David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote: > > Please don't permit AOB at meetings. > > We've been down this road, we've had this argument. AOB is important for > the function of the board and banning it is an utterly useless and > counter-productive artificial barrier.
Where was this argument? SPI hasn't had AOB for ages, it isn't in the normal order of business and seems excluded by the promised notice timetable. If the argument was hidden away on -board, please summarise it. "Important" seems clearly not true. There are many boards in all sorts of organisations that do not have AOB. In my experience, the ones without AOB at their meetings (my webmaster cooperative, my village council, the local NHS Primary Care Trust and others) function better than the ones which allow AOB (my old company, the regional cooperative council and others). I think the reasoning is similar to the argument for the suggested Ontario "Open Meetings Law". Yes, having no concealing agenda item is an artificial barrier, but an agenda is an artificial construct too. I believe people will generally take the route of least work, which is to raise things in AOB even when it would be better for members to put it on the agenda. PG's dissatisfaction with the accounts would have been better in the treasurer report discussion and PGCon's announcement would have been more use on the agenda - it will be on minutes that won't be published until after the conference has finished! Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
