[Ansteorra] Transparency. was CLOSED MEETINGS

David Whitford dbw6969 at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 14 10:14:51 PST 2008

I might step on some sensabilities here but so be it.
Many have said they want to return to the "good ole
days" when events were fun and not having this that or
the other. Part of what helped your fun was your
innocence, you were screened from a great deal of
these meeting things. Much of this used to happen with
phone calls, off to the side at an event with no
announcement, on Sundays at coronation while everyone
else was driving home.Now in the day of the net and
having added a special gathering simply to conduct
buisness everyone feels they have a right to know
everything going on. I ask why do you need to know
every little piece of every topic the GOofS cover? I
am betting on human nature and its not a kind picture
as to why everyone wants to know. They could just as
easily do the closed meeting off site in a living room
and just let you see the polished results at the open
meeting and most would never know(and I think we might
be a tad better off), but since they are holding it at
the event site many feel they have a right to it. You
suggest have a Sgt at Arms to inforce a quiet rule
and/or remove disruptive elements, yet by the very
reasoning you feel you should be allowed into the
meeting then sgt at arms has no right to remove you.
Leave the officers alone-let them work.
Then they can attend some of those side classes they'd
like to take and visit friends just like everyone

Sorry for the ramble, writing between calls  
My .02 for what its worth
--- Richard Yeager <chuymonstre at yahoo.com> wrote:

> It is obviously not about transparency if the
> proceeding are closed.  As I indicated earlier.  It
> may be more convenient for the officials involved. 
> And the end product may be "presented" to the public
> later.  It is still a very poor business practice
> for a non-profit organization.  You can announce
> that no questions or comments will be allowed from
> non-GOofS members.  Even have a "Sargent at Arms" to
> enforce the no questions rule.  But at least the
> process is held in the open where all of the
> discussion and arguments can be seen.  Otherwise you
> will always have the suspicion of "What were you
> hiding?"
> I have heard from several officers (Baronial and
> Kingdom) lately talk about not holding some
> discussions publicly because "things will get out of
> hand".  Will some people go off on weird tangents or
> possibly bog things down with what the officers feel
> are irrelevant?  Possibly.  Hell, Likely.  That can
> still be handled diplomatically and things can be
> kept functioning.  Is it more of a pain for the
> people holding the discussions or making the
> decisions?  Absolutely, at least initially.  But it
> may save other problems in the long run.  Other than
> the reasons previously stated, I can think of no
> reason that ANY discussions are held behind closed
> doors.  Even if most of us have no choice but to
> accept the decision made by others in those
> discussions.
> We may be trying to re-create a medieval setting
> where sovereigns and landed nobility could make
> decisions affecting the population at large, without
> concern about informing the populace of the
> decision-making process.  The reality of the
> situation is that we are a member-supported
> organization.  As much as the crowns and nobles
> might wish, they cannot have irritating elements of
> the populace sanctioned for disagreeing with them. 
> Convenience, expediency, and officer comfort aside,
> as members we have a right to know what is being
> discussed and why.
> Cuan
> Jean Paul de Sens <jeanpauldesens at gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly, in my experience it's not transparency as
> much as simplicity that
> makes it benificial to have these meetings closed. 
> The GOofS talk and
> correspond with each other quite a bit, but there is
> some face to face stuff
> that needs to be discussed.  An hour before the day
> *is* enough time to get
> it done, but not if we are asked a lot of questions
> by people who are
> interested in delving into the details. The things
> that are discussed are
> the same one discussed at the meeting later in the
> day.
> If state law (Texas or Oklahoma) does require open
> meetings, I'd be
> interested to know.  My research a decade or so ago
> in OK makes me think
> that you can have closed meetings so long as you are
> not the government.
> There are a buncha caveats, but that was the basic.
> JP
>  __________________________________
> >
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with
> Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list