creating a governing structure

[Chris Beckwith]

The proposed structure sounds basically good.  Some suggestions:

There is no mention of a Secretary ('Executive in Charge of Operations'?)
who would actually do the day to day running of the organization's
business.  I've been in two organizations where practically ALL the work
has been done by a devoted but untitled secretary (no capital S); she was
not a professional in either case, but still I didn't like it.  In one
case, some of the other members felt as I did, and eventually the
secretary was elected Secretary of the society, a position she holds to
this day.  :-))

It would be good to get a copy of the non-profit incorporation guidelines
from the state in which the organization will be incorporated.  (Being a
non-profit corporation is the only way to accept tax-deductible donations,
which will be needed if we want to do much of anything other than host a
conference periodically.)  I think that the structure outlined would fit
within the guidelines in Indiana, but I don't have a copy of them here and
am not sure.  They do not vary much from state to state because everyone
has to follow the federal guidelines anyway.  Better to check now and make
any necessary revisions before things get too far along and it has to be
redone.  (At least, they should be checked before we vote on all this.)
  							
On the Advisory Council:  Categories 1, 2, and 6 of the Advisory Council
'special constituencies' make good sense.  No problem (though I wonder why
the U.S., Canada, and UK are lumped together; what about Australia, then,
for example?)  But I am really uncomfortable with the rest.  Please don't
take the following comments the wrong way.  I know you have only the best
of intentions.  But please let me share my feelings.

I do not like to be categorized according to my race (mixed) and
nationality, or my sex and gender (feels mixed sometimes too).  It
ALWAYS feels to me like discrimination AGAINST me.  I can't tell you how
much I dislike the expression 'members of color'.  Please, if it is
possible to change anything about this proposal, please please please drop
this.  The idea of singling men out as a special constituency seems to me
like a kind of reverse discrimination too.  There have been many men
who've written in and participated in the discussions; surely out of 12
advisors at least one will be a man, but even if that is not always the
case, I wonder if it should matter to anyone, least of all the men who
have been interested in this organization.  So I strongly urge you to drop
this one too.  Similarly, the idea that there should be a special
constituency for people of various sexual & gender identities strikes me
the same way.  We're all people, aren't we?   We're all interested in
and sensitive to issues involving these categories.  So far we've done a
great job of working together civilly and intelligently, for the most
part, regardless of anyone's race, nationality, sex, gender, or whatever,
haven't we?  Let's keep on doing it, and not MARK people like this.
I know it is well-intended, but it doesn't feel good.  It feels awful.  It
reminds me of the times I have been mistreated because of my race or
nationality or sex or whatever.  I hope you will understand my feelings
and not be offended by my comments.

Chris

> Advisory council.

> Twelve elected members. Six slots would be reserved for the following
> constituencies, and would have to be filled by a member of the group
being
> represented (e.g., a member from the US could not fill slot 6). Six
other
> slots would be open to any member of the organization.
>
> The proposed constituencies are:
>
> 1. Graduate and undergraduate students
> 2. Scholars in nontraditional employment situations (e.g., working in
> industry; independent scholars; part-time and adjunct faculty)
> 3. Members of color
> 4. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual members
> 5. Men who are members of the organization
> 6. Members outside the US, Canada, and the UK