Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
We should be reminded that 2/3 of the ALAC are *elected* representatives. If a decision has to be made regarding the removal of some individual from the ALAC, this should be the decision of the group that has elected him/her. How this is happening is the RALO's business. It is not up to the ALAC to set up its own court.
Patrick's emphatic defence of ALAC unaccountability is duly noted. I would like to know who else in ALAC believes it has no responsibility to identify its un-performers. I'm sure your ALSs want to know. We should also be reminded that each RALO has elected (and one could infer recall) authority over 13% of ALAC. For the other 87% over which they are helpless, they have no choice but to trust that ALAC is taking reasonable steps to enforce its own job descriptions. Otherwise, why even bother with job descriptions if they are only "hints" at what someone should do but may be freely ignored? I am just as emphatic in the need for ALAC (as a group, not just the sum of its parts) to be accountable to its sizeable constituency. There exist various grounds for removal and censure at the ALAC level. We were recently reminded about consequences of bad language and personal attack; why should meeting absence or lack of preparation be tolerated any more than "disrespectful communications"? In the case of NomComm appointees who underperform, the *only* recourse open to ALAC is to pressure them into either stepping up or stepping down (as well as to embarass the NomComm if it sends us lemons). Handled properly and with appropriate discretion, embarrassments can be minimized -- after all, the end goal is a better-functioning ALAC, not the public dressing-down of volunteers. However, there is much to do, and the core fact remains clear that the ExecComm wouldn't be necessary if all ALAC members shouldered their fair share of the workload. If a RALO elects representatives who are personally popular in their region but are dragging ALAC down by not doing their part, ALAC should be informing the RALO of this. Doing so is not just a matter of duty to the global At-Large community, but a service to the other ALAC members who must pick up the slack of the underperformers. I agree that ALAC members who are elected by RALOs are ultimately responsible to their regions. But ALAC also has a responsibility to the community it is trusted to represent to do the best job that it can, and that means pushing -- and sometimes pressuring -- its own members just to serve the function they were chosen to do. As I complain about the Executive Committee, I note fully that this is only a symptom. I deeply dislike the tactic but can fully understand the strategy and appreciate the motivation. I will be first in line to applaud the work the ExecComm members have done -- the work they have been forced to do. The two-thirds of ALAC that is not on the ExecComm ought to really be concerned about the workload that they are allowing to be placed on that last third. That ALAC members would argue against its own setting and enforcement of minimum performance standards should be a concern in the broader At-Large community. I will do my best to adress this, at least with our own 13% of ALAC. - Evan