Don
You have read more into my reply than what is there.
I have been around since 1996 ans was on the KY mailing list the day Jeff Murphy announced
his little Muhlenberg County Web site. I was an original KY CC for two KY counties.
I never implied there had been a state vs state issue or would be. The regional idea
insures that not all of the reps will come from one state.
The fact that I would get 9 votes to your three is the fault of your amendment.
--
Joy Fisher
---- Don Tharp <detict(a)cox.net> wrote:
Joy, I have been with the Project since 1996 and have always tried to
follow the actions of the AB and the opinions expressed on all the
various lists. I have _never_ observed a conflict between states nor
have I observed a conflict between regions.
There is just no specific interest in one region that doesn't exist
in another. The division of regions has always been meaningless
except to designate them as positions on the board.
Actually dividing us into regions was one of the bigger mistakes the
original bylaws made. It immediately gave us turf to protect, it
developed a "you versus me" mentality when there was really nothing
of difference. It is exemplified now by your present insistence that
regions differ and we do have turf to protect.
It just doesn't make any difference where we are in the Project, our
goals are all the same, or at least should be.
Most of us, 75%, hold interest in only one region but once the AB
members are elected all of their votes affect us equally. While we
will have no say in who is elected outside our region we will be
subject to their votes on the AB. Why shouldn't we all have as many
votes as possible to help us elect those AB members.
I believe you hold counties in three regions which means you will get
to vote for 9 of those regional representatives under your plan. I
maintain six counties but they are all in one region so I will get to
vote for three regional representatives under your plan. Most CCs are
in a similar situation.
Under my plan you will continue, as you do now, to vote for six
representatives in your three regions plus the three additions RALs.
You will continue to vote for 9 representatives of the AB.
Under my plan I will continue to vote for the two representatives in
my region plus the three additional RALs. This increases my vote for
representation from two to five.
That, Joy, is where we, the 75% of the membership will gain a voice
in the election of the AB members. Why should we throw away our votes
just to vote only in one region where there is no difference
whatsoever between one region and another in the affairs of the Project.
If we should adopt regional representation as you propose we will be
voting for representatives in our region. Let's take a look at our
own region, the SW/SC region. We here in Nevada have a total of some
16 CC votes. Texas in our same region has a total of some 270 CC votes.
If, as you proclaim there are differences, then what state do you
predict would prevail in any conflict?
It is certainly true that our votes for RAL would be diluted among
the 2000 plus members. And, therein, Joy, lies the safety of
preventing any region or any state prevailing over another. While you
see it as a negative I see it as a positive, that is, it protects the
Project from being dominated by one state or one region. While Texas
can easily dominate Nevada under a regional plan they would be hard
pressed to circle the wagons and prevail over the total 2000 plus
members that would be voting for the RALs.
DonT
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NVGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message