Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> wrote:
> mjr(at)phonecoop(dot)coop (MJ Ray) writes:
> > 1. it lengthens a no-proposals-allowed period before the meeting
> > again. This deadline is new this year and is unwelcome.
> ...
> > more notice of meetings (including business)
>
> How should I reconcile these two conflicting assertions?
There need not be a dilemma between publishing the agenda and being
responsive to the membership. For example, you could add something
like a "member questions and requests" item early in the meetings, in
the style of England's local councils.
Now, how do we reconcile the conflicting claims of board members about
whether board discussions were being held out of members view or not?
Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.