[UC] FoCP elections held
Friends of Clark Park officers and directors were chosen at the Fall membership Meeting on Oct. 13 at Griffith Hall. President Tony West, Vice President Ron Hudson, Secretary Jonathan Snyder and Treasurer Bill Moriarty were reelected by acclamation without opposition to another one-year term. The six seats for two-year terms on the Board of Directors were contested. The winners were Brad Zinn, Darryl Stovall, Fernwood Smith, Stefanie Moore, Betty Collins and Ruth Andrews. The membership approved a plan to raise dues starting Jan. 1, 2005. A motion to create lifetime memberships and junior memberships was tabled until the January Membership Meeting. Another motion, to pursue a dog run in the park and establish a committee to oversee it, followed a similar course. Both will be studied by the Board in the meantime, and the Board will make its recommendations to the members in January. -- Tony West
Re: [UC] FoCP elections held
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 positons of the FoCP Board members towards the creation of the park. Maybe next year someone will have to create a Dog Pak slate of board candidatesAnthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Friends of Clark Park officers and directors were chosen at the Fall membership Meeting on Oct. 13 at Griffith Hall. President Tony West, Vice President Ron Hudson, Secretary Jonathan Snyder and Treasurer Bill Moriarty were reelected by acclamation without opposition to another one-year term. The six seats for two-year terms on the Board of Directors were contested. The winners were Brad Zinn, Darryl Stovall, Fernwood Smith, Stefanie Moore, Betty Collins and Ruth Andrews. The membership approved a plan to raise dues starting Jan. 1, 2005. A motion to create lifetime memberships and junior memberships was tabled until the January Membership Meeting. Another motion, to pursue a dog run in the park and establish a committee to oversee it, followed a similar course. Both will be studied by the Board in the meantime, and the Board will make its recommendations to the members in January. -- Tony West__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [UC] FoCP elections held
FX Winkler wrote: 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 positons of the FoCP Board members towards the creation of the park. Maybe next year someone will have to create a Dog Pak slate of board candidates I don't recall all of the details, but one of the reasons was that the motion would have been an end-run _around_ the existing Dog Committee and the Board's review of its proposals. The Dog Committee was charged to evaluate suggestions from the community. It did so, weighing different proposals, and at the last Board meeting they'd presented four possible avenues of action. (I haven't received them to put them onto the Website yet.) The Board was going to evaluate these, and perhaps decide on which actions to take. One of them was, BTW, a dog park. Simply introducing a motion, and demanding a vote, may be a way to Get Things Done. However, it sidesteps any kind of real debate on the issue, and in this situation, it amounts to sweeping away all of the work the Dog Committee did. Remember, people, creating a Dog Park isn't a simple matter. Let's say this motion passed. Now an area of the park has to be fenced off and dedicated for dog use _only_. This isn't something that everyone wants. And which area? Dog owners are fond of the Bowl, but we can't fence _that_ off. There are other areas of the Park which might make for decent Dog Runs, but will everyone agree on which one to use? Then there's the cost, which someone provided at the meeting where we created the Dog Committee. In fact, someone can make a very strong argument that a dog run wouldn't be needed, because it's against the law to allow dogs off their leashes. Personally, I have no vested interest on the question: I have no dogs, and I have no kids to worry about. But the Dog Committee spent a lot of time looking at the various proposals very carefully, bringing in many viewpoints. The motion would have ignored all of this work, and pretty much avoided any real debate on the matter. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] FoCP elections held
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 KrigmanDon'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.
Re: [UC] FoCP elections held
The motion was never voted on because the submitter didn't know that a motion to change the by-laws must first be approved by the board before the membership is allowed to vote on the motion. Instead a motion was passed to compel the board to propose a solution by the January membership meeting. I am not on the board but was at the August board meeting when the dog committee results were presented and at the meeting Wednesday. The board's position (as stated by Tony) is that they received the results from the dog committee at their last board meeting (in August) and at that time chose to think about the results and discuss it further at their board meeting in December. Thus they have not had time yet to discuss this issue. Others pointed out that the committee finding presented in August were the same findings that were presented in April and are available on the FOCP website. Thus there was nothing new to consider and they appear to some to be dragging their feet. It's kind of like the presidential debates...the facts are open to interpretation. Lastly, some expressed frustration that this was circumventing the dog committee's work. At the August board meeting, the dog committee completed their job and disbanded. The next step seems to be to choose one or more of their alternatives. This issue has been discussed for almost a year now and the dog committee findings didn't change significantly from April to August and it's now October. I'm new to how these types of organizations work but it seems to me that the motion presented was somewhat timely and consistent with past proceedings and if nothing else, further compelled a discussion of the issue. It isn't clear why the board didn't discuss this in August and it's considered wrong for the membership to try and move this forward. It seems to me that the motion presented at the membership meeting provided a good forum for discussion. Instead it seems to have been taken by some as a slight to the dog committee and the FOCP board. At your service and always ready to express my opinion, Stephen FX Winkler wrote: 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 positons of the FoCP Board members towards the creation of the park. Maybe next year someone will have to create a Dog Pak slate of board candidates */Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Friends of Clark Park officers and directors were chosen at the Fall membership Meeting on Oct. 13 at Griffith Hall. President Tony West, Vice President Ron Hudson, Secretary Jonathan Snyder and Treasurer Bill Moriarty were reelected by acclamation without opposition to another one-year term. The six seats for two-year terms on the Board of Directors were contested. The winners were Brad Zinn, Darryl Stovall, Fernwood Smith, Stefanie Moore, Betty Collins and Ruth Andrews. The membership approved a plan to raise dues starting Jan. 1, 2005. A motion to create lifetime memberships and junior memberships was tabled until the January Membership Meeting. Another motion, to pursue a dog run in the park and establish a committee to oversee it, followed a similar course. Both will be studied by the Board in the meantime, and the Board will make its recommendations to the members in January. -- Tony West __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
