In a recent post written to me but sent to LACTNET, Amy Spangler wrote:

"Reflecting the fact that 84% of the members are US
citizens, the 1997 Bylaws, approved by the members and awaiting several
minor revisions prior to implementation, call for the assignment of two
delegates to the US region rather than one."

Perhaps because I never got some of the Globes to which she referred in her
note, I was in the dark to a greater degree than other members.  I find it
most curious that this is the FIRST time I have read of ANY action being
taken on those 1997 Bylaws changes which I was told would NOT be acted upon
until after the mess that was created by asking for votes on only some, but
not all changes --particularly the deletions--had been straightened out.

What HAS happened to those bylaws which were voted in?  I suspect many who
approved them were unaware of the fact that by being unable to vote for or
against the deletions the Board was denying them an opportunity to FULLY
agree with all those changes?

Were these "minor revisions?"  I do not believe them to be.  Why was the
name of the new US Delegate not listed in the most recent ballot materials
to assure US members that their views would indeed be represented on the
Board after Mary Grace steps down?  Or, could not this information have
been shared in the March-April Globe (called "spring" which only applies to
individuals in the Northern Hemisphere) that was not received until May
(nearly winter in the Southern Hemisphere)?

Asking members to get involved in an organization that seems to have badly
mismanaged its members' money seems to me to be asking too much.  Why
should they become involved without sufficient information about how their
organization is NOW being managed? All we have been told is that the
management company has been changed.  We still do not know HOW that major
monetary loss occurred or who was really responsible.  We still have
received NO information about how and in what order those "minor" by-laws
changes will be instituted, and the reasoning behind each selection for
action.  Do not the members DESERVE that information?  In short, why does
this Board NOT share information fully with its members so that at least a
minimal level of confidence in the Board can begin to be regained?  Without
such confidence, I doubt there will be members to support the board or the
organization.

I invite other members to share how they feel--positively or
negatively--about the concerns noted above.

     mailto:[log in to unmask]

"We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly
disguised as impossible situations."
Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Ferndale, WA USA) [log in to unmask]
WEB PAGE: http://www.telcomplus.com/~kga/lactation.html
LACTNET archives http://library.ummed.edu/lsv/archives/lactnet.html