Errrr... Evan, I pretty much agree with you except that we have an up-coming vote for Chair and Secretariat that our OP won't allow (co-chairs and co-secretariats). Its really for this time and this time only that I am suggesting these changes. Then I would be 100% agreeable to semi-annual or even annual reviews. You are very right that we cannot allow ourselves to become totally embroiled in administrivia. I also do not think that the changes that I am proposing will cause much "hue and cry" or debate. They seem to be fairly common sense. Having said that, though, if somebody out there can see major holes in what I am proposing and would seriously object to it - I would really like to hear from them. Maybe I'm missing something serious. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:30 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Further to the thoughts below, I would like to propose that we need to make some changes to our Operating Principals. Things are coming up now that we never envisioned when we agreed to the OP. [...] This is what I would like to suggest, anyways.
My personal response to this is an enthusiastic "yes, but...". Every single one of Darlene's points is valid, however... We've barely voted on the original MOU/OP. While it's natural that we will find flaws and accidental omissions, I am scared to death of being locked into forever debating our core documents while our actual reasons for being here (policy, increasing the voice and influence of at-large) threaten to get sidelined (or at least at a lower priority than they should be IMO). Frankly, I was stunned to see that the ALAC -- with a long head start over NARALO -- is still debating things such as "how to pick a chair" or "how to conduct a proper vote for its Board rep". THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIVIA that must not consume the group for it to be effective. To this end, I suggest a semi-annual review of the OP as a standing agenda item. We collect the various issues that come up, and debate them every six months as a single set of amendments. This allows for a (reasonably) timely and regular review of how we work, while giving the review a fixed context that prevents operational details from dominating the day-to-day work. This is just a suggestion, that has worked for me in other groups. In no way am I belittling Darlene's suggestions, but would like to at least have the ink dry on the existing documents before we start changing them. A little forced pause between OP modifications may even help help the debate, by forcing extra thought on changes that may be too hasty or based on short-term problems. If there are issues that MUST be dealt with immediately, let's do it. I'm not convinced that anything on Darlene's list can't wait until a review. (If having Spanish as an official language was time-sensitive, it should have been raised in the original doc.) Let's try to make the existing OP work before demonstrating that it needs fixing. - Evan