governing structure discussion

[Alice Freed]

Hi everyone,

     Sometimes when I post to GALA, I compose what I
want to say off-line so that I have a chance to think through
carefully what I am going to say. This is *not* one of those times.
I am sorry for the note of discord that has emerged, though I am
not surprised since we are dealing with one of the hardest parts
of this process: representation and inclusiveness. I don't think
I have any particular wisdom beyond that of any one else but
I would like to encourage everyone involved in this
discussion to stick with this process a bit longer and not
bolt just yet.

     I have had my share of misunderstandings via e-mail, even
with very close and trustest friends, and think it is inevitable
that this will occur. A misplaced word or badly
chosen phrase can cause all sorts of trouble. I think some words
*have* been badly chosen and, in addition, some genuine
misunderstandings have taken place. But we have to move forward
and continue discussing even the things that we have not yet
agreed on.

     I am somewhat undecided about how I think we should proceed.
Despite my previous posting about how uncomfrtoable I think it
might be to designate specific elected slots for particular
"constituencies" I also appreciate the dangers that some of you
have elaborated on about failing to do just this. I also think
that I have a bit more faith in the election process than some
of you have indicated that you have.

     At this point I would like to suggest moving in the direction
of reserving slots on the advisory council for *reserach areas* and hope
that as nominations are made, people will nominate individuals within
research areas who happen to embody not only a commitment to that
area of resarch but who also happen to be a "member" of the group that the
research is about.  In some cases this will work and in some it
might not but it could be a good first step and then we can
reconsider what kind of governance to have it we are not
satisfied with the results. We should therefore also build into
our governing structure a provision for an evaluation (via
total-membership vote) of the structure at the end of either one
or two years.

      The exception to this suggestion for slots on the advisory
council should be explicit inclusion of 2 (not 1) students and
2 (not 1) individuals whose own primary language AND research are not
English.  This means that there will be only 4 (not 6) at-large members if
we want to keep the Council at 12 members.

     I would also like to repeat my informal suggestion as a
formal amendment to the structure of the Executive Committee.
Namely, one additional slot on the Executive Committee should be for
an individual elected by the Advisory Council (plus perhaps an
alternate). If there are concerns that there should not be one
person who gets to vote on both of these two boards, the member
from the Adivosry Board could be a non-voting member.

     Again (and again) I commend the facilitators for moving us
forward.

     Alice

     _________________________

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