skype: k8fon1
(248) 686-2390
 
From: bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org [mailto:bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org]
On Behalf Of Dave Blaser
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:52 AM
To: bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
Subject: Re: [Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee
 
That's a question that would be best answered by them.
 
I've asked the question of the EC, and it'll take some time to get a
response back, but for an AB response, you may want to ask Joe, Jack,
Chrissy and Reed that question.
 
Dave
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Michael Conard <mconard at itol.com> wrote:
Dave, 
 
What is the current feeling among leadership and the AB in general about its
size and ability to work as a group? I think we need to consider their
experience in the current environment as we discuss this.
 
Doc
  _____  

From: bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org [mailto:bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org]
On Behalf Of Dave Blaser
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:05 AM

To: bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
Subject: [Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee
 
Comments and a suggestion from a member, forwarded with permission.
 
I've got another 2 messages that I'll be forwarding.
 
Dave
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Timko <michaelj.timko at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Subject: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee
To: Dave Blaser <vcs at sfi.org>
Dave,
 
I would like to thank the committee for looking into the possibility of
limiting the size an scope of regions in Starfleet.  This is something that
is long overdue in fleet and if left up to the regions themselves (such as
R1) would never get done.
 
That being said, here is my suggestion.  I know this will displease the SFMC
(to which I am member), but I believe that the position of Brigade OIC
should classified as a regional position (as they represent a subset of
marines) and thus chosen by the Regional Coordinator.  I would also suggest
that a sitting BDE OIC can only be removed by a VOC of the unit OIC's in a
territory.
 
As it stands now, the Brigade OIC is chosen by COFORCECOM and that person
serves at their pleasure.  You say the wrong thing to the COFORCECOM and
they can oust without even talking to the marines you represent.  This also
effects existing Brigade OIC's as if the COFORCECOM does not like this
person they are free to replace this person with someone they like, but the
marines of the area may dislike.  It's too much power for one person to
wield.
 
If we take up the points I mentioned, then we would have BDE OIC's who truly
represent the brigades they serve as opposed to people who are only loyal to
the COFORCECOM.
 
I also have one other suggestion.
 
I think that maybe Starfleet needs to have one or more correy regions added.
 
Correy regions have a hard time existed in regions that have always been
defined by physical parameters.  Correy chapter members can be anywhere in
Starfleet, but are precluded from being RC because they do not live in the
physical boundaries of the territory they choose to be part of.  Its also a
question of geography.  You can live in a region, but regions (such as R1)
can cover vast amounts of territory.  More years than not, the R1 summit has
been held in Pigeon Forge, TN which is an 8 hour drive for me as I live on
the Northern most edge of R1.  I think that is entirely too far to be asked
to drive for a regional summit.  A summit driving distance should be no more
than a couple of hours or a few hundred miles.
 
To that end, here are my suggestions for a correy region(s):
Any correy chapter is welcome to be part, but can remain in their existing
region if they would choose too.
If a chapter chooses to be part of a correy region they would remain in that
region for a period of one year (this prevents switching back and forth and
causing headaches for the Chief of Ops).
Correy chapters would have no city of charter.
Correy chapters would be exclusively online and hold meetings online.
Correy chapters would be allowed to have limited physical gatherings.
 
Michael Timko



-- 
Dave
dave at blaser.ca

_______________________________________________
Bylaws-l mailing list
Bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
http://lists.sfi.org/listinfo.cgi/bylaws-l-sfi.org



-- 
Dave
dave at blaser.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfi.org/pipermail/bylaws-l-sfi.org/attachments/20091114/20755d98/attachment-0001.htm>