advisory council, redux

[anna livia]

Re Miriam's suggestion of a review or appeal mechanism:
I would prefer to let the advisory council, once set up, do its job without
too much extra waiting around for an appeals committee to process
decisions, etc. Are the members of the advistory council to be chosen by
the executive committee or voted on by anyone with an interest in IGALA? Or
will IGALA have a set membership with dues etc? I would like to suggest two
possibilities:

1. Let the executive committee decide on advisors, but let advisors serve
for one year, so they may be either  replaced or returned to office
depending on their contribution.

or 2. a. collect dues, determine a membership, and let members vote on the
advisors.
b. since a. will be a cumbersome process, let the advisors remain on the
council for an extended period, eg. 5 years.
c. if there is general dismay by a large proportion of the membership (say
two thirds) at the advice being given, or the actual composition of the
advisory council, call for a revote.

(If we have already voted on these details, forgive me, that discussion
seems like a long time ago.)

1. will be swift and centralized, 2 will be cumbersome but democratic.


Re Mary's suggestion for a tripartite council
It is hard for me to see how a council with one third open seats, one third
political and one third professional seats would function in practice. How
big is it likely to be? How easy is it to define the difference between
professional and political? How willing will people be to make this
distinction?

The earmarked seats that stuck in my mind as a useful thing from last time
this subject was aired are:
1. a seat to represent grads and or undergrads
 (If option two above was chosen, this seat would have to change more often
than every five years--probably every year)
2. a seat to represent scholars not employed by universities ie. working in
industry or elsewhere
3. a seat to represent scholars not in the US
4. a seat to represent scholars working on gay, lesbian, transsexual issues
in linguistics
5. a seat to represent scholars working on languages with minority status
in the communities where they are spoken
(the wording of this last needs work, but I mean scholars working on
African American Vernacular English, Creoles, Spanish in the United States
etc)

I would vote against a special seat to represent work on either men or
feminist issues. I can't see that either is likely to be ignored if not
specially provided for.

This makes for five advisors, which does not seem enough. I would therefore
suggest another five, chosen by the executive (or voted on by the
membership) as scholars who are merely articulate, involved and willing to
serve.
##############################################################################
Anna Livia