[mou] Vice-president resigns, part one of three

[Val/Roger]

This is a sad day for members of the MOU who wished to see the organization
join the 21st Century and begin to reflect the present realities of birds
and birders. I was looking forward to an MOU with Jim Williams at the helm.
Now the organization will have to function without his creativity, energy
and ability to see the forest for the trees -- in short, we lose his vision=
,
a valuable resource for an organization that desperately needs to re-invent
itself.

Thanks to Jim for all the years he did put in, for editing a world-class
newsletter (and creating an ad sales program that brings goodly sums to the
organization) and for enduring years of frustration in order to advance a
higher goal. To me, Jim Williams was the saving grace of this organization,
and I'm very unhappy that we're losing him.

Not much more needs to be said other than it's a sad time for this
organization.=20

Val Cunningham
St. Paul, Minn.



on 10/17/03 5:26 PM, Jim Williams at two-jays@att.net wrote:

> Dear friends,
>=20
> My vision of what the MOU could become by moving forward does not match t=
he
> desire of some other board members to stay firmly anchored where we are. =
I
> therefore have resigned as vice president of the organization.
>=20
> Perhaps I am impatient. I usually am. But, there is much work to be done =
for
> birds and birders and bird conservation. And there are other places to do
> it, places where change is not resisted and new ideas are welcome.
>=20
> When I resigned earlier this week I had completed almost one year of the
> usual two years a vice president would serve before advancing to presiden=
t.
> It had become apparent to me that my ideas for change in the way the MOU =
is
> managed had insufficient support among other board members.
>=20
> If I was to be president, I wanted to work in an atmosphere where new ide=
as
> could find a home. To continue under the present circumstances would have
> been frustrating for me and irritating for other board members.
>=20
> The recent year-long efforts of the task force organized by Bob Holtz to
> examine ways the MOU might better serve both birds and birders offered ho=
pe
> for an atmosphere conducive to new ideas. However, the changes I felt mos=
t
> significant and important failed to achieve the eight of 12 votes needed =
to
> pass as recommendations sent to the MOU board. The board itself, given a
> chance on Oct. 11 to take action of some of these recommendations, also
> rejected those ideas.
>=20
> And while yet another committee will be appointed by MOU President Jerry
> Bonkoski to study the issue I find critical -- reorganization of the boar=
d
> of directors -- there is little hope that the present board would accept =
any
> recommendation for change.
>=20
> The MOU board of directors is made up of five elected officers, 13 commit=
tee
> chairpersons, two editors, and 11 representatives from affiliated bird
> clubs. That makes 31 board members (with no limit on the top number shoul=
d
> more committees be formed or more bird clubs affiliate). A new vice
> president comes to the board once every two years as the person holding t=
hat
> position moves to the president=B9s chair. Thus, according to MOU bylaws, o=
nly
> one new person need be added to the board every two years.
>=20
> While the other officers also serve terms of office, the usual practice i=
s
> to re-elect the treasurer and the two secretaries if they will continue t=
o
> serve. People in those positions can serve indefinitely if they wish. The
> board appoints the committee chairs and the editors. The board is
> self-perpetuating. It can ensure, if it wishes, that change is a remote
> possibility at best.
>=20
> That is my first point of disagreement with a majority of the present boa=
rd..
> I feel all board members should be elected, and that 31 board members is =
too
> many by 20 at least. There should be routine mandated change of command.
> Committee chairs should actually serve designated terms of office. One-ye=
ar
> terms presently are specified, but reappointment is, essentially, automat=
ic..
> Changes are not made unless someone resigns or dies. Editors should serve
> designated terms of office, and that too would be new. Neither editors no=
r
> committee chairpersons should be board members. They should instead be
> subject to oversight by the board. The present bylaws specifically place
> editors outside any oversight. They are responsible to no one but
> themselves, not even the board.
>=20
> continued in message part two
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> mou-net mailing list
> mou-net@cbs.umn.edu
> http://cbs.umn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mou-net