APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2007-12 > 1196975741


From: Kathleen McLaughlin <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Board, EC and Management Relationships
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:15:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <002f01c83847$cc6eb520$0201a8c0@YOUR58BA15CF1B>


Hear, hear!

I don't know if the quote should be "Here, here", or
"Hear, hear", but the second is more to my intentions.
This discussion has been dragging on too long and does
not seem to be reaching any positive conclusions.
Kathleen


--- "Richard A. Pence" <>
wrote:

> [Since I am not sure what, if any, part of this
> topic involves ethics, in
> particular those involving professionalism in
> genealogy, I have changed the
> subject to something more to the point.]
>
> I have had one over-riding question while reading
> this thread. Are we
> dealing with things that have actually happened or
> things we are afraid
> could happen?
>
> Persecution is one thing; paranoia is quite another.
>
> Specfically,
>
> 1. Did the Executive Committee accuse, try, convict,
> and suspended a member
> "in absentia behind closed doors"? Yes or no.
>
> 2, Did the Executive Committee take an email sent to
> this list and censor it
> "so that it never appeared"? Yes or no.
>
> 3, Did the Executive Committee kill an article by a
> "well respected author"
> just before publication in the APGQ because it
> "didn't like it"? Yes or No.
>
> 4. Did the Executive Committee pull "a nationally
> known speaker" out of a
> banquet talk "after the publicity and syllabus was
> out" because something he
> or she "was expected to say was 'unapproved' by the
> Executive Committee"?
> Yes or no.
>
> Did any of these things actually happen?
>
> If they did, then I suggest that the proper
> procedure be that specific
> complaints should be filed with the the full board
> of directors so that the
> issues can be reviewed and possibly resolved. If
> that process fails, then it
> would be time to raise the issues publicly.
>
> Otherwise, let's confine the discussion to the sole
> issue of whether the
> Executive Comittee has been granted too much
> authority and rely on actual
> events to back up our arguments.
>
> I spent many years working for nonprofit
> organizations and a good deal of
> what I dealt with involved proper (and successful)
> board-managment
> relationships.
>
> Based on that experience, here are some observations
> on the four points
> above, real or hypothetical:
>
> The incident described in point 1 should probably
> not be entrusted or
> delegated to an executive committee. It should
> either be a matter for to the
> full board or, at a minimum, automatically reviewed
> by the full board. It
> goes without saying that "the accused" should have
> the opportunity to be
> heard and his or her accusers and the specific
> charges fully revealed to him
> or her. Aside to Kathleen Flynn: While the by-laws
> of APG specifically give
> the power of expulsion to the executive committee, I
> would lsuppose that
> "due process" is implied and that the incident as
> described obviously did
> not provide due process.
>
> The issues involved in points 2, 3 and 4 are not
> matters in which neither an
> executive committee nor a board of drectors should
> be involved (no matter
> what the by-laws say!).
>
> A basic premise of good administration is that the
> board sets policy and
> hires managers (and editors) to make the day-to-day
> decisions. Neither a
> board nor an executive committee should be involved
> in the individual
> choices that the employees make, so long as those
> choices are made within
> guidelines laid down by the board. The board - and
> an executive committee,
> if so authorized - has oversight and its recourse is
> to point the employees
> in the right direction or to terminate them if it is
> not satisified.
>
> Questlion: With respect to Point 2 above, I didn't
> know that anyone - let
> along an executive committe - has or is reviewing in
> advance any message
> intended for posting in this mailing list. Are
> messaes here ever reviewed
> and cleared in advance? (I have not seen or heard of
> any evidence of this.)
> If not, then the gremlins of cyberspace are the ones
> causing this paranoia.
>
> In this world of instant communications, too often
> we make instant judgments
> based on only a smattering of infomration. Let's not
> get immersed in the
> "hypothtical."
>
> Rlichard P.
> Fairfax, Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
> to with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message
>


Kathleen McLaughlin

This thread: