Donald R McKenna wrote:
> For those who weren't at the 8-22 SC meeting, as I recall, the vote had no
> negative votes but included, three abstensions. Guess who one of them was.
Since you brought it up, I was. I do that a lot simply
because I don't like the way proposals come out of
the blue, are followed by a brief discussion, and then
are immediately voted on. I like to think about and
consider precedent setting action. In this case I would
have liked to have at least considered alternatives
that might have provided more immediate bang for
the buck. If you're reading something else into
abstentions, please stop.
Once the precedent was set, I did vote in favor of setting
money aside to do the same next year, as did one of the
other two abstainers.
As for the gentleman in question being divisive, I
recommend reading his questions a little more
carefully and not reading so much into them. It
was a financial responsibility/monetary question
which I am a bit sensitive to right now as I am
involved in trying to close a budget gap about
200 times larger than the site fund.
We voted for the first good idea that came along
because we currently have a considerable surplus.
What about previous ideas we've tabled because we
weren't sure we would be able to afford them? How
about a discussion of what our objectives are and
how best to attain them?
BTW, who decided the members of the Chapters
qualify? I'm not opposed to it, but I remember no
committee discussion of the point. And maybe we
should have discussed it with the Chapter boards first?
Does 100 pounds ring a bell?
Rich Urschel
Ps. Could we have a little less public character
impugnment and a little more discussion, please?
|