I got Kathy's letter in the next batch downloaded after sending mine. She
wants to know members' reactions to the BoD letter, and I think we should
add reaction to hers.
She said: >It is interesting to note that the Board of Directors does not
feel that LACTNET is an "appropriate venue for discussion of association
issues," but
it nevertheless uses this venue to communicate to those members who are
LACTNET discussants/lurkers.
The BoD letter explained this: because Lactnet had been used the BOD had to
use it to reply but would prefer to use its own channels, being set up.
Perfectly clear to me. What is insinuated by Kathy?
>1) It is gratifying that the Board of Directors has recognized the serious
concerns members have brought to its attention.
I agree. Proves they are the sort of people we thought they were when we
elected them.
>2) While the actions of the Board of Directors may not be illegal, I
question whether they are "legally defensible" insofar as their actions are
in direct violation of the governing rules of ILCA, which pertain to ALL
changes having to be voted on by the membership.
The BoD have dealt with this: members will have an opportunity to vote. But
I have known organisations where the ballot has consisted of asking members
if they wish to accept the new Rules, without spelling out every last
deletion and addition: people are supposed to be competent, literate
professionals after all.
> 3) Continuing with the current ballot may not be illegal. I do believe
that such an action is unethical insofar as it disenfranchises members from
expressing a COMPLETE ballot on those changes that have been made WITHOUT
membership approval.
Continuing with the current ballot is both legal and ethical and saves a
lot of wasted paper and money, I would hope. The worst case scenario is
that it fails and has to be re-done: why not try to save MEMBERS money by
seeing if it passes this time? ALL changes have so far been suggested
WITHOUT membership approval until the ballot result is in: Is Kathy
suggesting a pre-ballot by members for changes that could be proposed in
the By Laws?
>4) Furthermore, I consider the actions of the Board to be morally
indefensible.
QED they are morally indefensible? I don't think so, Kathy: your opinion is
just that. The BoD has done what elected accountable members of Boards have
to do, with good legal advice from attorneys such as Pris who have had
ILCA's intersts at heart for many many years.
> This may not be something that can be required by a court of
law,
sure isn't, and with good reason: no Board could get things done
> but I would like to ask all ILCA members if they are comfortable with
>[WHAT I KGA CONSIDER] morally indefensible actions for which they were
>given no opportunity to express their opinions and/or to act on those
>opinions.
Members cannot be consulted about everything or the Association can never
act. That's why we have the Board structure. Certainly members were not
consulted about many actions taken while KGA (ex officio) and I (elected)
were both on the Board. Are members concerned about particular things? What
are the ACTUAL ISSUES that members should be concerned about?
>5) I fear for the continued existence of ILCA in the face of actions by
>the Board of Directors...
Now that comment REALLY worries me. This is the sort of comment made before
the event by those who disagreed with ALCA and have since formed new
organisations after they could not convince a majority of ALCA members to
agree with them. Kathy, can you please reassure me and all Lactnetters that
you and your friends and associates have absolutely no interest in the
formation of any new organisation now that you are no longer JHL Editor? I
hope I am being needlessly anxious here, after all you did to help build up
ILCA in its early years.. But historically when powerful members fall out
with elected Boards they often go on to create schisms and take their
supporters into new organisations: a friend has just supervised a student
writing on the damage this has done in the Australian childbirth education
movement. I apologise profoundly if the thought has never crossed your
mind, and you are merely trying to build ILCA up by what you see as
constructive criticism. But as a hisotiran I know only too well that the
language of doubt about an Association's future often identifies the person
who is damaging its future.
>in moving forward with a ballot that is so seriously flawed. I am sure
>that this was an inadvertent oversight.
The BOD said it was an oversight; they said they are going to adddress the
flaws: what more do we want?
>However, continuing to move forward with acceptance of the flawed ballot
>suggests something far more serious than an invertent oversight.
What, Kathy? spit it out. don't insinuate. If you can't say it because it
would be actionable you shouldn't suggest it. This is unprofessional use of
language. Going on with the ballot suggests to me fiscal responsibility,
actually, although given the amount of suspicion stirred up by all this
comment I personally think the Board would be wise to say hang the expense
and start again. However, they may be aware that critics would then say
look at the waste of money.... As though there were not similar mistakes
covered up in earlier times when some of the critics were also the Board.
>What is wrong with simply saying, "Hey, folks. We are very sorry. We
goofed. We are going to fix it by starting over with a ballot that is
COMPLETE and thus in complete compliance with our own bylaws sections which
specify what must be voted up or down by the membership. Please bear with
us." I am sure that ILCA members would have been understanding of such a
statement.
So am I. But the BoD don't really need to say they goofed, only that so
much concern was expressed that they are doing it differently to make it
clear even to the most paranoid that there is no sinister agenda here. They
have said there was an oversight. Mistakes happen; they have always
happened.
>Instead, we get a letter (or at least those of us on LACTNET do--will ALL
>members receive such a letter,
Since thankfully not all members have been exposed to speculation about the
Board's motives, they do not need the same letter but a different and
appropriate one outlining just what is happening. Kathy, you don't seem to
realise how damaging to membership morale this sort of public catfight is.
It lowers everyone's opinion of ILCA and of LCs for this to be in a public
forum: like families that embarrass everyone by squabbling in public. Of
course families fight. So do members of organisations. But there is a place
for it: within the group; and a tone for it: the professional respectful
tone used by Jeanine Klaus in expressing her concern to the Board, for
example. I am delighted Jeanine will be on the Committee revising By-Laws
and suggest concerned members e-mail her if they have been made distrustful
of the Board by this sort of sniping. There should be no need for this post
of mine ever to be written. I resent wasting time on it, but feel that KGA
is so influential a figure in the US that someone has to stand up and be
counted.
>since some are not members of Affiliates, and others are not on LACTNET?
Exctly why this is not the proper place for the discussion.Please ILCA get
the Listserv going.
>In fact, it suggests to me that at least some members of the
Board of Directors are so ego-involved in the original ballot that they
refuse to accept responsibility for having goofed to begin with.
Kathy is belittling a majority of the whole elected ILCA Board here, since
at least a majority must determine this action. It doesn't suggest
ego-involvement to me, just that the BoD members are concerned not to waste
ILCA money. How do we explain that this suggests such different things to
Kathy and myself? Could it be true that what we project as motivation for
others is how we function ourselves?
>How do other ILCA members feel about that letter?
It was excellent. Let it be an end, please.
And if you have doubts and suspicions still, talk to the Board. Nicely.
Maureen Minchin, IBCLC; ILCA Board 1989-1991; ILCA PAB 1985-1989; 1991-1997
|
