Should have been done before subscribing folks.

JohnO

John - -

Message received.

Byron

>>> eoin@... 10/03/00 04:28AM >>>

Should have been done before subscribing folks.

JohnO

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ICG-BOD-unsubscribe@egroups.com

John,

I'm not actually a member of the BOD this year, but you can keep me on this
list for the time being, since our president is moving and will be switching
her ISP. I can pass along anything that requires feedback or a vote.

Randall Whitlock
Southwest Costumers Guild Volunteer Webmaster

International Costumers' Guild

President's Message

October 3, 2000

Hello, everyone -

Effective immediately, I have suspended publication of The
Costumer's Quarterly, until further notice.

I have taken this step on an emergency basis, because the ICG
does not have the funds to continue the Quarterly's publication.
We have printed and mailed Volume 13, issues 1 and 2, the first
two issues for 2000. We also have printed the special 1999 issue.
To make up for four individual issues, it is about 100 pages. It is
ready now to be mailed.

However, we cannot pay the cost of printing that issue, nor of
mailing it to subscribers and chapters. To meet demand, we
reprinted extra copies of the first 2000 issue; that cost $127.25.
The cost of printing the 1999 special issue is $2,946.67. Carl
Mami, the Quarterly's editor, has paid the printer with his personal
credit card, so that sum is a debt of the Corporation to him. The
cost to mail the issue is $500. Those expenses add up to
$3,573.92.

However, there is only about $1,200 in the ICG treasury (including
$200 in Quarterly advertising revenue), leaving us short
$2,373.92, even if we use every penny on hand.

The bottom line is, we're broke! We need to raise $2,500 in
revenue immediately. To publish the remaining two Quarterly
issues for 2000, we need to raise a further $3,000. At this point, it
appears that it would be cheaper for us to make pro rata refunds
to subscribers than to print those issues.

In the U.S., contributions to the ICG are deductible from income
for federal and state income tax purposes. I intend to make a
contribution; I hope other members will, too.

What happened? To begin, the ICG has been subsidizing the
Quarterly's publication. The subscription price for ICG members,
$8.00 per year, does not cover the per-copy cost to print and mail
four issues, which currently is $13.00. We needed, but did not
request, a $1.00 per year increase in the subscription rate for ICG
members. I judged that the members would not stand for it, given
our poor record of publication. However, for 1998, the ICG
generated $2,227.89 more in revenue that we spent. For 1999, at
my recommendation, the Board of Directors adopted a budget that
projected $265.00 more in revenue that expenditures. Had
revenues from ICG dues come in at the projected level and
subscriptions continued, the Guild could have continued to
subsidize the Quarterly's publication.

As you know, however, that was not the case. Some chapters
decided to withhold subscriptions en masse. In addition, ICG
membership plummeted by over 50 percent between February
1999 and May 2000. That resulted in $583 less in revenue from
dues than we had budgeted. I understand that the last four
months have seen no change in membership.

I did not know about this shortfall until early this May. I had failed
to inquire either about memberships or about revenues before
Sharon Trembley brought the problem to my attention then. I
assumed revenues were about on target, and authorized
expenditures at budgeted levels, rather than requiring cutbacks.

As a result, at this year's Annual Meeting the Board adopted
austere budgets for 2000 and 2001, but ones that continued to
project annual operating deficits. We believed that the treasury
balance of more than $3,000 could support three years of deficits.
We were wrong. The money's gone already.

It was not my intention to run the ICG into the ground, but
apparently I have done so.

For me, the most perplexing question is why so many costumers
have decided to terminate their ICG memberships. As you know,
Costumer's Guild West, formerly our largest chapter, had only eight
ICG members in good standing in May. The Australian Costumers'
Guild had no ICG members, nor did South Bay.

I doubt that these chapters have so few members; these
costumers must have decided to be local members only, rather
than members of the International Costumers' Guild. I am acutely
aware that this took place during my presidency and, frankly, I
wonder whether there is something I did to offend so many
costumers. On the other hand, I know of no member who
opposed my re-election in 1999 and 2000, let alone who asked for
my resignation. Have I simply scared everyone away? If I have, I
apologize, even though I have no idea what I may have done.

At this point, however, in my judgment the International Costumers'
Guild as it now stands is no longer a viable organization. Do
costumers still want it or has it outlived its purpose? If the
Corporation is to survive, we need a radical reorganization
strategy. Frankly, I'm fresh out of ideas. Do any of you have any?
All suggestions will be cheerfully accepted.

If we don't come up with something, at the next Annual Meeting I
will introduce a motion directing the Board of Directors to take all
necessary steps to dissolve the Corporation.

Members may contact me by e-mail at bconnell@...
(work) or BP.Connell@... (home), or by post at 50
Dove Street, Albany, NY 12210-1811 USA.

Yours,

Byron P. Connell, President
International Costumers Guild, Inc.

Well....

First of all, I'm a bit appalled, but not entirely surprised. First of
all, Byron should be commended for stepping up to the plate and taking
responsibility, even if most of this fiasco isn't his fault. Second, Carl
is to be commended for his willingness to shoulder the expense.

My first comment is, this needs to be addressed NOW. It's nothing that
can't be taken care of, given that we have until next year. Despite our
issues with the ICG's records keeping in the past, the SLCG has always
strongly supported the ideals and the goals of the Guild. In keeping with
that, as El Presidente, our next meeting's agenda will largely be concerned
with these financial issues and how we can be of possible help.

Admittedly, we've made some errors on our part recently, but they have been
resolved now. In the past, we have not recommended subscribing the CQ
because of its past timeliness (ie. our money had been going down a
rathole). Carl has proven he can get stuff out (although, for some reason,
our chapter wasn't getting them until Elaine lowered the boom -- heh).
Personally for our part, if and when the CQ is in production again, we will
subscribe and urge our membership to do so when we start receiving them.

In regards to Elaine's comments, I have to agree that the ICG has been far
too lax in its memberships' records. If this is a business (which it is, of
sorts, since it's a corporation), we gotta start running it like one. When
I send out the Scarlet Letter to our membership, I check to make sure each
one is currently paid up. On the outside, I clearly mark "Renewal Due". I
give them one grace newsletter, and then they are dropped from the rolls.
We need to do the same with the ICG chapters immediately. We cannot whine
and cajole any longer. If there are no paid members, and they have not paid
by a reasonable deadline, then those records must reflect that. That means
the efforts to keep records up to date must be re-doubled, and cannot wait
until the Annual meeting. That leads to the situation we now have on our
hands.

In addition, while it won't take care of the whole problem, I believe the
dues for the ICG must be raised in accordance to cover its expenses, and
then some. The SLCG ran into this same problem, when it was discovered
that membership dues were not covering the newsletter costs, which are its
primary expense. I can't imagine that those who believe the ICG needs to
continue would object to raising dues to $3 a year or so.

For our part, we know this affects the status of the ICG Annual, and we will
cease production on it until some financial decision is made by the
governing body.

What it comes down to is that we must first raise funds somehow to take care
of current expenses. Then, those who really care must emphasize that the CQ
is back on track. Membership must increase and be in good standing.
Finally, the ICG must get records properly in order and drop chapters that
have been given a reasonable amount of time to get monies in. In this way,
the Guild will be able to get a handle on future expenses.
Promotion of the Guild in cost free publications wouldn't hurt, either.
When was the last time there were any ICG flyers put out at conventions?

Bruce (and Nora)
SLCG/SLUTS

To the Officers and Directors of the ICG:

First, I am delighted (and somewhat relieved) to inform
you that the ICG is receiving a contribution of $4,000 from an
anonymous donor. Sharon should receive the check sometime
next week.

If no one objects, I propose that the first use of this
money will be to reimburse Carl Mami's out-of-pocket expenditure
of $2,946.67 and that the second be postage to mail the 1999
special issue of the Quarterly. You will recall that we are sending it
to <all> members in good standing, not just subscribers. Those
expenditures would leave about $550.

However, this donation does not take us out of the
woods. We still need to raise another $1,500. As I said in the
Message, donations are tax-deductible in the U.S. I intend to
make a donation and I hope that others will do so, too.

Bruce Mai suggested that we raise the dues from $1.00
to $3.00 per year. We could do so; the dues are set in the
Standing Rules and the Board of Directors has the power to
amend them. However, I am not convinced that it would be wise
to do so. Let me explain.

I believe that the problem of the shortfall in revenue from
dues is merely a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is
declining membership. At the end of 1998 we had over 1,100
members in good standing. By this past May, the number had
dwindled to about 600. Yesterday, it stood at 348! We have no
members in good standing today in either Australia or Britain and
neither Beyond Reality nor South Bay has any members in good
standing. Guild West has gone from eight members in good
standing in May to one, today.

That may be a problem of administration, but only in
part. (Chris Ballis has told me that he was surprised about ACG's
non-membership and was trying to find out what happened.) The
problem is deeper than that. Even the chapters reporting
substantial numbers of members have experienced declines. The
Pups have lost five or six over the last five months. GBACG -
currently our largest chapter at 116 - has declined by something
around 30 ICG members in good standing.

Are these declines the result of costumers dropping out
from the chapters? Or are they the result of costumers deciding to
drop ICG membership but remain as local chapter members? I ask
that each chapter review its recent membership history and report
back to the Board of Directors whether it has been experiencing
(1) overall membership decline, (2) a shift from ICG to local
membership, or (3) both.

If we increase the ICG dues, will we drive greater
numbers of costumers away from ICG membership? Will raising
the dues from $1.00 to $3.00 leave us with 100 members, rather
than 350?

Please remember that currently the dues are not
supposed to cover Quarterly subscriptions. We've been using
dues income to subsidize the Quarterly because I felt that it was a
good use of funds to restore the Quarterly's reliability. We
definitely need a large increase in the subscription rate for
members. It's now only $8.00 per year, while it costs us $13.00 to
publish and mail four issues. I think we should consider raising the
members' subscription rate to $14.00 per year, effective in
January.

Ken Warren suggested making the Quarterly one of the
benefits of membership, once again. Because of the current
disparity between the dues and the subscription rate, I do not
think it would be wise to go back at this time to the original plan of
including the Quarterly in a membership. We would wind up with
annual dues of around $17.00 a year. That would be quite a
shock to the members. Further, as of yesterday, we had only 148
subscribers.

On ICG-D, Randall asked what we should do for
alternate funding sources. Please remember that this year's
Annual Meeting adopted Betsy Delaney's motion to create a
fundraising committee to prepare a fund raising plan for the ICG.
So far, no one has volunteered. Is there anyone on the Board, or
in your chapters, who would like to work on this project?

Randall also endorsed the idea of electronic publication
of the Quarterly, instead of print. Carl has favored that idea for a
long time. However, the Annual Meeting at CC 14 resoundingly
rejected the Sick Pups' proposal to publish the Quarterly for the
ICG electronically. Given that rejection, the Board should not
decide to replace ink with electrons without learning the members'
views. Therefore, please consult with your chapters and report
back to the Board what the members' positions are on publishing
the Quarterly electronically rather than in hard copy.

Finally, a lot of people have been telling me, "It's not
your fault." Whether this mess is my fault or not, it's my
responsibility. I was glad to read Bruce's recognition of that. It
happened on my watch; I'm accountable. Also, I am partially at
fault for not monitoring adequately either our budget or our
membership numbers.

I look forward to learning your thoughts.

Byron

I'm not going to address all of Byron's points, only a couple...

> Please remember that currently the dues are not
> supposed to cover Quarterly subscriptions. We've been using
> dues income to subsidize the Quarterly because I felt that it was a
> good use of funds to restore the Quarterly's reliability.

FWIW, I *don't* think it's a good use of the dues. The ICG has other
expenses which the dues need to cover. Thus one reason for my argument that
the Quarterly should become one of the benefits of ICG membership again.

> We
> definitely need a large increase in the subscription rate for
> members. It's now only $8.00 per year, while it costs us $13.00 to
> publish and mail four issues. I think we should consider raising the
> members' subscription rate to $14.00 per year, effective in
> January.

I would support this wholeheartedly.

> Ken Warren suggested making the Quarterly one of the
> benefits of membership, once again. Because of the current
> disparity between the dues and the subscription rate, I do not
> think it would be wise to go back at this time to the original plan of
> including the Quarterly in a membership. We would wind up with
> annual dues of around $17.00 a year. That would be quite a
> shock to the members. Further, as of yesterday, we had only 148
> subscribers.

When would you suggest we do this, then? No time like the present, I always
say...

> Randall also endorsed the idea of electronic publication
> of the Quarterly, instead of print. Carl has favored that idea for a
> long time. However, the Annual Meeting at CC 14 resoundingly
> rejected the Sick Pups' proposal to publish the Quarterly for the
> ICG electronically. Given that rejection, the Board should not
> decide to replace ink with electrons without learning the members'
> views. Therefore, please consult with your chapters and report
> back to the Board what the members' positions are on publishing
> the Quarterly electronically rather than in hard copy.

Okay. My (rather blunt) opinion on the subject:

An electronic publication of the Costumer's Quarterly will only give
everyone another round of finger-pointing to go through when someone feels
they aren't getting what they're paying for.

Example: we publish electronically. I decide I want a copy, but I don't have
the facilities to print my own or read it electronically, so I ask the
appropriate person in my chapter of the ICG to do so for me, for the
appropriate fee. For many different reasons, he never quite gets around to
it. Maybe his printer breaks, maybe he can't find the CD (or scratched it)
maybe he's terminally lame like me. :-) Whatever. The end result is that a
member who wants to receive the Quarterly doesn't. This isn't the result of
the member's actions or mistakes. It's through the actions or mistakes of
someone acting as an agent of the ICG.

This will inevitably happen. Human nature practically demands it.

And let's not think about the widening of the digital divide that we're now
contributing to... (I don't usually like catchphrases like that, but it fits
the current social situation vis-a-vis computers *so* well)

> Finally, a lot of people have been telling me, "It's not
> your fault." Whether this mess is my fault or not, it's my
> responsibility. I was glad to read Bruce's recognition of that. It
> happened on my watch; I'm accountable. Also, I am partially at
> fault for not monitoring adequately either our budget or our
> membership numbers.

Byron, finding fault is an easy thing to do, but it's the most monumentally
unproductive use of time I've ever encountered. I don't see the point.
There's fault to be had if we want to assume it. I share any responsibility
or fault with you, but I'd rather learn from the mistakes, do my damnedest
to fix them, and move on. So shall we? :-)

Ken Warren

Just received a message the server has been replaced, but no data was
restored. So it will be another few days before I restore the lists
back to it.

However, before I do that, I want to ask folks what they think about
eGroups?

Thanks
JohnO

I can't claim authorship for this idea -- it was mostly Nora's brainstorm,
but we discussed all the stuff surrounding the CQ, the ICG's funding and
think we've come up with something that could solve a whole host of
problems, and want to see what you folks think.

#1. Raise the ICG's dues from $1 per person to $10 per year. Yes, that's a
lot, but we in order to make it worthwhile, the Guild must come up with some
value for that amount of money (in addition to local dues). This leads
to...

#2. Make the ICG a part of the membership benefits. Each and every member
in good standing would receive the publication.

It cost about roughly $3.50 or so to produce and mail out the Annual.
Given that it takes $13 or so to produce 4 issues of the CQ, this would be a
cheaper membership value than making the CQ part of the ICG membership.
Thus, we would leave the CQ as an "opt-in" publication. That leaves
plenty of money for the Guild to stay in the black with for its expenses.

Certain materials would no longer be published in the CQ, such as the Annual
Meeting minutes. By publishing the Annual Meeting minutes in the ICG
Annual, all members would get to see the Guild business done, rather than
just those who opt to subscribe to the CQ. (It also frees up space in the
CQ). Other material, such as CC and Worldcon and other regional con reports
can be either concurrently published or split up -- that can be decided
later. Obituarys would go in the Annual.

To save more money, Annuals would be sent to the chapters, and the chapters
would be responsible for getting the Annuals to their members (making
whatever time and monetary adjustments with their members that they have to
to accomodate this). Annuals would be shipped out twice a year, to take
into account any new members that might join 6 months after the new edition.

Any extra copies ordered, or that chapter members say they don't need, the
chapter is free to sell for their own profit.


===========

In addition, my darling wife had another brilliant thought that we want to
run past Ken: If the Annual is a >business< publication of a non-profit
organization for its members, which >potentially< could be sold to the
public, would releases still be necessary? This could solve a lot of our
contribution problems.

======

I see this as a win-win situation. The ICG gets more money, all of its
members get some value for their increased dues, and the Annual gets broader
distribution.

Bruce

Nora and I also were thinking more about how things have to be done in the
future, as the ICG goes forward. The way things have been done in the past
cannot continue. Therefore, we put these things down on paper that must
guide the ICG:

First of all, there are some areas of ICG responsibilities to its chapters
and members, and responsibilities of the chapters to the ICG. There are
basic "have tos", "should bes" and a "should do" or two.

First, the ICG should maintain as accurate and timely/up-to-date membership
list as possible. Thsi will be needed for the Annual (if our proposal is
accepted) and for other reasons. There should be timely reports to the
chapters by the officers (which Byron does quite well).

++++++++

Now, as chapters of the ICG, more has to be expected of the chapters, to
function as a real corporation (which we are, folks), and this is the bare
minimum:

It becomes imperative that chapters get their membership reports and moneys
in to the Treasurer on time. After a reasonable time, though (and I don't
mean carrying into the next quarterly report), they must be dropped if they
do not respond. If they can't be officially dropped until the next Annual
meeting, then they should be considered "moribund". I know some may not
like this, but the Guild cannot continue to carry people. If individuals
within a chapter raise an objection, it would be their responsibility to
take this up with their chapter (as I see an example is already taking shape
with Dana MacDermott).

Money has to be sent in for the CQs on time, whether that is gathered by the
chapters, unless individuals would become responsible for subscriptions,
should the Board decide.

This may not be as popular, since Ken has intimated it as such, but we think
it is becoming almost a necessity that there be >someone< within a chapter
(preferably an officer) who has an e-mail address. Failing that, someone
designated that can be called with info that needs to be disseminated
quickly.

Yes, I know some may object, but c'mon -- some effort has to be made to
maintain communication with the Guild. Otherwise, what's the point of being
a chapter if you can't be contacted easily?

===========

Here's a "must do" that I propose that the Board implement: Each chapter
must, as part of their requirements as being an officially sanctioned ICG
chapter, pay for at least one copy of the Costumers Quarterly. They would
no longer be mailed one gratis, and members would not be required to
subscribe.

In addition, someone appointed by the CQ Editor or the Board should be
assigned the task of contacting each chapter, either by e-mail, phone or
snail, and make sure that A.) the chapter received their copy of the CQ and
B.) confirm whether their members received their subscription. As
notorious as the Bulk Mail system is, especially seemingly around the St.
Louis area, copies often go astray. This problem is the other key reason
why subscription numbers have suffered, even when the occasional CQ got
mailed in the past.

One easy way of confirming might be for a pre-paid postcart to be included
in the CQ going to the chapter address. If the editor doesn't hear from
them, the chapter gets contacted. The number one priority is to
re-establish the reputation the CQ -- getting it back on schedule and making
sure all subscribers get it are imperative.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Chapters "should" report on their activities to the CQ. This lets
subscribers know what's happening in other parts of the country. Some
chapters trade newsletters, but not all of them. And my experience is that
most traded newsletters are not shared very widely (if at all) with their
general membership.


Finally, a "should do" -- each chapter or its members should contribute
articles to the CQ. At the very least, they could send Carl articles
previously published in their own newsletters. Talk about easy. Once it's
written, pack it off to Carl, and I'd bet he'd be happy as a clam.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Frankly, I think the ICG must expect more from the chapters from now on, and
make these requirements clear to any new chapter that are formed in the
future.

Yes, it'll mean more work for some people. But if no one's willing to make
a little effort for the ICG, then what's the point of being a chapter? It
doesn't benefit them, and it certainly doesn't benefit the ICG to have that
group as a chapter.

Our $.02 worth.

Bruce and Nora

> #2. Make the ICG a part of the membership benefits. Each
> and every member
> in good standing would receive the publication.

As you may recall, I argued against the Annual when it was first proposed. I
thought then that it would cause a division of available resources (people
writing articles and contributing photographs and the like) with the
Quarterly. I still think that could occur, though it's not happening at the
moment, due to the lack of member support for *either* publication.

I would still rather see effort put into the Quarterly first.

> It cost about roughly $3.50 or so to produce and mail out the Annual.
> Given that it takes $13 or so to produce 4 issues of the CQ,
> this would be a
> cheaper membership value than making the CQ part of the ICG
> membership.
> Thus, we would leave the CQ as an "opt-in" publication.
> That leaves
> plenty of money for the Guild to stay in the black with for
> its expenses.

Umm, our main "real" expense is currently the production and mailing costs
of the Quarterly. There are others, but they're relatively minor. If we're
only providing the Annual, why raise the dues to $10? Why not to $5? But I
think we should get the Quarterly back on it's feet first, *then* think
about the Annual.

> In addition, my darling wife had another brilliant thought
> that we want to
> run past Ken: If the Annual is a >business< publication of a
> non-profit
> organization for its members, which >potentially< could be sold to the
> public, would releases still be necessary? This could solve
> a lot of our
> contribution problems.

It makes no difference as regards releases just *what* sort of publication
the photographs are to be used in.

Ken Warren
Vice President, ICG

> First, the ICG should maintain as accurate and
> timely/up-to-date membership
> list as possible. Thsi will be needed for the Annual (if our
> proposal is
> accepted) and for other reasons. There should be timely
> reports to the
> chapters by the officers (which Byron does quite well).

That's fine, but you need to bear in mind that our current structure, that
of a loose confederation of chapters, means that we are limited in what we
can actually do. We rely on the individual chapters to forward information
to us in a timely fashion. (You touch on this later.)

> Money has to be sent in for the CQs on time, whether that is
> gathered by the
> chapters, unless individuals would become responsible for
> subscriptions,
> should the Board decide.

I have felt for some time that the ICG needs to be organized in some fashion
other than the loose confederation of chapters that we now are. I don't know
what a better organization might be, however. There is a committee which is
theoretically examining that question right now, though at the last Board
meeting we decided to adopt a "wait and see what happens" position rather
than make recommendations.

> This may not be as popular, since Ken has intimated it as
> such, but we think
> it is becoming almost a necessity that there be >someone<
> within a chapter
> (preferably an officer) who has an e-mail address. Failing
> that, someone
> designated that can be called with info that needs to be disseminated
> quickly.

There needs to be a point of contact within each chapter. That point of
contact needs to have back-up, in case they're swamped at work (as three
back-to-back 60+ hour weeks had me earlier this year) or on vacation, or
whatever. It's up to the point of contact for the ICG and the ICG itself to
define a good communications medium for those contacts. I happen to prefer
emails for short items of interest, and items which require no discussion. I
prefer the phone for anything which requires discussion; email discussions
are like long, involved exchanges of correspondence, except without the
thought that used to go into those exchanges. (Yes, I think this whole
discussion falls into that category. No, I'm not happy about it. No, I can't
see a way to deal with it otherwise. :-)

I still feel strongly that the ICG cannot say "In order for you to be a
functioning ICG member, you must have thus-and-such capabilities in the area
of computers and electronic communications." to any member, even someone
appointed as the ICG's point of contact with a chapter.

> Yes, I know some may object, but c'mon -- some effort has to
> be made to
> maintain communication with the Guild. Otherwise, what's the
> point of being
> a chapter if you can't be contacted easily?

Umm, I've wondered that myself... :-) I agree that there's a requirement on
both sides here.

> Here's a "must do" that I propose that the Board implement:
> Each chapter
> must, as part of their requirements as being an officially
> sanctioned ICG
> chapter, pay for at least one copy of the Costumers
> Quarterly. They would
> no longer be mailed one gratis, and members would not be required to
> subscribe.

I don't object to this idea, but realize that you're really subsidizing the
subscription of the person who picks up the mail for a chapter, if you do
this. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, particularly not if those CQ
issues then actually *go* to chapter meetings. But it's something to think
about.

> In addition, someone appointed by the CQ Editor or the Board should be
> assigned the task of contacting each chapter, either by
> e-mail, phone or
> snail, and make sure that A.) the chapter received their copy
> of the CQ and
> B.) confirm whether their members received their subscription. As
> notorious as the Bulk Mail system is, especially seemingly
> around the St.
> Louis area, copies often go astray.

Bulk mail frequently goes missing everywhere, I think. The follow-up person
could be the Corresponding Secretary. Or it could be Darla, in her office of
Moishe. :-) (Did I spell that right, Darla?)

> One easy way of confirming might be for a pre-paid postcart
> to be included
> in the CQ going to the chapter address.

An interesting idea. It would only cost a few bucks per year to do this.

> Finally, a "should do" -- each chapter or its members should
> contribute
> articles to the CQ. At the very least, they could send Carl articles
> previously published in their own newsletters. Talk about
> easy. Once it's
> written, pack it off to Carl, and I'd bet he'd be happy as a clam.

I have no doubt he would be thrilled. I'm going to answer a question for
Carl here. We have in the past been told "Oh, just use anything you want
from our newsletter." We can't do that without explicit permission from the
author or current rights holder. Sorry.

> Frankly, I think the ICG must expect more from the chapters
> from now on, and
> make these requirements clear to any new chapter that are
> formed in the
> future.

I agree, but there's an enforcement problem inherent in our structure.

> Yes, it'll mean more work for some people. But if no one's
> willing to make
> a little effort for the ICG, then what's the point of being a
> chapter? It
> doesn't benefit them, and it certainly doesn't benefit the
> ICG to have that
> group as a chapter.

True. Right now, that attitude's not going to be a good way to rebuild the
trust of our members, but eventually I see it as becoming ICG policy.

> Our $.02 worth.

Oh, I think this was worth rather more than that. :-)

Ken Warren
Vice President, ICG

Geez, I just can't get any rest here, 'cuz Ken is such a good debater.....
:D

> .....you need to bear in mind that our current structure, that
> of a loose confederation of chapters, means that we are limited in what we
> can actually do. We rely on the individual chapters to forward information
> to us in a timely fashion. (You touch on this later.)

>
> I have felt for some time that the ICG needs to be organized in some

fashion

> other than the loose confederation of chapters that we now are. I don't

know

> what a better organization might be, however. There is a committee which

is

> theoretically examining that question right now, though at the last Board
> meeting we decided to adopt a "wait and see what happens" position rather
> than make recommendations.

Obviously, we've reached a point, financially, where this subject may be
forced upon the Guild to act sooner than it would have.

===================

>
> There needs to be a point of contact within each chapter. That point of
> contact needs to have back-up, in case they're swamped at work (as three
> back-to-back 60+ hour weeks had me earlier this year) or on vacation, or
> whatever. It's up to the point of contact for the ICG and the ICG itself

to

> define a good communications medium for those contacts. >

Back ups are fine, but info should have some way to be disseminated in a
timely fashion.

> I still feel strongly that the ICG cannot say "In order for you to be a
> functioning ICG member, you must have thus-and-such capabilities in the

area

> of computers and electronic communications." to any member, even someone
> appointed as the ICG's point of contact with a chapter.

Well, I agree -- up to a point. But there has to be a fixed address, phone
or something. (I find it amusing, however, that Carl would expect the
chapters to have a >printer< in order for people to print their own copies
of the CQ).

=======================

> > Here's a "must do" that I propose that the Board implement:
> > Each chapter
> > must, as part of their requirements as being an officially
> > sanctioned ICG
> > chapter, pay for at least one copy of the Costumers
> > Quarterly. They would
> > no longer be mailed one gratis, and members would not be required to
> > subscribe.
>
> I don't object to this idea, but realize that you're really subsidizing

the

> subscription of the person who picks up the mail for a chapter, if you do
> this.

Well, we're already (or were) doing that.

>That's not a bad thing, necessarily, particularly not if those CQ
> issues then actually *go* to chapter meetings.

>However, this presumes that the person in charge of picking up the mail is

actually DOING so. I've heard tell that this was not the case, in one
instance.

===============

> > In addition, someone appointed by the CQ Editor or the Board should be
> > assigned the task of contacting each chapter, either by
> > e-mail, phone or
> > snail, and make sure that A.) the chapter received their copy
> > of the CQ and
> > B.) confirm whether their members received their subscription. As
> > notorious as the Bulk Mail system is, especially seemingly
> > around the St.
> > Louis area, copies often go astray.
>
> Bulk mail frequently goes missing everywhere, I think.

See Mary Morris' comments. They go right to the heart of the problem.

>The follow-up person
> could be the Corresponding Secretary.

Hmmmm......

==================

> > Finally, a "should do" -- each chapter or its members should
> > contribute
> > articles to the CQ. At the very least, they could send Carl articles
> > previously published in their own newsletters. Talk about
> > easy. Once it's
> > written, pack it off to Carl, and I'd bet he'd be happy as a clam.
>
> I have no doubt he would be thrilled. I'm going to answer a question for
> Carl here. We have in the past been told "Oh, just use anything you want
> from our newsletter." We can't do that without explicit permission from

the

> author or current rights holder. Sorry.

What I meant is, the article writers should send them on their own, but the
chapter could do it for them, provided they have explicit permission. This
is where the author should take some initiative, however.

==================

> > Frankly, I think the ICG must expect more from the chapters
> > from now on, and
> > make these requirements clear to any new chapter that are
> > formed in the
> > future.
>
> I agree, but there's an enforcement problem inherent in our structure.
>
> > Yes, it'll mean more work for some people. But if no one's
> > willing to make
> > a little effort for the ICG, then what's the point of being a
> > chapter? It
> > doesn't benefit them, and it certainly doesn't benefit the
> > ICG to have that
> > group as a chapter.
>
> True. Right now, that attitude's not going to be a good way to rebuild the
> trust of our members, but eventually I see it as becoming ICG policy.
>

I realize that. That's why it's more imperative to get the new chapters on
this policy, and work on the rest as there is a turnover in officers.

Finally, on an Annual related subject:

Bummer about the releases. How doe the CQ get around it?

Bruce

Byron,

I have some news from the western front. After hearing that the CGW has only
one member in good standing, I started looking into this. You see, after
Costume Con 18 our treasurer sent a package to Sharon with our membership
check and list (the package included something personal for Sharon as well).
When I saw we had only one member I called our treasurer. She assured me she
had sent everything in early June. But this got her thinking since it's been
four months and the check should have been cashed, and even if the check had
been received but not cashed we should have shown more than one member.
According to our bank the check hasn't been cashed. So, Mary is putting a
stop payment on the check and sending the membership money and list to Sharon
this week. That's another approximately $500 coming to the ICG. Let me know
if you have any questions.

Darla

John --

Exactly what does the copyright notice say? No matter how much
more convenient egroups may be, the ICG cannot accept a
service that arrogates to itself the copyright on formal ICG
business, and ICG-BOD <is> formal ICG business. I also do
formal ICG business on ICG-D, such as distributing the ICG
President's Message. I won't permit egroups to copyright that
material; I own it on behalf of the corporation. If egroups seeks to
do so, we'll have to find a different service.

Byron

>>> eoin@... 10/08/00 11:09PM >>>

Answering a couple at once.

"J.A. Kelley" wrote:

> Under the Best system, all I got were digests, and I could find no way
> of getting single messages. I like the egroups list management
> system--and how easy it is for individual list members to control
> their own destiny (as it were)-- so I would encourage you to
> keep the list at egroups.

The monthly (mostly) messages gave directions for switching from single
to digest or vice versa.

Lisa Deutsch Harrigan wrote:

> First off, I'm on lots of eGroups Lists. Maintenance for me
> becomes easy.

I'm on bunches as well. I've actually been looking at eGroups
as potential home for the lists for a few months, but...

> That being said, I have noticed that we don't have any ads on
> these e-mails. That is done by paying eGroups a yearly fee, which
> most groups don't bother to do. It is small, $30 I believe, John
> must have been nice and paid it for us. Thank you John.

Sorry I can't take the credit. All new lists get a undefined grace
period before the ads start showing up. The cost of removing ads
is a little under $60 ($4.95/mth)

Please note when the ads do show up, they will be at the top of the
message and if you elect html format mail they are banner ads.

Hey folks, what is the default? html or text?

> Frankly, I can go either way. Whichever is easier for John to
> maintain. He has to do all the hard work after all.

Options we have options:

1) Move back to best and the ICG-L@... address.

2) Stay with eGroups

3) Stay with eGroups, but move to iServer, when the ISP change happens.

So far the count is:
5 for eGroups
with 1 reservations
2 either way

Addressing the reservations, which I share, I spent time looking at the
Terms of Services and Copyright notice on eGroup and Yahoo last night.
I was pleasantly surprised to find wording that limited what they could
do with the content and such. After you get past the any and all use in
perpetuity stuff, it actually says so that it can reproduce the contents
"to other members of that group" Section 11 of the eGroups' ToS and 8B
of the Yahoo Clubs' TOS.

Well that's enough for today.
JohnO

Please make checks for contributions to the ICG payable to Internationasl Costumers' Guild, Inc. Send them to:

Sharon Trembley, Trreasurer
International Costumers' Guild, Inc
398 Prospect Street
South Amboy, NJ 08879-1942 USA

If you want a receipt for tax purposes, please let Sharon know.

Byron

John - -

Yes, please do so. As I recall, Pierre is already on BoD. Like him,
they will be able to participate in discussions, but not to vote,
since they're neither officers nor chapter representatives.

Byron

>>> "ICG WebMaster - John O'Halloran" <icg@...> 10/07/00 06:38PM >>>

Should I add Carl Mami and Bruce McDermott to the ICG-BOD, as the
current discussion involves them. Carl as CQ editor and Bruce as a
member of the Budget committee.

JohnO

When yahoo originally took over e-groups, they had a
clause which essentially said if you post it here,
it's ours. This lead to a firestorm of protests, after
which they changed their stated policy. It is unlikely
that they would try to change it back without
considerable warning, especially as I consider it
likely that the original protests probably included
mention of legal action.
Carol

=====
Carol Mitchell President Chicagoland Costumer's Guild
Manager Costume Programming Track Chicon 2000
Co-chair CostumeCon 21

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Done!

Byron Connell wrote:

>
> John - -
>
> Yes, please do so. As I recall, Pierre is already on BoD. Like him,
> they will be able to participate in discussions, but not to vote,
> since they're neither officers nor chapter representatives.
>
> Byron
>
> >>> "ICG WebMaster - John O'Halloran" <icg@...> 10/07/00 06:38PM >>>
> Should I add Carl Mami and Bruce McDermott to the ICG-BOD, as the
> current discussion involves them. Carl as CQ editor and Bruce as a
> member of the Budget committee.
>
> JohnO

Carolyn --

Thank you. I find this language acceptable.

Byron

>>> carowriter@... 10/10/00 06:16PM >>>

--- Byron Connell <bconnell@...> wrote:

> John --
>
> Exactly what does the copyright notice say? No
> matter how much
> more convenient egroups may be, the ICG cannot
> accept a
> service that arrogates to itself the copyright on
> formal ICG
> business, and ICG-BOD <is> formal ICG business

Bryon --

This is a topic which has been the subject of much
discussion on various writing lists -- you will
*never* find a group touchier about copyright issues
than a group of writers. The pertinent paragraph from
the TOS is as follows:

11. CONTENT POSTED ON THE SERVICE

You agree that upon posting any material within a
group on the Service, you grant eGroups, and its
successors and assigns, a non-exclusive worldwide,
royalty free, perpetual, non-revocable license under
your copyrights or other intellectual property rights,
if any, in such material to distribute, display, and
reproduce such material to other members of that
group. You also grant eGroups the right to authorize
the downloading and printing in whole or in part of
any material that you have posted to a group on the
Service, by members for their personal use. You agree
to take whatever action necessary to protect your own
intellectual property rights in such Content,
including without limitation the posting of
appropriate copyright notices. Please refer to the
Company's Copyright Policy for further information on
the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

While the paragraph does refer to a "perpetual,
non-revocable license," it also clearly states that
the copyright is retained by the post originator.
Also, note that the license is specifically directed
to allow downloading to members of the group. If
you're not a member of the group, you can't access the
messages or files (unless the list owner allows the
archives to be open to the public, which I doubt John
has done).

As I've said, this has been a subject of loooong
discussion for the writing lists on E-groups. While a
few feel worried just because it is Yahoo!, the
majority I have heard -- including a copyright lawyer
who's also a romance writer -- feel that the intent is
to allow the posts to remain within the group and the
group only, with copyright retained by the poster.

Since maintenance is much easier (I act as tech
support for several lists that live on E-Groups), I
vote we stay here to make things easier for John.
Also, I think the stink that was raised when E-groups
moved the ads to the top may have had an effect --
they seem to be migrating back to the bottom. <g>

Carolyn Louaillier
carowriter@...

Oh yeah. I completely forgot Cat's time as Editor. I remember that time.
Anyway, maybe reducing page count might be an idea, for the short term

Let me go on record as saying in response to somebody (who I'm too lazy to
check who it was), we do not want "how-to" stuff in the Annual. That's not
what it's for. It should be a snapshot of the Guild's activitis of the past
year. Think high school and college yearbook.

Meantime, we seem to have gotten WAYYYYY off track with this discussion,
and we would like the Board to review our proposal. It was not supposed to
be dragged into this forum yet.

Bruce

Bruce and Nora Mai
Costuming and Cats -- It must be Casa Mai!
http://members.xoom.com/CasaMai/casamai/splashx.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cat Devereaux" <CatDevereaux@...>
To: "International Costumer's Guild" <ICG-D@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:03 AM
Subject: [ICG-D] CQ historical comment


> I wasn't going to comment on the CQ discussion... but I've been burned
> before on letting "sleeping dogs lays", so I'm going to clarify a little
bit
> of history while I was CQ editor.
>
> When I took over the CQ it has the same problems as Carl has had. Catch
up
> back issues and get out new issues timely. I chose to issues "current"
> issues and catch up the remaining back issues as a double (after the two
> rapid fire issues that came out in 3 1/2 weeks and then 2 1/2 weeks after
I
> took over the editorship).
>
> 1) The big problem was that the address issue was even worse than the one
> that Carl was encountering on the returns of the first issue and reprint
of
> the last CQ of the previous editor (which the bulk mail system ate and
only
> delivered to a small fraction of the members. The recognition of the
address
> problem left me w/ a printed issues I couldn't send. Also, it was
> impossible to even determine the number to print of future issues. (I ran
> on a real tight margin and couldn't afford to shoulder all the costs and
> just keep resending.)
>
> Basically, the issues got done on time and went out to the Australians
(and
> I believe the Canadians) who did their own printing and distributing. It
> was the US that didn't get their issues on time because I COULDN'T DO THE
> MAILING, not because the issues WERE NOT done. The US's outstanding
issues
> went out in a batch once there were labels and within a week of labels.
> (Yes, this made certain sections and articles obsolete for the US
members.)
>
> I know that the WHY matters little to the members who are not getting
> issues, but the flame mail back then couldn't make the distinction even
> after discussion. It is good to see that folks are listening to Carl this
> time round and seem to be believing him when he states the large wastage
> that occurs because of addressing and membership roster MIS-information.
> This is the part that needs fixing. Once the faith is back in the CQ,
> hopeful the faith in the CQ will bring the articles back, too.
>
> 2) Other history: when chapters mentioned that their members still hadn't
> gotten issues, I asked for address to be sent directly to me both at the
ICG
> meeting (you'll find it in the minuets) and I reminded people in other
> forums and privately to send the address. Those that did, got their
issues.
> They went out 1st class, I paid the postage personally. I never heard
from
> other chapters, even after personal e-mails. Some cases were that they
> wanted new issues not the back issues... but that should not be lumped in
> with never getting them.
>
> I'm leaving out all name here, because all I'm doing is setting a little
bit
> of history straight that keeps getting mauled and I do not wish to restart
> any of the flame wars that have gone on in the CQ's tattered past.
>
> Let's not worry about past finger pointing. Instead, let's just all
really
> work with Carl and the Board of Directors and see if we can get these
> problems fixed. To handle costs, maybe we have to take the page count down
> again. Once money and articles flow then we can move the page count back
> up. And, maybe we all need to have a little faith in the CQ and start the
> stream of articles even as these issues are being worked out.
>
> Also, I 2nd the comment about local editors sending Carl a copy of their
> newsletter. There are great gems in the local issues to be mined.
>
> And to the answered question, got my CQ last week. I'm in the San
Fernando
> Valley area of Los Angeles.
>
> -Cat-
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ICG-D-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

To the Officers and Members of the Board of Directors:

I'll be away from the office and ICG-BOD until Monday, so I'm
setting down what I think are the next steps we need to take.

1. As soon as the anonymous donation(s) arrive, the first priority is
to reimburse Carl for the cost of printing the 1999 issue of CQ.
The second is to pay to mail that issue.

Carl: As soon as you get the money, please get the 1999 issue in
the mail to all subscribers and chapters.

2. I have heard no objection to the idea of raising the members'
CQ subscription rate from the current amount, $8.00/year, to
$15.00/year, effective January 1, 2001. Therefore, I will entertain
a motion to amend Standing Rule 23 to increase the members'
subscription rate to $15.00 on and after January 1, 2001.

If such a motion is made, it will need a second and there will be
opportunity for discussion on this list. Then I will call for a vote by
the Board.

3. Sharon and Darla: Please prepare a statement of the reporting
and payment obligations of the chapters that we can post
prominently on the web site. To use Cat Devereaux' phrase, "use
very small words." You might take a look at the statement in my
President's Messages for July and August. In case you haven't
cherished your copies, the July message is on the web site.
When the statement is ready, please forward it to JohnO to add to
the web site.

John (if you're listening), please add the statement from Sharon
and Darla in a prominent place on the web site. It should include
the link to the report form for the chapters.

4. Sharon and Darla: Also please get the CGW memberships
straightened out.

5. Sharon and Chris: Please get the ACG memberships
straightened out. I understand from Cat that ACG has authorized
her to forward payment to Sharon, so I would anticipate that we'll
receive a check soon. If we don't, please let me know.

6. Ken has asked the special committee on membership that he
chairs to begin to study the issues.

Ken: When do you think the committee will have anything to
report and/or recommend? Sometime next month? Should the
committee want to recommend changes in the way that
membership occurs, it should not concern itself with the
mechanics of amending the bylaws. We can take care of that, if
needed, once we know what we want to do.

7. I'm adding to the charge of the special committee on
membership a request that it address the idea of electronic or
virtual chapters. Whether or not they're part of any answer to our
problem, there does seem to be a groundswell of interest in them
by some of the members - at least among the 75 or so on ICG-D.

8. We need to consider Bruce's proposal to increase ICG dues
from $1.00 (US) per year to $10.00 per year and make the Annual
a benefit of membership. I regard Bruce's 10/8 e-mail proposal to
be a motion. It needs a second; then we will discuss it. Like any
motion, amendments may be proposed; if seconded, they will be
discussed and voted on. Finally, we will vote on the main motion.

Bruce: Please clarify the cost of printing and distributing the
Annual? I thought from our phone conversation that $3.50 was
only the postage, not the total cost per item.

9. We need to discuss further the idea of returning the Quarterly to
a benefit of membership rather than a separate subscription, as
Ken has advocated. At present, there is no motion before the
Board but we may continue to discuss this ideas as "general
discussion."

I am sure I've missed something; if so, please introduce it. As you
know, John O and Pierre have long been on ICG-BOD and we
have just added Carl and Bruce Macdermott. The four of them
may participate fully in discussions, but they do not have the
power to make or second motions or to vote on them.

Thanks for all your efforts over the past couple of weeks. With a
bit of luck, we may weather this.

Byron

As a result of ongoing as well as recent problems with the BoD and its
agents, at the most recent regular meeting of the Greater Portland Area CG
(Saturday, 14 Oct 2000), we voted unanimously to secede from the ICG. We
will remain an active, independant, local guild under our own auspices.


If there are any questions, comments, anything, please direct them to us in
private as we expect to be removed from the ICG list serves at any time
after this posting.



Signed,
Brenna Sharp, President
Greater Portland Area Costumers' Guild
Portland, OR

raven@...

This is the last straw!

I QUIT!

Find yourselves a new president.

Byron

>>> raven@... 10/19/00 12:53PM >>>

As a result of ongoing as well as recent problems with the BoD and its
agents, at the most recent regular meeting of the Greater Portland Area CG
(Saturday, 14 Oct 2000), we voted unanimously to secede from the ICG. We
will remain an active, independant, local guild under our own auspices.


If there are any questions, comments, anything, please direct them to us in
private as we expect to be removed from the ICG list serves at any time
after this posting.



Signed,
Brenna Sharp, President
Greater Portland Area Costumers' Guild
Portland, OR

raven@...



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ICG-BOD-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Today I was informed that our President, Byron Connell, resigned as
President of the ICG. This saddens me greatly. I am appalled at the
costuming community to which I joined just 1 year ago. I was under the
impression that we stuck together as a group. I thought that this was an
organization to be proud to be associated with. Now I find that people
would sooner turn their backs on friends, when things are complicated. This
situation that we are presently in was not done over night, nor was it done
in a years time. This is many years of a snowball effect that has been
trying to be corrected.

A lot of discussion has taken place. Many points of views have been heard.
There is no simple answer. I find it disheartening that a whole chapter
would disown its parent, instead of trying to help when in trouble.

I have worked this past year with Carl Mami, who took on the challenge of
the Costumer�s Quarterly. I am filled with pride every time I read an
article that was sent in. Yes, we have been receiving articles to be
published. What does surprise me though is that the chapters themselves as
a whole do not care. Individuals care. I sat here typing up articles,
reformatting articles received for placement in the CQ, but what I never saw
was information from the chapters as to what they did as a group, what cons
they attended, what events they went to, or what they wanted from the ICG.
So now that Carl has gotten all of the past issues done (without articles of
Victoria (granddaughter)) where is everyone? They are turning tail to run
and hide.

It has become evident that the CQ editors were not wholly responsible for
the past problems. The previous editors were limited in what they could do
because the chapters were not submitting complete membership information and
monies in a timely fashion. Carl and Elaine have heard this statement time
and time again. Now that Carl and myself have been caught in the same
situation, I find it hard to not voice my opinions. The CQ may have been a
thorn to a lot of people, but no one ever took the time to find the problem.
Well, here it is for the entire world to see. Look at it; help be a part
of the team to put the costume back together instead of tearing it apart.

I personally want for Byron to rethink his position about leaving. I do not
know what his predecessors were like, but in my book I feel he is doing his
very best at what was given to him.

Byron, please reconsider.

Dora Buck


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com

Byron Connell wrote:

>
> This is the last straw!
>
> I QUIT!
>
> Find yourselves a new president.

Byron Don't!

Don't let one set of rats who made comments, suggestions or offers to
help (I just checked both archives) departing as though from a sinking
ship make you quit.

My apologies to the all the fuzzy little rats in the world.

JohnO

I know I'm not supposed to speak in this venue,
but I feel I must speak for my self here!

"Vincent P. Vaughn and Brenna Sharp" wrote:

>
> As a result of ongoing as well as recent problems with the BoD and its
> agents, at the most recent regular meeting of the Greater Portland Area CG
> (Saturday, 14 Oct 2000), we voted unanimously to secede from the ICG.

Begone then! Things get a little rough and instead of helping fix it,
you quit!!!

> We will remain an active, independant, local guild under our own auspices.

Nope, not a local guild. You're independent now. Don't make references
as though you are part of the ICG.

I also say you shouldn't even call yourself the Greater Portland Area
Costumers' Guild as you are no longer part of the International
Costumers' Guild.

Personal mode off.

> If there are any questions, comments, anything, please direct them to us in
> private as we expect to be removed from the ICG list serves at any time
> after this posting.

Speaking as web/list master again.

Nope, not till the President or the BOD tells me too.

JohnO

I believe this question was answered in detail on ICG-D.

JohnO

Byron Connell wrote:

>
> John --
>
> Exactly what does the copyright notice say? No matter how much
> more convenient egroups may be, the ICG cannot accept a
> service that arrogates to itself the copyright on formal ICG
> business, and ICG-BOD <is> formal ICG business. I also do
> formal ICG business on ICG-D, such as distributing the ICG
> President's Message. I won't permit egroups to copyright that
> material; I own it on behalf of the corporation. If egroups seeks to
> do so, we'll have to find a different service.
>
> Byron
>
> >>> eoin@... 10/08/00 11:09PM >>>
> Answering a couple at once.
>
> "J.A. Kelley" wrote:
> > Under the Best system, all I got were digests, and I could find no
> way
> > of getting single messages. I like the egroups list management
> > system--and how easy it is for individual list members to control
> > their own destiny (as it were)-- so I would encourage you to
> > keep the list at egroups.
>
> The monthly (mostly) messages gave directions for switching from
> single
> to digest or vice versa.
>
> Lisa Deutsch Harrigan wrote:
>
> > First off, I'm on lots of eGroups Lists. Maintenance for me
> > becomes easy.
>
> I'm on bunches as well. I've actually been looking at eGroups
> as potential home for the lists for a few months, but...
>
> > That being said, I have noticed that we don't have any ads on
> > these e-mails. That is done by paying eGroups a yearly fee, which
> > most groups don't bother to do. It is small, $30 I believe, John
> > must have been nice and paid it for us. Thank you John.
>
> Sorry I can't take the credit. All new lists get a undefined grace
> period before the ads start showing up. The cost of removing ads
> is a little under $60 ($4.95/mth)
>
> Please note when the ads do show up, they will be at the top of the
> message and if you elect html format mail they are banner ads.
>
> Hey folks, what is the default? html or text?
>
> > Frankly, I can go either way. Whichever is easier for John to
> > maintain. He has to do all the hard work after all.
>
> Options we have options:
>
> 1) Move back to best and the ICG-L@... address.
>
> 2) Stay with eGroups
>
> 3) Stay with eGroups, but move to iServer, when the ISP change
> happens.
>
> So far the count is:
> 5 for eGroups
> with 1 reservations
> 2 either way
>
> Addressing the reservations, which I share, I spent time looking at
> the
> Terms of Services and Copyright notice on eGroup and Yahoo last night.
>
> I was pleasantly surprised to find wording that limited what they
> could
> do with the content and such. After you get past the any and all use
> in
> perpetuity stuff, it actually says so that it can reproduce the
> contents
> "to other members of that group" Section 11 of the eGroups' ToS and
> 8B
> of the Yahoo Clubs' TOS.
>
> Well that's enough for today.
> JohnO
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ICG-BOD-unsubscribe@egroups.com

I stopped counting, it was overwhelmingly for staying on eGroups.

So long as the ads stay at the bottom the messages, personally I'm ok
with them.

The copyright issue was addressed.

I also like many of the features that eGroups provides to the Moderator.

So I won't be migrating the lists back to Best anytime soon.

JohnO

ICG WebMaster - John O'Halloran wrote:

>
> Just received a message the server has been replaced, but no data was
> restored. So it will be another few days before I restore the lists
> back to it.
>
> However, before I do that, I want to ask folks what they think about
> eGroups?

I believe that the BOD is officially made up of the Officers of
the ICG and the Presidents (or their representatives) of the Local
Chapters.

So I guess you are the designated Rep of SWCG.

JohnO

randwhit@... wrote:

> I'm not actually a member of the BOD this year, but you can keep me on
> this
> list for the time being, since our president is moving and will be
> switching
> her ISP. I can pass along anything that requires feedback or a vote.

Official statement from the Web/ListMaster:

JohnO - No more flaming! You flame again, you will be booted.

End Official statement

To All,

I wish there was a unsend button.

I wrote in the heat of anger and regret my phrasing.

My apologies.

JohnO

ICG WebMaster - John O'Halloran wrote:

>
> I know I'm not supposed to speak in this venue,
> but I feel I must speak for my self here!
>
> "Vincent P. Vaughn and Brenna Sharp" wrote:
> >
> > As a result of ongoing as well as recent problems with the BoD and
> its
> > agents, at the most recent regular meeting of the Greater Portland
> Area CG
> > (Saturday, 14 Oct 2000), we voted unanimously to secede from the
> ICG.
>
> Begone then! Things get a little rough and instead of helping fix it,
> you quit!!!
>
> > We will remain an active, independant, local guild under our own
> auspices.
>
> Nope, not a local guild. You're independent now. Don't make
> references
> as though you are part of the ICG.
>
> I also say you shouldn't even call yourself the Greater Portland Area
> Costumers' Guild as you are no longer part of the International
> Costumers' Guild.
>
> Personal mode off.
>
> > If there are any questions, comments, anything, please direct them
> to us in
> > private as we expect to be removed from the ICG list serves at any
> time
> > after this posting.
>
> Speaking as web/list master again.
>
> Nope, not till the President or the BOD tells me too.
>
> JohnO
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ICG-BOD-unsubscribe@egroups.com

ICG WebMaster - John O'Halloran wrote:

> Don't let one set of rats who made comments, suggestions or offers to

who have *NOT* made

> help (I just checked both archives) departing as though from a sinking
> ship make you quit.

One little word changes the whole meaning.

JohnO

John - -

That wasn't what I call flaming! I don't think you need be sorry at
all about what you said.

Thank you,

Byron

>>> icg@... 10/20/00 02:18AM >>>

Official statement from the Web/ListMaster:

JohnO - No more flaming! You flame again, you will be booted.

End Official statement

To All,

I wish there was a unsend button.

I wrote in the heat of anger and regret my phrasing.

My apologies.

JohnO

ICG WebMaster - John O'Halloran wrote:

>
> I know I'm not supposed to speak in this venue,
> but I feel I must speak for my self here!
>
> "Vincent P. Vaughn and Brenna Sharp" wrote:
> >
> > As a result of ongoing as well as recent problems with the BoD and
> its
> > agents, at the most recent regular meeting of the Greater Portland
> Area CG
> > (Saturday, 14 Oct 2000), we voted unanimously to secede from the
> ICG.
>
> Begone then! Things get a little rough and instead of helping fix it,
> you quit!!!
>
> > We will remain an active, independant, local guild under our own
> auspices.
>
> Nope, not a local guild. You're independent now. Don't make
> references
> as though you are part of the ICG.
>
> I also say you shouldn't even call yourself the Greater Portland Area
> Costumers' Guild as you are no longer part of the International
> Costumers' Guild.
>
> Personal mode off.
>
> > If there are any questions, comments, anything, please direct them
> to us in
> > private as we expect to be removed from the ICG list serves at any
> time
> > after this posting.
>
> Speaking as web/list master again.
>
> Nope, not till the President or the BOD tells me too.
>
> JohnO
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ICG-BOD-unsubscribe@egroups.com

--
This message sent via the International Costumers' Guild
Board of Director's Mailing List.

The contents of this message are the responsibility of poster.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ICG-BOD-unsubscribe@egroups.com

> Speaking as web/list master again.
>
> Nope, not till the President or the BOD tells me too.

However, they *have been removed from the "special committee on membership"
list, since it's not appropriate for them to be members of that list any
more. And I personally think it's appropriate to remove them from the -BOD
and -O lists, which have a restricted membership.

However, I don't see that there's any hurry...

Ken Warren
Vice President, ICG

Several people have asked me to reconsider my resignation from
the Presidency.

I don't want this [expletive-deleted] job! I didn't ask for it; I was
talked into it after the Annual Meeting at CC 15. I bitterly regret
standing for re-election this year. Had I left at the end of my first
term, I would have done so with a feeling of real accomplishment.
My second term was OK, despite the discovery of "negative cash
flow" (to use Sharon Trembley's phrase) just before this year's
Annual Meeting. In May, the ICG's problems looked manageable.
I could, with a good conscience, have left others to solve them.
Since the, I've watched things go to h--- in a hand basket.

I feel humiliated. I thought I could help the ICG organize itself on a
business-like basis; I believed that my training and experience
equipped me to do so. I also wanted to see the Corporation grow.
I was delighted by the revival of Beyond Reality and the addition
of two new chapters. My first year saw a record or near-record
ICG membership and an impressive amount of retained earnings
from annual surpluses of revenues over expenditures.

I was a fool. The hemorrhaging began during my second term,
with a 50 percent decline in membership and a significant annual
deficit. The Board and I believed, incorrectly, that we had enough
cash on hand to finance annual deficits for a year or two, until we
could get things up again. We were wrong; after only five months,
the money was gone. Worse, membership has declined by a
further 50 percent.

In short, I have failed utterly to do what I hoped to do when I was
first elected to this office. I hoped to be a good president, one
who would be an asset to the Guild. In my opinion, I have been
one of the worst presidents we have had. I am ashamed of my
performance.

Just over a week ago, I sent the Board an e-mail message about
next steps. In it, I asked for a motion to increase the members'
subscription fee for The Costumer's Quarterly to $15 a year,
effective January 1, 2001, in order to cover the cost of printing
and mailing it. I also asked for a second to Bruce Mai's motion to
increase ICG dues to $10 a year and to make the ICG Annual a
benefit of membership. A week later, there has been neither a
motion to increase the CQ subscription nor a second to Bruce's
motion. The former proposal is not on the floor. The latter has
failed for lack of a second. The Board and I seem to be differing
markedly, since it apparently wants not even to discuss either
increase formally, and I do not know what direction it wants to
take.

A week after I suggested next steps to the Board, the former
GPACG seceded. In many ways GPACG was our model chapter.
It was current in its obligations to the ICG and communicated
regularly with other chapters through its newsletter.

A few days ago (I think - I do not have my files handy), Brenna
Sharp copied me on an e-mail message to the Special Committee
on Membership. I did not respond then, because her message
was not addressed to me. I want to do so now, insofar as I can
recall her points. As I recall, in general Brenna wanted more
support from the ICG for chapters. She was unhappy about the
legibility of GPACG's copy of the letter from the IRS granting our
tax-exempt status. Well, I'm sorry, but the copy is no less legible
than the original. There is NO way the Corporation could improve
on what the chapter has.

Brenna also thought the ICG should prescribe the duties of
<chapter> officers. No. Not as we are now organized. Chapters
have certain obligations to the ICG. How they organize
themselves to meet their obligations is a matter of total indifference
to us, so long as they meet those obligations.

People want me to reconsider. I'll think about it. I will be out of
town this weekend and away on business on Monday. I'll let you
know my decision on Tuesday.

Byron

I cracked into egroups today and looked through the messages. The
BOD main page says attachments are allowed but the post feature does
not have an attachment feature. Am I just missing something?

Anyway, I have this on my work computer in Excel if someone wants to
email me and see it with totals and all. The skinny of it is we are
only majorly exceeding the 2000 budget in two areas at this time -
(1) CQ mailing costs was budgeted for $200 based on past the past
years expenses. The cost the Post Office charges for the educational
non-profit status was misunderstood by me since usually more than one
issue has not gone out in a year. I've only seen receipts from Pat
and from Jana's tenure for purchasing the annual permit but not to
replenish the account for each subsequent mailing during the year.
I'm anticipating it reaching $1,000 with the 1999 combo issue.
(2) CQ other costs - reimbursed Carl for printer cartridges and
toner. This was not budgeted because this was not a previously seen
expense.

This is what we took in and spent in the first three quarters. The
fourth quarter has no new expenses except for what I'm about to pay
Carl for 1999 CQ printing and mailing. Coming in we've gotten
Australia and Chicago dues, two donations totalling $4,050, and money
from the Annual from St. Louis. I've gotten e-mails from a couple of
chapters and there is a certified something waiting for me at the
post office (CGW?).

Sharon

1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter
Revenue:
ICG Dues $272.00 $267.00 $61.00
Costumer Qur Subs$448.00 $242.00 $248.00
Costumer Qtr Ads $- $- $400.00
($300 pd to C. Mami direct)
Other $- $24.00 $-
(ICG Annual Sales)
Total $720.00 $533.00 $709.00

Expenses:
ICG General
Archives $759.00 $- $-
Bank Fees $16.73 $21.08 $14.95
(Sept not incl)
Correspondence $14.45 $- $-
Annual $- $256.00 $-
Lifetime Achievement $56.66 $-
Publicity $- $300.00 $-
Total $790.18 $633.74 $14.95

Costumer Quarterly
Printing $- $1,345.00 $990.25
Bulk Mail Permit $200.00 $- $307.76
(1st qtr from 1999) ($200 from ad direct to C. Mami)
Other $- $- $145.00
(toner & ptr cart)
Total $200.00 $1,345.00 $1,443.01

> Several people have asked me to reconsider my resignation from
> the Presidency.

While I don't think resigning is a good idea, and I do think that you should
reconsider, I also feel that it's your decision to make.

> Just over a week ago, I sent the Board an e-mail message about
> next steps. In it, I asked for a motion to increase the members'
> subscription fee for The Costumer's Quarterly to $15 a year,
> effective January 1, 2001, in order to cover the cost of printing
> and mailing it.

Hmm. I thought you had received a motion and second almost immediately, but
I can't find the messages. That being the case, and given that you say you
haven't received a motion or second, I move that the CQ subscription rate be
raised to $15.00 per year, effective 1 January 2001. And I apologize for not
doing this earlier.

> A week after I suggested next steps to the Board, the former
> GPACG seceded. In many ways GPACG was our model chapter.
> It was current in its obligations to the ICG and communicated
> regularly with other chapters through its newsletter.

Umm, GPACG seceded about 36 to 48 hours after you sent that message,
assuming they met sometime around noon to 5:00 on Saturday. Brenna stated
that there was going to be a Saturday meeting to discuss the subject. I
think it was already a done deal; there was nothing that anyone was going to
do that would alter that situation.

> A few days ago (I think - I do not have my files handy), Brenna
> Sharp copied me on an e-mail message to the Special Committee
> on Membership.

Same day you sent the "Next steps" message. I *do* have my files handy. :-)

In general, I think it would be fair to say that she made some good points.
I think it would also be fair to say that she took some rather uncalled-for
shots at various folks.

> As I recall, in general Brenna wanted more
> support from the ICG for chapters.

That was one of her good points. I can think of lots of ways the ICG could
do that; determining what's needed is probably the job of the Chapter
Liaison, who I believe is Darla.

> Brenna also thought the ICG should prescribe the duties of
> <chapter> officers. No. Not as we are now organized. Chapters
> have certain obligations to the ICG.

I think what she was asking for was a concise definition of the duties of
the chapters toward the ICG. Personally, I don't have any trouble finding
them in the by-laws, but I can see where others might.

In any case, if the chapters (particularly the newer ones) feel that the ICG
hasn't provided the information in a useful fashion, we should make a point
of doing better.

Ken Warren
Vice President, ICG

> Anyway, I have this on my work computer in Excel if someone wants to
> email me and see it with totals and all. The skinny of it is we are
> only majorly exceeding the 2000 budget in two areas at this time -

I reviewed the numbers you provided. Are the income figures also in line
with projections? I thought we anticipated greater revenues than that.

Ken Warren
Vice President, ICG

> 6. Ken has asked the special committee on membership that he
> chairs to begin to study the issues.
>
> Ken: When do you think the committee will have anything to
> report and/or recommend? Sometime next month? Should the
> committee want to recommend changes in the way that
> membership occurs, it should not concern itself with the
> mechanics of amending the bylaws. We can take care of that, if
> needed, once we know what we want to do.
>
> 7. I'm adding to the charge of the special committee on
> membership a request that it address the idea of electronic or
> virtual chapters. Whether or not they're part of any answer to our
> problem, there does seem to be a groundswell of interest in them
> by some of the members - at least among the 75 or so on ICG-D.

Byron, IMO the ICG has already addressed this issue, and decided against the
idea. I don't feel that it's necessary to consider this, *at* *this* *time*.

That said, the committee will also consider this, as an additional item.

On the committee's agenda now are the questions:

* Does the ICG's structure, as it exists now, serve the needs of the members
and the organization? And as a subquestion, what are those needs?

* If the answer to the first question is no (IOW, the ICG's structure is not
serving the needs of the members) What can/should the ICG do to correct the
situation. (IOW, how should the ICG restructure itself?)

* What are the benefits and risks associated with "electronic" or "virtual"
chapters?

* Should the ICG support an "electronic" or "virtual" chapter?

Ken Warren
Vice President, ICG

This is a question that I would like each chapter to answer, so that the
committee will have some information to work with:

What do you feel the ICG is doing well, and what do you feel it is doing
poorly? And what do you feel it isn't doing that it should, or is doing that
it shouldn't?

Or if you prefer:

How do you feel the ICG could improve the services it provides to A) it's
members, and B) it's member chapters?

Please reply directly to me:

kenw@...

I would prefer to receive a single reply from each chapter (and subchapter),
but can deal with individual replies.

Ken Warren
Vice President, ICG

(Sigh)

As usual, even the online discussions are beginning to make me feel like the
Annual meetings. I would rather be stripped naked, smeared with peanut
butter and thrown into a pit of writhing weasels, because people constantly
manage to get off on tangents (valid though they may be) while discussing a
central issue.

Very briefly:

Byron: I've already e-mailed you privately. Everyone has pretty much said
what I would, so I'm not going to go into much of a "please don't go"
speech. The bottom line is, you've actually done a lot better than you
think you have, and you're taking this "taking responsibility" a little too
far. Things appear to be finally turning around, with some solid proposals.
What we need to do is organize effectively. NOW. No waiting for the Annual
meeting. It's quite clear that things have got to be changed, and we, as
the BOD, need to discuss them in a logical fashion, not willy-nilly.

This whole thing snowballed out of control after I made my proposal because
Carl apparently interpreted my proposal as one to have the Annual replace
the CQ. That was NEVER OUR INTENTION, but because Carl brought it to the
ICG-D list BEFORE THE PROPOSAL HAD EVEN BEEN PROPERLY DISCUSSED ON THIS
LIST, the whole thing spun out of control. Granted, there was a good
discussion about the CQ, memberships, etc. -- this should have been brought
up afterwards.

The central problem here is communication. Chris Ballis and others have it
right, as I've intimated: The ICG cannot continue as an effective
organization as it now stands. Right now, we as participants have to decide
that more work is going to have to be done to get things back on course, and
chiefly among that is communication. E-mail is going a long way toward
that. Part of that problem is solved by this, but there has to be much more
interaction than there has been in the past. Finally having membership
records straightened out would be another.

Here's a novel question from Nora: What exactly does the Corresponding
Secretary do? It sounds like not enough >correspondence< is going on, and
Byron winds up doing a lot of it. I'm guilty of going to him as much as
anyone. I think more responsiblity needs to be given to the CS in future
duties (I'll talk about that on the ICG-D list).

Byron said:

> Just over a week ago, I sent the Board an e-mail message about
> next steps. In it, I asked for a motion to increase the members'
> subscription fee for The Costumer's Quarterly to $15 a year,
> effective January 1, 2001, in order to cover the cost of printing
> and mailing it. I also asked for a second to Bruce Mai's motion to
> increase ICG dues to $10 a year and to make the ICG Annual a
> benefit of membership. A week later, there has been neither a
> motion to increase the CQ subscription nor a second to Bruce's
> motion. The former proposal is not on the floor. The latter has
> failed for lack of a second. The Board and I seem to be differing
> markedly, since it apparently wants not even to discuss either
> increase formally, and I do not know what direction it wants to
> take.

Okay. Let's take this one step at a time, people. No more tangents. We
need formal proposals and solutions regarding the idea of raising membership
dues. What do the chapters get for it, considering their reluctance (the
SLCG's in the past, as well?).

1. Raise membership dues. There is justified reluctance to this because
of the CQ's history in the past. The problem is now effectively behind us.
Carl will produce a publication on time, no matter what (unlike some editors
in the past who waited until they got content). Since Carl is saying he
wants this to be more text intensive, I say change the format and make the
CQ more of a newsletter -- no heavier stock cover. This will bring down
costs and be easier to produce. If the content justifies it, he can always
go back to the original format. Every member will receive it. It's the
only way to give the ICG members any kind of value. Also, some mechanism
must be put into place to make sure members are actually getting their
publication -- the Editor/Distributor cannot just send them out and depend
on the US Snail to deliver them. As part of the process of winning back the
confidence of the ICG general members, there's going to have to be follow
up. Period.

In addition, make membership cards and certificate cards, whatever. Maybe a
list of members with volunteered bios -- I recall getting one of those when
we first became a Guild chapter (I think). If we can get value added
discounts like John O proposed, fine, although that'd be hard to work. The
SLCG now has a discount at a fabric store in town that Nora works for -- if
that was/could be extended for ICG members, then a whole network could
spring up whenever someone is in town -- perhaps something could be worked
through the listings of the Whole Costumers Catalogue. The final value
added leads to our original proposal:

2. Make the Annual part of the membership packet. It's pretty inexpensive
to produce, really, especially if we can distribute them through Guild
chapters. Everyone got off on a damn tangent so that there was never any
real discussion, as Byron said.

3. While I thought Lisa H's example was a bit bizarre at first, after
reading her latest post on the ICG-D list, it's sounding more logical. The
ICG must reorganize itself. We need discussion of how to set up lines of
2-way communication between the Guild and its chapters as soon as we've
decided the issues of how much to raise membership dues and what it will
give people.


On the issue of the Portland Guild -- they want out -- fine. They may have
been a model chapter in some respects, Nora and my experience with them was
that they were not co-operative in other ways, merely being critical of
others efforts without constructive suggestions for change. Their exit,
while regrettable, will not have much effect on the Guild, unless we allow
it to erode morale. This cannot happen.

We need a plan NOW. We need concrete proposals on the table. Once we have
recommendations, ONLY THEN do we take it to the ICG-D list and our chapter
members to discuss. We then take feedback and come up with some final
decisions. By acting decisively, and quickly, we can re-assure the general
membership. By getting the CQ out and obvious, it will show that things are
finally in hand.

On the subject of the Guild's finances: Sharon, while your report was
concise, my eyes still glazed over. At this point, how much money does the
ICG still need to have to not only get everything paid off, but have a
little operating money until membership dues and the other issues have been
decided?

The SLCG has yet to even meet yet -- we will do so in about a month's time.
The biggest thing on my agenda will be what kinds of things the SLUTS or the
ICG membership can do to quickly raise some money. It may be as simple as
kicking in a few bucks on a one-time basis on the assurance that things are
finally changing, to doing fundraisers, etc. Any and all ideas will be
discussed. And I will report them here after that meeting.

The time is NOW. Let's get this done. Byron's threatened resignation
aside, these issues have to be acted upon, whether he's gone or not.
Otherwise, we might as well just go our seperate ways.

Let us begin by discussion of issue #1.

Bruce
President, SLCG
Co-Editor, ICG Annual

Okay, now I know (I think) what needs to be done, I second the motion that
the CQ subscription rate be raised to $15.00 per year, starting January 1,
2001

>From: "Ken Warren" <kenw@...>
>Reply-To: ICG-BOD@egroups.com
>To: <ICG-BOD@egroups.com>
>Subject: RE: [ICG-BOD] I'll think about it
>Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:53:18 -0400
>
> > Several people have asked me to reconsider my resignation from
> > the Presidency.
>
>While I don't think resigning is a good idea, and I do think that you
>should
>reconsider, I also feel that it's your decision to make.
>
> > Just over a week ago, I sent the Board an e-mail message about
> > next steps. In it, I asked for a motion to increase the members'
> > subscription fee for The Costumer's Quarterly to $15 a year,
> > effective January 1, 2001, in order to cover the cost of printing
> > and mailing it.
>
>Hmm. I thought you had received a motion and second almost immediately, but
>I can't find the messages. That being the case, and given that you say you
>haven't received a motion or second, I move that the CQ subscription rate
>be
>raised to $15.00 per year, effective 1 January 2001. And I apologize for
>not
>doing this earlier.
>
> > A week after I suggested next steps to the Board, the former
> > GPACG seceded. In many ways GPACG was our model chapter.
> > It was current in its obligations to the ICG and communicated
> > regularly with other chapters through its newsletter.
>
>Umm, GPACG seceded about 36 to 48 hours after you sent that message,
>assuming they met sometime around noon to 5:00 on Saturday. Brenna stated
>that there was going to be a Saturday meeting to discuss the subject. I
>think it was already a done deal; there was nothing that anyone was going
>to
>do that would alter that situation.
>
> > A few days ago (I think - I do not have my files handy), Brenna
> > Sharp copied me on an e-mail message to the Special Committee
> > on Membership.
>
>Same day you sent the "Next steps" message. I *do* have my files handy. :-)
>
>In general, I think it would be fair to say that she made some good points.
>I think it would also be fair to say that she took some rather uncalled-for
>shots at various folks.
>
> > As I recall, in general Brenna wanted more
> > support from the ICG for chapters.
>
>That was one of her good points. I can think of lots of ways the ICG could
>do that; determining what's needed is probably the job of the Chapter
>Liaison, who I believe is Darla.
>
> > Brenna also thought the ICG should prescribe the duties of
> > <chapter> officers. No. Not as we are now organized. Chapters
> > have certain obligations to the ICG.
>
>I think what she was asking for was a concise definition of the duties of
>the chapters toward the ICG. Personally, I don't have any trouble finding
>them in the by-laws, but I can see where others might.
>
>In any case, if the chapters (particularly the newer ones) feel that the
>ICG
>hasn't provided the information in a useful fashion, we should make a point
>of doing better.
>
>Ken Warren
>Vice President, ICG
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com

I really hate to do this, Dora, but the editor of the Quarterly isn't,
strictly speaking, a member of the Board of Directors. As such, you can't
make or second motions, and you can't participate in votes of the board.
You're here to keep you informed, and to help stimulate conversation.

I really wish that weren't the case.

Ken Warren
Vice President, ICG

Byron, I apologize for not responding sooner. Work has been very busy and
October is always a busy month for me. I have been off-line until today. I
will contact Sharon this week and discuss the memerships with her.

I do want to respond to one thing . This is regarding raising ICG membership
dues from $1 to $10. I can guarantee this amount will not fly with CGW
members. I am not going to explain why over e-mail, but will contact you in
person to discuss. It's complicated and has some emotional issues for our
members. Could we support a $2, $3, or possibly even $4? Probably, but not
$9.

Sincerely,
Darla

I am in complete concurrence with Dora.

Sincerely,
Darla

Ken,
My response from the CGW will be long winded. Therefore, I will take about a
week to write it. I will forward to you when it is finished. For the CGW
(as with everything these days) there is no simple answer.

Darla

Then I second the motion.

Darla

Ken,

I thought as Recording Secretary I was able to vote. If I am wrong please
let me know. Carl is the Editor of the CQ, I am only the assistant.

Please get back to me so I do not do something I should not be doing.

Dora

>From: "Ken Warren" <kenw@...>
>Reply-To: ICG-BOD@egroups.com
>To: <ICG-BOD@egroups.com>
>Subject: RE: [ICG-BOD] I'll think about it
>Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:39:39 -0400
>
>I really hate to do this, Dora, but the editor of the Quarterly isn't,
>strictly speaking, a member of the Board of Directors. As such, you can't
>make or second motions, and you can't participate in votes of the board.
>You're here to keep you informed, and to help stimulate conversation.
>
>I really wish that weren't the case.
>
>Ken Warren
>Vice President, ICG
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com

The revenue from CQ subscriptions was budgeted at $1,600 through the
3rd quarter only $938 had been remitted.

Sharon

--- In ICG-BOD@egroups.com, "Ken Warren" <kenw@v...> wrote:
> > Anyway, I have this on my work computer in Excel if someone wants
to
> > email me and see it with totals and all. The skinny of it is we
are
> > only majorly exceeding the 2000 budget in two areas at this time -
>
> I reviewed the numbers you provided. Are the income figures also in
line
> with projections? I thought we anticipated greater revenues than
that.
>
> Ken Warren
> Vice President, ICG