In a message dated 10/15/2004 3:08:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 Krigman Don'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 Krfapt
- Re: [UC] FoCP elections held Stephen Fisher
- Re: [UC] FoCP elections held BGAndersen