🚀 go-pugleaf

I just received my written package from National regarding
the SGM and I have a few comments.  But, first, I must state
that the overall tone of the introductory letter  signed by
our illustrious leader du jour is one of the most
disappointing, biased and self-serving letters I've ever
received from any national level executive in any
organization.

In paragraph four - pg. 1, I have to take issue with Kewal's
statement that "the issue before you is one of confidence...
ON THIS ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE [emphasis added]".  He then
goes on to  say that the a vote contrary to what he wants
would result in multiple resignations.  Like  whom?  Name
names, please.  Maybe that will make a difference. Either
way.  Besides, if it is just this one issue, why threaten
the membership with the possible spectacle of the entire
board falling on their petards?

WRT the procedures, I have to once again state that in the
absence of any specific direction to the contrary,  that I
should have the right to vote by proxy.  Or does  National
expect me to fly to Ottawa to speak for two minutes?  Nobody
is subsidizing my trip.

And Procedure #9 - no vote can be changed after submission
in the event of mail ballot is contrary to Robert's Rules
(like has anyone actually looked at these things?)

The total lack of electronic distribution or
teleconferencing is so appalling for a national information
systems organization  that I don't even know where to begin
my criticism.

WRT the meeting time limits, if 90 members show up and each
asks to speak for two minutes, what happens?  After all,
there is time limit on this whole affair.

As for the board's position paper on this issue, let's just
say that I'm surprised the lawyers let that one through.
Innuendo, threats, blah, blah, blah... for shame. If that is
it, then I suggest the meeting should "interesting".  And no
matter what happens, I fear for CIPS if this is where and
what the National executive has brought us to.

Tom