1/10/01 ALHN Board Meeting Log
(Time=EST)

Board members present: 
Kathy Leigh, President (KathyL) 
Norm Vance, Vice-President (NVance) 
Lesley Moss, Director (Lesley) 
Debi Kendrick, Director (DebiK)
Annette Peebles, Director (apeebles) 
Ron Eason, Director (Ron)
Everette Carr, Director (Everette)



Session Start: Wed Jan 10 21:21:09 2001
* Logging #alhn to '1-10'

<KathyL> would you please indicate your presence by putting your
full name and "here" for the record.
<Lesley> Lesley Moss here
<Everette> Everette Carr - Here!
<nvance> Norm Vance....here
<KathyL> Kathy Leigh  here
<apeebles> Annette Bame .. here
<apeebles> Peebles
<Ron> Ron Eason, present
<KathyL> great!
<KathyL> I welcome all of you, the old board members, and
especially our new members, Everette and Ron.
<Ron> Thank You.
<Everette> Same Here!
<KathyL> Congratulations for the elections/re-elections. We are
going to make this a great year!
*** Debi has joined #alhn
<KathyL> Hi Debi.
<Debi> Sorry I'm late
*** KathyL sets mode: +o Debi
<Debi> Hi All
<nvance> Hi Debi
<KathyL> For the record, both Everette Carr and Ron Eason have
already signed and returned their Oath of Office.
<KathyL> So they are officially seated!
<Debi> Kathy, do we all need to do this?  I know we've done this
before but do we need to do it again?
<Debi> Welcome aboard you guys
<KathyL> Carole said we didn't, the others are still in effect.
<KathyL> The next item on the agenda is election of officers.
<KathyL> Nominations are open for president.
<Lesley> I nominate Kathy Leigh.
<nvance> Kathy has done such a good job, I second that
<Ron> I concur.
<KathyL> any other nominations?
<Everette> Make a motion we close nominations for President
<KathyL> any second?
<nvance> 2nd
<KathyL> nominations are closed for president.
<KathyL> Norm do I hand the gavel to you to do this right?
<nvance> Probably.
<KathyL> It's yours.
<nvance> All those in favor of Kathy Leigh, say Aye
<Everette> Aye!
<Debi> aye
<Lesley> aye.
<apeebles> aye
<nvance> aye
<Ron> Aye.
<nvance> Any opposed?
<KathyL> abstain
<nvance> Congratulations, I hand the gavel to the 2001 ALHN
President
<Everette> Congradulations, madame President
<Debi> Congrats 
<KathyL> Thank you everyone!
<KathyL> ok, nominations are open for vice president.
<Debi> I nominate Norm Vance
<Lesley> Second.
<KathyL> any other nominations?
<KathyL> nominations are now closed for vice president.
<Everette> move to close nominations for VP
<KathyL> All those in favor or Norm Vance for vice president, say
aye
<Ron> Aye
<apeebles> aye
<Everette> Aye
<Debi> aye
<Lesley> Aye.
<nvance> abstain
<KathyL> aye
<KathyL> any opposed?
<KathyL> Congratulations, Norm as the Vice President for 2001!
<Debi> Congrats Normie
<Everette> Ditto
<KathyL> Nominations are open for Secretary.
<nvance> Thanks
<Lesley> I nominate Annette Peebles.
<apeebles> I nominate Debi Kendrick
<Everette> second
<apeebles> I am sorry, but I must decline
<Lesley> ok
<KathyL> any other nominations?
<Everette> You can assume my second is for Debi
<KathyL> ok Everette ;)
<Lesley> Move we close nominations for secretary.
<Ron> second
<KathyL> Nominations now closed for secretary.
<KathyL> All those in favor of Debi Houser Kendrick for
secretary, say aye.
<Everette> aye
<Lesley> aye.
<apeebles> aye
<Ron> Aye
<nvance> Aye
<KathyL> aye
<Debi> abstain
<KathyL> none opposed?
<KathyL> Congratulations Debi on being the new secretary for
2001!
<Everette> ditto
<Debi> thx
<KathyL> nominations are open for treasurer.
<Ron> I nominate Everette
<nvance> ssecond
<KathyL> any other nominations?
<Lesley> Move we close the nominations for treasurer.
<apeebles> second
<KathyL> Nominations are now closed for treasurer.
<KathyL> All those in favor of Everette Carr for treasurer, say
aye.
<nvance> Aye
<Ron> Aye
<Debi> aye
<KathyL> aye
<Everette> abstain
<apeebles> aye
<Lesley> Aye.
<KathyL> none opposed?
<KathyL> Congratulations Everette as the new treasurer for 2001!
<Everette> Thanks
<Debi> congrats
<Lesley> Congtrats Everyone!
<KathyL> yes, congratulations!
<apeebles> Congratulations!
<Ron> Congratulations to all!
<KathyL> I just want to make a quick comment here.
<KathyL> Since we are a small board, according to the RRoR, we
don't have to be quite so formal.
<KathyL> You don't have to ask for the floor.
<Debi> you mean I can kick off my shoes? <G>
<KathyL> Sure, Debi!
<Debi> thx
<Ron> <sniff - sniff> :)
<nvance> Hehehe
<Debi> LOL
<KathyL> ok, I guess we need to have elections for states
webmaster, topics webmaster, and webring webmaster.
<KathyL> I didn't see anything in the bylaws to indicate that
they needed to be elected every year.
<KathyL> Any opinions? Should we elect every year?
<nvance> I don't recall that they do, in fact, it's my opinion
that the longer they serve in those positions, the better.
<Debi> I agree with Norm
<Ron> Maybe just inquiring if the current individuals would agree
to carry on.
<KathyL> or should we ask the membership what they want?
<KathyL> I happen to agree that if they will continue, I'd rather
see them in there without going through another election.
<nvance> Aren't these Board appointed positions???  (Just asking)
<Lesley> No
<KathyL> no, membership elected them
<Debi> Since it's not in our bylaws, maybe this is something to
present to the bylaws to committee
<nvance> Okay.... early on, they were appointed (before the new
Preamble
<KathyL> Annette, how do you feel since you are the topics
webmaster?
<apeebles> I like where I'm at and since I was elected by the
membership I feel that I should stay unless there comes a time
where there are problems
<Ron> If they were most recently elected by the members, it would
be most appropriate to take it back to them and inquire through a
poll whether they would prefer to re-elect or let the positions
run until they need replacing.
<nvance> That would be bet
<nvance> best
<Lesley> Agreed.
<Debi> When they were elected into these positions, no time frame
was given?
<KathyL> no, Debi.
<Everette> The bylaws do not address the issue as far as I can
tell.  They were elected by the membership and serve at the
memberships pleasure until removed or they resign.
<Everette> I see no need to hold another election or to poll the
membership.
<Ron> That's one of those things that should have been covered in
the Bylaws and until they are, the question would by default need
to be taken up with the membership at large.
<nvance> That's a good point
<nvance> Needs to be clarified in the bylaws for the future
<Ron> Everette is also correct that it isn't, probably, a point
that requires immediate attention.
<Debi> It sure does
<KathyL> any motions?
<nvance> Both of you are correct, but I agree there is no
immediate action needed
<nvance> except in bylaws committee
<Ron> exactly.
<KathyL> ok, so we send the issue to the bylaws committee?
<Debi> I believe we should
<Everette> It can be addressed in amended bylaws but otherwise
Norm is correct, we don't need to give immediate attention.
<Ron> I think itis definately a point that needs to be listed as
long as they are positions that are required and voted on.
<nvance> What motion did your want Kathy, for the personnel or to
send it to bylaws
<KathyL> probably to send it to the bylaws comm
<Everette> Do we have a functioning bylaws committee?
<KathyL> well, we're getting to that discussion next! 
<nvance> I move that Annette continue as Topics Webmaster and
that the bylaws committee clear up the wording
<nvance> regarding how long they serve
<KathyL> maybe make it a general statement Norm as in those in
the positions of topics, states, and webring masters
<nvance> I rescind my previous motion and move that those in the
positions
<nvance> of topics, states, and webring masters continue serving 
<nvance> and that the wording for length of time be addressed by
the bylaws committee
<nvance> don
<nvance> done
<Everette> second
<KathyL> all those in favor of the issue of the terms of office
for states, topics and webring masters being sent to the bylaws
committee, say aye.
<Everette> aye
<Ron> aye
<Debi> aye
<Lesley> Aye.
<nvance> Aye
<KathyL> aye
<apeebles> aye
<KathyL> The vote was unanimous, the issue will be sent to the
bylaws committee.
<KathyL> Bylaws Committee--
<KathyL> probably the first discussion should be the formation of
the committee.
<nvance> The committee is ongoing at all times Kathy, it's
already formed, just needs people
<Everette> Before you get too envolved, can someone help me with
item H. of the Preamble?
<Everette> "All vacant committee Member positions must be filled
by a membership vote"
<KathyL> Norm, can I leave that too you since you were a major
part in creating the preamble?
<nvance> The Board appoints a representative as Chair, and then
the rest of the membership is voted in by the membership
<Ron> Norm if there was a previous committee, then it would seem
those people would still be members unless they voiced their
resignation, in which case those members would face re-election. 
??
<nvance> And the President is exofficio member, that's why it is
always ongoing
<nvance> More Everette
<Everette> To the best of my knowledge, no member of any
committee has ever been voted on.
<nvance> The last bylaws committee was formed by anyone who
wanted to be on it, as advertised, there were no objections to
doing it this way
<nvance> and basically, everyone who was on the bylaws list was a
member 
<nvance> correct me if I'm in error, anyone
<Everette> Yes but, it was unweildy and didn't accomplish
anything.
<nvance> I agree with you
<KathyL> should there be a set number of members?
<Everette> Absolutely
<Ron> My suggestion would be to set a number for the committee,
select a chair, then submit a request to the membership for
nominations to the committee, then let the peopel vote on those
nominated.
<nvance> I think so
<nvance> agreed
<Lesley> I agree with Ron.
<KathyL> any suggestions for the number on the committee?
<Everette> One other possible method would be to set the number
of members request volunteers and then hold a lottery to
determine who actually serves.
<nvance> I don't think we can do that Everette, that way the
membership isn't voting on them
<Ron> Everette that would not be in compliance with the Preamble.
<Ron> It would be mandated for a vote
<Ron> I would suggest 7 members and a chair
<KathyL> Are you planning on the chair voting?
<nvance> Don't you want a total of an odd number?
<KathyL> That would be best, I would think Norm.
<nvance> I would suggest 7 or 9 to include the Chair
<Ron> Is the ex-officio going to be the tie breaker?
<nvance> That's an idea
<Everette> I would suggest you go with seven as you don't want
the ex-officio voting as a general rule.
<Lesley> Then the President would have attend, whereas now that's
not reqiured.
<Ron> Then it would have to be 6 members and the chair
<nvance> I think that's best, Ron
<nvance> Just my opinion
<Everette> I agree.
<KathyL> I also think we need at least one board member on the
committee.
<nvance> Absolutely
<Ron> That should be the chair
<nvance> Yes
<KathyL> I agree Ron
<Everette> In addition to the chair?
<KathyL> There was some discussion back awhile ago whether the
chair had to be a board member or elected by the committee.
<Ron> Not according to the Pramble
<Ron> Preamble
<Everette> If the chair resigned from the board and the committee
- wouldn't the vacancy have to be filled by a vote of the
members?
<KathyL> upi
<Everette> I'm nitpicking - preamble needs to be worded
differently.
<KathyL> sorry, you're probably right Everette.
<KathyL> So, if we appoint two board members to the committee,
can they co-chair?
<KathyL> if one leaves, then there's still a board member.
<Everette> I'm not sure the board has a right to appoint any
board members- again just nitpicking.
<Ron> If I understand the question correctly,  <more>
<nvance> If the Board appointed Chair resigned, then I would
think the Board would appoint another board member Chair   [more]
<nvance> I was writing that as you presented your co-chair idea
Kathy
<KathyL> I just type faster Norm! <G>
<Ron> According to the Bylaws, the Board appoints one or two
directors to each committee, if they are the chair, which is
proper, if they resigned, they would be replaced according to how
the Bylaws state a director is replaced.
<Everette> My point is that the board should be able to appoint
two or more board members to any committee - just not sure the
preamble wording allows it.
<Ron> The Preamble is only for taking up the slack of the regular
Bylaws, is it not?
<nvance> Yes, and one has to remember that whatever the bylaws
comm. comes back with to the Board, it all has to be passed by
the membership
<Ron> The voters will all be doing the approving, the Bylaws
committee is only a body to come up with a workable suggestion
that is turned over for a vote.
<nvance> Having one board member (at least one) on the committee
is more for communication factors
<KathyL> Can we not read into the preamble the creation of
committees to include two directors. The Board can decide that
can't we?
<KathyL> We create the committee with two directors and the rest
elected by the membership.
<nvance> I'm thinking.......
<Ron> According to the regular Bylaws, that is a fact, the
preamble would be interpreted as all other members would be voted
on members.
<nvance> I don't think we're in trouble by appointing two board
members
<Ron> And that is because of the fact that the Bylaws don't cover
the appointment or placement of the rest of the members.
<nvance> the rest to be voted on by the membership
<Ron> As I understand it, the Preamble is instituted to act as an
emergency fix for things that were found missing in the Bylaws. 
It doesn't do away with the Bylaws, just helps to define things
that are not covered, ie: the filling members of committees.
<nvance> That's one of the items in the Preamble
<nvance> Yes
<Ron> just an example for what we are discussing.
<Ron> The regular Bylaws state that the Board appoints no less
than one director.  And the preamble says that the committee
members have to be voted on by the members.  That statement does
not do away with the appointed director, just defines the rest of
the process.
<Everette> If everyone is camfortable with that - then lets
appoint two directors and put five positions out to the
membership to be voted on.
<Lesley> That's how I read it also, Ron.
<nvance> I'm comfortable with that Everette, and all
<Ron> You can define it by the specific point that the "vacant"
positions are to be filled by vote.
<nvance> Yes
<Ron> Directors can't be considered vacant positions.
<Everette> I can live with that!
<KathyL> correct, Ron
<Ron> I would volunteer if that is allowed, madam president.
<KathyL> any volunteers to be on the bylaws committee?
<KathyL> I would prefer volunteers instead of appointing. I want
to make sure this is what you want to do.
<KathyL> Ron, that's great! Anyone else?
<Everette> I have a penchant for rules, regulations and bylaws
but I'm not sure you want the two newest directors serving on the
committee
<KathyL> You just might be what we need on the committee,
Everette. Points of view from the recent membership.
<nvance> Both of you are well qualified, it's fine with me.
<KathyL> You've both watched for the past several months and
probably have a good idea what you would like to see.
<KathyL> I think it would be great to have both of you on the
committee.
<Everette> Then I volunteer my services and leave it to the
discretion of the board as to the finalk decision 
<Everette> I miss my spell checker - my fingers are too big! 
<nvance> <G>
<Ron> Can we get a show of hands Kathy?
<KathyL> Sure Ron, I'm just not sure we could see you up in MI!
<G>
<Ron> LOL
<KathyL> All those in favor of Ron and Everette being part of the
Bylaws Comm, say aye.
<Lesley> Aye.
<nvance> Aye
<Debi> aye
<KathyL> aye
<apeebles> aye
<Everette> abstain
<Ron> abstain
<KathyL> well, it's unanimous. Congratulations!
<KathyL> Should we make them co-chairs or are there any other
suggestions?
<KathyL> Co-chairs then?
<nvance> Question: Which one will run their meetings????
<Ron> lets flip a coin
<nvance> <G>
<KathyL> They both would wouldn't they. It's also a small
committee, they don't need formality unless they want it of
course.
<KathyL> ok, does the board direct me to open nominations for the
5 positions on the bylaws committee?
<Ron> I have found that without a little formality the work goes
slower than normal.
<nvance> I think someone needs to be in charge, for establishing
the agendas, etc
<nvance> Maybe we should just let the two of you work it out,
huh?
<Everette> Just let it go as co-chair and I will defer to Ron for
opening closing, etc., we will work together on agenda etc.
<KathyL> also, they will have control over the bylaws list.
<nvance> Sounds great
<Ron> agreed.
<nvance> Yes, Kathy, the nominations for filling the bylaws
should be opened, I move
<Ron> second
<nvance> Amended:  the 5 vacant seats
<Ron> agreed
<KathyL> all those in favor of opening nominations and elections
for 5 Bylaws Comm members, say aye
<Lesley> Aye.
<Ron> aye
<Debi> aye
<nvance> Aye
<Everette> aye
<apeebles> aye
<KathyL> aye
<KathyL> It is unanimous, I will get the announcement posted for
nominations.
<KathyL> I forgot one thing from the previous agenda item.
<KathyL> and that is on the mailing lists.
<KathyL> I know several of our members are having problems
getting mail from eGroups and somedays it is so slow.
<KathyL> should we look for another mail list server?
<nvance> I think there will be problems with any mail list server
at times, and we have all our archives on egroups, 
<nvance> Personally, I don't think we should change, maybe
contact them and ask if there is a problem
<Ron> Does it help to have them unsubscribe then re-sub to the
list?
<Lesley> I do like the archives and I have gotten into the habit
of checking te web site.
<KathyL> eGroups is probably the only one with the convenience of
polls, isn't it?
<Debi> I have had problems, but I always go check the archives
myself
<KathyL> ok, we just stay where we're at?
<apeebles> I do the same thing, check online, when I have
problems
<Lesley> Nothing is foolproof.
<Everette> I doubt that you will find a server that is any
better.
<nvance> I agree
<KathyL> ok.
<Ron> Have you ever noticed whether those that have problems,
also have mail message rules that direct thier mail to certain
folders.  I have missed many that way, because a particular
person is named and it ends up going somewhere I didn't realize
it would because of my message rules.
<apeebles> Personnaly I think that egroups is the best by far
with the polls and such in emails, I think we should stick with
egroups
<Ron> just a thought.
<KathyL> I don't have mine set up that way Ron, but I had
problems with my regular email addy so I had to get a hotmail
account.
<KathyL> maybe it just goes in spurts like the rest of our email!
<nvance> That is a good thought, I know one person who
occasionally has problems, and she has hers set up that way....
will tell her
<KathyL> Next question, should the membership decide on who
moderates the ALHN mailing list?
<Everette> Why?
<Debi> I think how it is set up now is fine
<KathyL> to give the membership a chance to participate. It was
just brought up recently.
<nvance> I think definitely that the M-V list should all be board
members [more]
<Everette> I'm sorry, I don't understand!
<KathyL> the m-v list has to be taken care of by the secretary at
the very minimum.
<nvance> and the other lists there should be a board member at
least as owner.
<KathyL> I'm only asking about the main list. The bylaws
committee will be handled by Everette and Ron.
<KathyL> The m-v list is a membership list and has to be handled
by at least the secretary.
<KathyL> But, if you want to keep the main list under the control
of the board, that's fine.
<Lesley> Leave a board member as owner of tha alhn list and ask
for volunteers.
<Everette> I am sorry, but I fail to see what the membership
would accomplish by deciding who would monitor the main list.
<KathyL> Everette, only because it is a member driven
organization and that is the main list everyone communicates on.
<nvance> But Kathy, if a non-It really should be under control of
the board alone, it's a board list and we don't want anyone
cancelling votes, etc.
<KathyL> which one are you talking about Norm?
<nvance> I'm sort of with Everette on this, we have to enforce
the Preamble on flaming (this comment the main list)
<nvance> (M-V list was the one before
<nvance> sorry, my thoughts ran faster than these fat fingers
<Lesley> <g>
<KathyL> ok, then we leave the main list as is. Norm do you want
to stay as owner/moderator?
<nvance> That's okay, if it's okay with the others
<Everette> Fine with me!
<Lesley> It's okay with me. 
<Ron> I would think that there would have to be certain items
that would be maintained and considered Project items, and the
lists should be one of them.
<KathyL> I would like to get away from being a moderator on that
list.
<Ron> Are you the sole moderator?
<nvance> Any volunteers for moderator on the ALHN list
<KathyL> Norm is on there, he needs company!
<Debi> I'll help
<nvance> Okay Debi, thanks.... 
<nvance> Kathy has enough to do already
<Lesley> thanks Debi. I needed a break also.
<Debi> currently, how many moderate on MV list? 
<KathyL> The way I have it set up right now, because of the
problems with a prior secretary...
<Debi> I can understand needing a break <G>
<KathyL> I, as president, am the owner, Debi, you as secretary,
will be a moderator, and Norm as VP
<KathyL> also has access.
<Debi> ok, just wondering <G>
<KathyL> I will try not to get involved with your adding members,
so we don't trip over each other.<G>
<Debi> sounds fine with me 
<KathyL> ok, anything anyone wants to discuss?
<Ron> bed?
<KathyL> Would anyone would like to adjourn?
<nvance> I move we adjourn
<Lesley> Second.
<KathyL> We are adjourned! Thanks everyone.

<snipped post-meeting chat>

Session Close: Wed Jan 10 23:11:58 2001