creating a governing structure

[Alice Freed]

I have been away so I have just now read the various postings
about a governing structure and about names.

     Names:

     Could one of the facilitators please post a list of names
that have been suggested so far. Thanks.

     Governing Structure:

     I have several questions and comments.

     1. The relationship between the Executive Committee and the
Advisory Council is not clear to me.

     On the one hand the Executive Committee is "to carry out the
work of the organization, as determined by policies put forward by
the Advisory Council."

     But on the other hand, "The EC would be assisted by standing
committees, boards, and ad hoc committees as necessary" -- one of
which is the Advisory Council.

     So which of these two boards directs the other -- or isn't
that the idea? Are these two boards to operate as parallel
structures? And if the Advisory Council is to determine
policies of the organization, how does it communicate its
decisions to the Executive Committee? Would it be a good idea to
have a member of the Advisory Council (perhaps elected by the Council
members themselves) sit on the Executive Committee?

     2. Although I understand the reasons for three-year terms
for the President and VP of the Executive Committee, and for the
VP also being the President-Elect, I fear that a six-year
commitment may be a bit long for some people who might otherwise
be interested in serving. I would rather re-elect people who are
happy in this position and who the membership is happy to have
continue than start out with such long terms of office. (And do
we have want term-limits?) What do you think of a two-year
term instead for each of these positions?

     3. I read with interest the opinions regarding the different
"constituencies" of the Advisory Board but I must say that my gut
reaction is a negative one. I am most uncomfortable with
categories #3,4 and 5. As someone who works to break down
dichotomies of all sorts because of how arbitrary they can be, I
would hate to see us create categories of this kind. Wouldn't we
be falling into the trap that suggests that just because someone is
a lesbian or African-American (or a man or a woman or a Jew for that
matter), that she or he can speak for all other individuals who
share that particular designation? I hate to sound preachy here
but it feels really bad to be discussing this in this manner.
I would hope that people would nominate a wide range of
individuals who they think will represent a variety of
view-points but I am not happy to see categories that designate
someone's color, sexual perferences, or sex as a criterion for
election. I would not vote for a woman for an elected position
just because she was a woman and I would never assume that another
white, heterosexual woman would necessarily be able to "speak"
for me unless I knew what she stood for.

     Of the other three categories (#1,#2,#6), only #1 is simple.
I agree that students should be represented (since this is a category of a
different sort) and not discriminatory in any obvious way. As for
#2, I think I would rather encourage nominations from all sorts
of scholars and specify in the governance that scholars, whether
independent, working in industry, government, or in university settings,
are welcome. For #6 (members from outside the US, Canada, and the
UK), again, I understand and agree with the motivation but think
some other way of saying this might be better. I haven't decided whether
I think this should be done according to language (as someone
else suggeted) or by geography but I would like to hear some
suggestions about this.

_________________________________________

     Alice F. Freed
     Professor of Linguistics
     Montclair State University
     Upper Montclair, NJ 07043 (USA)
     freeda at alpha.montclair.edu
     (973) 655-7505