PM's are still going to be turned off?

[bgl]

Yes.

[LJG]

That is not completely accurate. The by-laws in the IPS site stated that each nominee will fill out a questionnaire that the nominating committee uses to make their selections. I have asked for a copy of that questionnaire on several occasions via email / PMs / and even in the forum. Elena responded to my email, and said that I would get a copy of it, but I have yet have been provided a copy. It will not surprise me if I get the questionnaire AFTER the BOD elections are over.

All details are right on the website minus the questionnaire: https://www.palms.org/nominations.cfm

As far as your email to Elena about the questionnaire. Did you send her a follow up? Sometimes a little more follow up goes a long ways. Also says on the website she prefers email. Please let us know what she says or post what she sends online as I am curious too.

I have heard from a member of the BOD that there are a lot of BOD members who are not active and do not volunteer their time in support of the IPS. Why are they still there? There are sections in the by-laws that clearly state that members of the BOD can be dismissed. I have also asked for details in how this happens. Who can start that process? Is it only the members of the BOD or do IPS members have a say? Again, no answers to my questions.

Joe, I couldn't agree more. This is my biggest pet peeve with any volunteer organization that I have been on or am a member of currently. Why don't you email the people? Here is the entire list with links to their email addresses.

https://www.palms.org/directors.cfm

I personally emailed Leland (whom I have never meet) yesterday asking if he can send just an ordinary member like me the list of who voted and who didn't on the latest IPS business regarding PMs and the new Forums Dean put up. He emailed me back and was very responsive. I would love to post for others to see who actually votes and is on the Board for example. Another thing, I would love to know who doesn't even show up to annual meetings to vote. Why are these people on the BODs when they knew going in they had no intention of showing up? After all, it is clearly a requirement (like it or not) to be on the board.

[joe_OC]

That is not completely accurate. The by-laws in the IPS site stated that each nominee will fill out a questionnaire that the nominating committee uses to make their selections. I have asked for a copy of that questionnaire on several occasions via email / PMs / and even in the forum. Elena responded to my email, and said that I would get a copy of it, but I have yet have been provided a copy. It will not surprise me if I get the questionnaire AFTER the BOD elections are over.

All details are right on the website minus the questionnaire: https://www.palms.org/nominations.cfm

As far as your email to Elena about the questionnaire. Did you send her a follow up? Sometimes a little more follow up goes a long ways. Also says on the website she prefers email. Please let us know what she says or post what she sends online as I am curious too.

I have heard from a member of the BOD that there are a lot of BOD members who are not active and do not volunteer their time in support of the IPS. Why are they still there? There are sections in the by-laws that clearly state that members of the BOD can be dismissed. I have also asked for details in how this happens. Who can start that process? Is it only the members of the BOD or do IPS members have a say? Again, no answers to my questions.

Joe, I couldn't agree more. This is my biggest pet peeve with any volunteer organization that I have been on or am a member of currently. Why don't you email the people? Here is the entire list with links to their email addresses.

https://www.palms.org/directors.cfm

I personally emailed Leland (whom I have never meet) yesterday asking if he can send just an ordinary member like me the list of who voted and who didn't on the latest IPS business regarding PMs and the new Forums Dean put up. He emailed me back and was very responsive. I would love to post for others to see who actually votes and is on the Board for example. Another thing, I would love to know who doesn't even show up to annual meetings to vote. Why are these people on the BODs when they knew going in they had no intention of showing up? After all, it is clearly a requirement (like it or not) to be on the board.

So did Leland provide that information? If so, why not post it for all to see? Was it "for your eyes only"?

[joe_OC]

That is not completely accurate. The by-laws in the IPS site stated that each nominee will fill out a questionnaire that the nominating committee uses to make their selections. I have asked for a copy of that questionnaire on several occasions via email / PMs / and even in the forum. Elena responded to my email, and said that I would get a copy of it, but I have yet have been provided a copy. It will not surprise me if I get the questionnaire AFTER the BOD elections are over.

All details are right on the website minus the questionnaire: https://www.palms.org/nominations.cfm

As far as your email to Elena about the questionnaire. Did you send her a follow up? Sometimes a little more follow up goes a long ways. Also says on the website she prefers email. Please let us know what she says or post what she sends online as I am curious too.

I have heard from a member of the BOD that there are a lot of BOD members who are not active and do not volunteer their time in support of the IPS. Why are they still there? There are sections in the by-laws that clearly state that members of the BOD can be dismissed. I have also asked for details in how this happens. Who can start that process? Is it only the members of the BOD or do IPS members have a say? Again, no answers to my questions.

Joe, I couldn't agree more. This is my biggest pet peeve with any volunteer organization that I have been on or am a member of currently. Why don't you email the people? Here is the entire list with links to their email addresses.

https://www.palms.org/directors.cfm

I personally emailed Leland (whom I have never meet) yesterday asking if he can send just an ordinary member like me the list of who voted and who didn't on the latest IPS business regarding PMs and the new Forums Dean put up. He emailed me back and was very responsive. I would love to post for others to see who actually votes and is on the Board for example. Another thing, I would love to know who doesn't even show up to annual meetings to vote. Why are these people on the BODs when they knew going in they had no intention of showing up? After all, it is clearly a requirement (like it or not) to be on the board.

Isn't that the job of the EC?...To manage the BOD? All this talk of cleaning house...so let's clean it!

[Ken Johnson]

When my parents first brought me here from Europe our address was Snark Street.

[_Keith]

Dang. Did my thread get hijacked a little?

I tried to bring it back earlier Ken, but then again, at one point you even hijacked your own thread, lol.

[bgl]

There is actually no "requirement" for a Director to attend BOD meetings, and there never has been a requirement. The IPS would prefer for all Directors to show up but we have not had a BOD meeting with 100% attendance since I became a Director. 25-26 Directors who show up (out of a total of 32) is currently seen as a good, and certainly acceptable, attendance. The quorum is currently 15, which means that 17 Directors can decide not to show up, and we can still have a BOD meeting and make motions and vote. Should be pointed out that we've never had a BOD meeting with just the bare minimum, but this needs to be kept in mind. If it were a requirement to attend all BOD meetings, then I'm afraid most Directors would probably have been suspended by now. And I would be one of them. I missed two BOD meetings; in 1995 when I was in the process of moving to Hawaii and in 1996 when the Biennial in Orange County began on the same day that we began building our house here. Had to make a decision what was more important to me. But, havn't missed any since.

[LJG]

Len,

When I use the word "transparency" I am referring to the fact that the IPS membership should always be kept informed about decisons that have BEEN MADE. Internal discussions within the various committees are different, for obvious reasons, and they should be kept confidential until such a time that a decision has been made. Early on (right after the BOD meeting in Peru) there was a comment made in an email to the BOD about misinformation being spread on PT. Well, guess what - if no information is provided then the rumors AND the misinformation will quickly surface. The best way to avoid this scenario is to keep people informed about what's happened and what is about to happen. And as we all know - an excellent way to make information known, and to communicate - is right here on PT. The IPS has no other platform that comes even remotely close to the efficiency of PT. All of us who post here already know that. What I am against is the attempts to keep the discussions and decisions at the BOD meeting secret, at least for the time being. This has proven to be a disastrous approach, as we have all witnessed.

Furthermore, and I also happen to believe you're with me on this one: take responsibility for your actions. If I vote 'yes', or 'no', on a certain motion then I have no problems standing up for my beliefs and will happily explain why I voted the way I did. I am all in favor of the IPS membership getting the full details of exactly how every vote went down. What was the motion, who voted for, who voted against and who abstained. If you're willing to vote, then also have the guts to stand up for how you voted and face the music. If need be!

Bo-Göran

Bo, I think you already know you and I have much in common with all this. It is simply the process we differ on.

In regards to your comment from a Board member about the misinformation spread on PT it could also be understand that most on the Board were still in the jungle or on long plan rides home when Ken posted a thread in the main forums that had in the title "possible end of PT". Pretty sure that really was some of the misinformation in that reference. As time has settled I see two mistakes being made. 1) a BOD not at the meeting posting a thread with a title sure to get feathers ruffled towards the Board (including mine) and not asking for clarification from someone at the meeting before posting. 2) the BODs or those on the EC that knew this to be false did not step up and clarify it - it took Dean to do that. Had Ken posted "BODs voted to shut down PMs in 30 days unless a solution to the legal issues is found or another PM option is found" then I believe that board member you referenced (no clue who it was) might not have made the comment.

In the end I believe the current BODs certainly understands the importance of rapid information release now

[sonoranfans]

I stand corrected and re iterate my discomfort with this attempted gag order right before nominations were set to close. I thank those directors who decided that transparency was needed on this issue!!

Tom, before you post maybe you should make sure you have the facts and not run off assumptions. Let me ask you this. Are you certain someone on the EC said there was a "gag order" before nominations close? Or did you just throw that in there yourself? When do Nominations close? What are the requirements for someone to be vetted and then allowed to run? I think understanding those questions would be more important for someone wanting "transparency".

Nominations close nov 20 2013 as I understand it, but perhaps that was also incorrect. And Len I have read the requirements for the vetting process and I understand them, hope that satisfies you . A delay of shutting down the PM of 30 days would have put it about a week past nominations closing, and this probably would have blunted the action of getting more pro palmtalk candidates on the ballot which I would be stunned to find out you didn't even consider. I will let Bo's explanation correct any error I have made regarding the gag order. Len, if you think this kind of behavior is appropriate for a volunteer society with membership dues, we will just have to disagree. I find your previous comparisons of the IPS president to a general or even a CEO way off the mark. We are not conscripts, and most of us are not employees of IPS. But don't worry, if that is the case, I will not renew my membership when the time comes...

Tom, where did I say the IPS president was a General or CEO. Please show me the link so I can point out further how you love putting words into people's mouths.

Tom, if your membership to the IPS is based more on how the processes of a non-profit works or how their By-laws do not agree with how you would run things; that those are more important then the fact this non-profit's main purpose is the conservation and education of palm trees then I would consider your membership reasoning flawed. I guess you are not a member of any conservation group then? If you do decide to not renew, are you still going to come and use Palmtalk? The free online forum paid for by the IPS membership? I would hope so but you would miss out on these sections of the forums you seem to enjoy so much.

It is obvious the whole PM issue was an error from the start. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. Mistakes were made by many BODs. But people are working hard to ensure the issue is resolved and that stuff like this doesn't happen again. Sorry the volunteers that run the IPS or are on Committees are not working fast as you would like. But once again, let's stick to facts. The PM issue has legalities that need to be addressed. The BODs are not delaying it to stop the voting process or block pro-PT users from getting on the board like you are insinuating.

Len I cannot find some of my own posts in response... Are they poof gone or transferred somewhere else? I recall a decision making analogy, that is all, where CEO/generals were discussed.

Your defense of the stated intention of the board to discontinue the PM after 30 days and inform the members on meeting minutes after 60 days by saying thing such as "mistakes were made" is too sad. Yeah mistakes were made to change palmtalk in a damaging way and keep its dues paying members in the dark till after nominations were over.... coincidentally of course. Would it be insinuating to say you are defending that decision and persons behind it by saying "mistakes were made"? Perhaps you need to take this defensive stance to have influence with the persons behind this who apparently aren't big enough to admit their own mistake. Good luck to you, but people who cannot admit mistakes either change or they do the same thing again. And the mistake here was apparently to try to (temporarily)conceal a decision that has a substantial impact on members.

I found the post:

http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/index.php?/topic/39249-ips-member-open-discussions/page-1 post #3

"Bo, all IPS members can come right here and read all about IPS issues so I am not sure what your reference to transparency and accountability refers too. If you think all PT readers should be able to read finger pointing and politicking then I disagree. This should be closed door. If someone wants to read this stuff, join the IPS.

Also, I am not sure what you mean about we need to "know the truth". It seems to me you either have some belief you should share in the IPS only forum or stop insinuating something that might not be there. I think it is great you use PT and helped push it as a platform with Dean's and the PT Committee's help. Unfortunately today's EC has some that are not forum users. But it seems some are trying. Leland wrote a great response and Drainsfeld even stopped by. I believe it more important to have positive guidance from the top and for those working the issue to understand the message. So maybe the failure is that those receiving the message and more familiar with PT should be speaking for the Board on a regular basis? Isn't this why you have Committees? You won't see a General telling a squad how to do their business nor a CEO micromanaging individual employees. From Dean's comment the other day it seems the message is being received by the right people.

"Thanks you Leland for your continued effort to include PalmTalk IPS Members "in the loop". I can only add that I continue to publicly support your efforts, and with all the momentum now building behind the scenes I am confident the future of the IPS will be a successful one."

I know for a fact the current Board (in Board I mean the majority vote) sees the value of PT and only wants to increase its presence. They are not looking to downsize its use or marginalize it. As Dean alluded to in the quote above, there are some really positive things going on to help improve the IPS brand and stop the shrinking in size of its members base - something that has been happening for many years now as you well know.

[bgl]

Len,

Agreed, and something I believe strongly in is "when something bad happens, there's always something good that comes out of". I am hopeful that will be the case with this issue as well.

And about the thread that you mentioned - correct, mistakes were made, but it wasn't just the initial post in that thread that I believe upset some individuals. There was also, as a result, a lot of speculation and misinformation in the 109 posts up until the time I posted - some 16 hours after Ken kicked it off. Again, between people travelling etc etc., you're right - that was not a good scenario. That being said, there was a way to handle it better than it was handled. But water under the bridge as they say. So, let's move on!

Bo-Göran

[LJG]

That is not completely accurate. The by-laws in the IPS site stated that each nominee will fill out a questionnaire that the nominating committee uses to make their selections. I have asked for a copy of that questionnaire on several occasions via email / PMs / and even in the forum. Elena responded to my email, and said that I would get a copy of it, but I have yet have been provided a copy. It will not surprise me if I get the questionnaire AFTER the BOD elections are over.

All details are right on the website minus the questionnaire: https://www.palms.org/nominations.cfm

As far as your email to Elena about the questionnaire. Did you send her a follow up? Sometimes a little more follow up goes a long ways. Also says on the website she prefers email. Please let us know what she says or post what she sends online as I am curious too.

I have heard from a member of the BOD that there are a lot of BOD members who are not active and do not volunteer their time in support of the IPS. Why are they still there? There are sections in the by-laws that clearly state that members of the BOD can be dismissed. I have also asked for details in how this happens. Who can start that process? Is it only the members of the BOD or do IPS members have a say? Again, no answers to my questions.

Joe, I couldn't agree more. This is my biggest pet peeve with any volunteer organization that I have been on or am a member of currently. Why don't you email the people? Here is the entire list with links to their email addresses.https://www.palms.org/directors.cfm

I personally emailed Leland (whom I have never meet) yesterday asking if he can send just an ordinary member like me the list of who voted and who didn't on the latest IPS business regarding PMs and the new Forums Dean put up. He emailed me back and was very responsive. I would love to post for others to see who actually votes and is on the Board for example. Another thing, I would love to know who doesn't even show up to annual meetings to vote. Why are these people on the BODs when they knew going in they had no intention of showing up? After all, it is clearly a requirement (like it or not) to be on the board.

So did Leland provide that information? If so, why not post it for all to see? Was it "for your eyes only"?

Stop assuming, just like in your insulting PM to me. I clearly stated I asked and what my intent would be should I get it. Since you don't see it posted, it is obvious I didn't get it. Why would I post what I did and hold it for myself? Leland stated in his email to me that the volunteer that records the votes has been very busy and the IPS never really weeded through all the emails to list who voted for what, only what was a "yes" or "no". So the matter is a process one not one of avoidance. This email voting process has been used long before the current Board I guess. By the way, this is something I have an idea on how it can be fixed but must volunteer more of my time to research before presenting.

My whole point is some of you guys need to be more proactive in reaching out to the BOD to get your questions answered. We already know most don't use PT so why sit around and complain that they are not coming here to reach out to you. Go to them.

[joe_OC]

That is not completely accurate. The by-laws in the IPS site stated that each nominee will fill out a questionnaire that the nominating committee uses to make their selections. I have asked for a copy of that questionnaire on several occasions via email / PMs / and even in the forum. Elena responded to my email, and said that I would get a copy of it, but I have yet have been provided a copy. It will not surprise me if I get the questionnaire AFTER the BOD elections are over.

All details are right on the website minus the questionnaire: https://www.palms.org/nominations.cfm

As far as your email to Elena about the questionnaire. Did you send her a follow up? Sometimes a little more follow up goes a long ways. Also says on the website she prefers email. Please let us know what she says or post what she sends online as I am curious too.

I have heard from a member of the BOD that there are a lot of BOD members who are not active and do not volunteer their time in support of the IPS. Why are they still there? There are sections in the by-laws that clearly state that members of the BOD can be dismissed. I have also asked for details in how this happens. Who can start that process? Is it only the members of the BOD or do IPS members have a say? Again, no answers to my questions.

Joe, I couldn't agree more. This is my biggest pet peeve with any volunteer organization that I have been on or am a member of currently. Why don't you email the people? Here is the entire list with links to their email addresses.https://www.palms.org/directors.cfm

I personally emailed Leland (whom I have never meet) yesterday asking if he can send just an ordinary member like me the list of who voted and who didn't on the latest IPS business regarding PMs and the new Forums Dean put up. He emailed me back and was very responsive. I would love to post for others to see who actually votes and is on the Board for example. Another thing, I would love to know who doesn't even show up to annual meetings to vote. Why are these people on the BODs when they knew going in they had no intention of showing up? After all, it is clearly a requirement (like it or not) to be on the board.

So did Leland provide that information? If so, why not post it for all to see? Was it "for your eyes only"?

Stop assuming, just like in your insulting PM to me. I clearly stated I asked and what my intent would be should I get it. Since you don't see it posted, it is obvious I didn't get it. Why would I post what I did and hold it for myself? Leland stated in his email to me that the volunteer that records the votes has been very busy and the IPS never really weeded through all the emails to list who voted for what, only what was a "yes" or "no". So the matter is a process one not one of avoidance. This email voting process has been used long before the current Board I guess. By the way, this is something I have an idea on how it can be fixed but must volunteer more of my time to research before presenting.

My whole point is some of you guys need to be more proactive in reaching out to the BOD to get your questions answered. We already know most don't use PT so why sit around and complain that they are not coming here to reach out to you. Go to them.

Len,

I was not assuming...simply asking if Leland provided the information...It was not clear in your post if he, in fact, did or not.

With regards to my PM to you, I apologize that you feel that way. It was not intended to come off that way. It was different in the past when you were an IPS member vs. now where you are going to be on the BOD.

[doranakandawatta]

....who voted and who didn't on the latest IPS business regarding PMs and the new Forums Dean put up....

Many IPS -Palmtalk members would like to get this information.... how long does it need to prepare that list?
Why the BOD doesn't give the info since they must know since so many posts that many are interested to know?

Is this a way of earning some more time?

....why sit around and complain that they are not coming here to reach out to you. Go to them.

Is this the answer?

[doranakandawatta]

...why sit around and complain that they are not coming here to reach out to you. Go to them.

I tried...:

[LJG]

Tom, like I said. Don't put words into people's mouth. It is clear from my post that I believe the people charged with leading don't have to get into the micromanagement aspect of it and that those under them don't want it. I used a CEO and General in comparison only. If those bother you, feel free to use any other comparison you wish where leadership shouldn't micromanage. Maybe an Indian Chief? Head high school football coach? Those better? I also clearly stated what good are Committees if those at the top will simply not value what you are doing. I also said it might be important for those Committees to help pass along the guidance from the top to assist in informing the membership. You seemed to have missed that and instead attempted to say I thought members were "conscripts" or "employees". Also, I am not defending the PMs being shut down or the fact Minutes would take 60 days. I am saying mistakes were made and now it is time to learn from those mistakes so they don't happen again. It sure seems better then beating a dead horse or looking for a public flogging.

I am not sure where you are going with the other comments or use of my full post but if you are asking if I believe IPS discussions should be for IPS Members only, then yes I do. So does the PT Committee and the all the way to the top.

[LJG]

....who voted and who didn't on the latest IPS business regarding PMs and the new Forums Dean put up....

Many IPS -Palmtalk members would like to get this information.... how long does it need to prepare that list?

Why the BOD doesn't give the info since they must know since so many posts that many are interested to know?

Is this a way of earning some more time?

....why sit around and complain that they are not coming here to reach out to you. Go to them.

Is this the answer?

Philippe, I am not sure if it is the answer. It is just something I tried.

[doranakandawatta]

Len,

So we tried...

[Leland Lai]

PT members.

We have just finished a scramble to gain extension of the PM for 45 days starting Nov. 12th. Why 45 days? As mentioned early on while we were chaotically putting out fires of dubious content and facts, we were also looking for a way around the risk issues of PM since it would be impossible to moderate all private messages...and it is not IPS's intent to be big brother to assure subject matters don't approach grey areas.

Before the Board left Peru, we set in motion a technical team of web-related people. Most are not even on the Board but either administrators, outside experienced web savvy and technical people volunteering their input on a gratis basis since they too have an love relationship with palms. The general path identified is that PM cannot be moderated but perhaps transparently "black holed" from the PT/IPS current coverage within PT per se.

This is only one part of the possible solution. The second involves a disclosure an references sources for regulations that might involve plants and any trades or commerce. This is quite complex but Kim is compiling a lot of this information as we speak. All other covenants pertaining to legal review as to whether our alternate plan will work in the eyes of the law to afford adequate protection for the IPS and reduce the elements of costly defense just because third party perceived association with individuals who are not following the rules.

Obviously, we could not get the entire alternative program identified within the 30 day period. I have asked for an additional 45 day extension and the Board has provided that extension with 25 in agreement (of 30 directors),

Yes, I would hope PT is beginning to understand the workings of the Board and that we cannot just drop everything to respond within the time frame that Keith desires, however, we will be having a voice from the Board from time to time.

Best,

Leland

[joe_OC]

Thanks, Leland.

I know you have a lot of other responsibilities besides the role of IPS President, as well as the rest of the BOD. Why did it take so long to get the extension? Is that how long it took to get the votes in? If you shared this information with members on PT earlier, there would be a lot less anxiety for all involved. I hope the team working on it comes up with a resolution that is acceptable for all.

[Leland Lai]

Regarding the vote counts of the BOD's meetings, you all should know that we operate with a 60 day reporting time of the Minutes from the time of the meeting. This has always been the case since we meet in sometimes conditions where we also nee a couple of recording machines, and 2 to 3 others manning their laptops.

To give you an example, in Peru and 7.5 hours, we had to cover 12 committee reports and all of the new business, vote and issue the results for the endowment grants ( and there were 13) to consider this year. The agenda and appendices were over 100 pages long and assuming everyone read the material should have been ready for discussion and voting. The Secretary takes the notes and has to transcribe these as they become the official proceedings AND, all past meetings are already posted in www.Palms.org of most past years going back into the 80"s or before.

What we do not track is the specific names of who voted in-favor or against or abstentions for any motion. Only the counts are tallied. To expect we are going to drop everything of our lives to pull the voting information within three days is ludicrous and suggest a lack of understanding that we are volunteers with jobs, from many different regions of the country and world. The process shall remain 60 days for transcription.

Leland

[Leland Lai]

Thanks, Leland.

I know you have a lot of other responsibilities besides the role of IPS President, as well as the rest of the BOD. Why did it take so long to get the extension? Is that how long it took to get the votes in? If you shared this information with members on PT earlier, there would be a lot less anxiety for all involved. I hope the team working on it comes up with a resolution that is acceptable for all.

Joe, 30 days comes up very fast when we are trying to find alternatives. I went out to seek extension Wednesday Nov. 6th. Keep in mind that some of our directors are in Asia, Europe, US, South America, Caribbean, Hawaii, and Australia, etc. where we are dealing with time zone differences and some out of the office issues. As most Directors don't check in with the Director's forum, I found direct email seems to work best in getting very quick responses, especially in critical cases like PM where its going to close if you don't have a consensus for extension. So, this turnaround in two days and a confirmation of my count by the Secretary this morning is pretty good. Most votes take a week or so.

[_Keith]

Thanks, Leland.

I know you have a lot of other responsibilities besides the role of IPS President, as well as the rest of the BOD. Why did it take so long to get the extension? Is that how long it took to get the votes in? If you shared this information with members on PT earlier, there would be a lot less anxiety for all involved. I hope the team working on it comes up with a resolution that is acceptable for all.

Joe, 30 days comes up very fast when we are trying to find alternatives. I went out to seek extension Wednesday Nov. 6th. Keep in mind that some of our directors are in Asia, Europe, US, South America, Caribbean, Hawaii, and Australia, etc. where we are dealing with time zone differences and some out of the office issues. As most Directors don't check in with the Director's forum, I found direct email seems to work best in getting very quick responses, especially in critical cases like PM where its going to close if you don't have a consensus for extension. So, this turnaround in two days and a confirmation of my count by the Secretary this morning is pretty good. Most votes take a week or so.

Leland, thank you very much for the update.

[sonoranfans]

Thanks, Leland.

I know you have a lot of other responsibilities besides the role of IPS President, as well as the rest of the BOD. Why did it take so long to get the extension? Is that how long it took to get the votes in? If you shared this information with members on PT earlier, there would be a lot less anxiety for all involved. I hope the team working on it comes up with a resolution that is acceptable for all.

Joe, 30 days comes up very fast when we are trying to find alternatives. I went out to seek extension Wednesday Nov. 6th. Keep in mind that some of our directors are in Asia, Europe, US, South America, Caribbean, Hawaii, and Australia, etc. where we are dealing with time zone differences and some out of the office issues. As most Directors don't check in with the Director's forum, I found direct email seems to work best in getting very quick responses, especially in critical cases like PM where its going to close if you don't have a consensus for extension. So, this turnaround in two days and a confirmation of my count by the Secretary this morning is pretty good. Most votes take a week or so.

Leland, thanks for the explanation, it all sounds reasonable to me. I hope a good solution can be found to save the PM.

[PALM MOD]

Thanks, Leland.

I know you have a lot of other responsibilities besides the role of IPS President, as well as the rest of the BOD. Why did it take so long to get the extension? Is that how long it took to get the votes in? If you shared this information with members on PT earlier, there would be a lot less anxiety for all involved. I hope the team working on it comes up with a resolution that is acceptable for all.

Joe - Note that up until the last minute, we were still holding out hope for a resolution before the 30 day deadline arrived. When it became obvious that was not going to happen, Leland jumped on assembling a 45 day extension. Also note, and I did not realize, that because of procedual necessities he had to compile an official motion with an official proposal for alternate action - not just a request for a simple extension. He then expedited the vote, and we bought more time.

Leland is obviously doing his best here to address what the PT Membership has perceived as neglect from the BOD. A little support and understanding from our end will help everyone move to more common ground.

[Cindy Adair]

Thanks so much Leland for your post full of answers. All of us here surely appreciate the extension!

[joe_OC]

Thanks, Leland.I know you have a lot of other responsibilities besides the role of IPS President, as well as the rest of the BOD. Why did it take so long to get the extension? Is that how long it took to get the votes in? If you shared this information with members on PT earlier, there would be a lot less anxiety for all involved. I hope the team working on it comes up with a resolution that is acceptable for all.

Joe - Note that up until the last minute, we were still holding out hope for a resolution before the 30 day deadline arrived. When it became obvious that was not going to happen, Leland jumped on assembling a 45 day extension. Also note, and I did not realize, that because of procedual necessities he had to compile an official motion with an official proposal for alternate action - not just a request for a simple extension. He then expedited the vote, and we bought more time.Leland is obviously doing his best here to address what the PT Membership has perceived as neglect from the BOD. A little support and understanding from our end will help everyone move to more common ground.

Yes, I appreciate the quick response on Leland's part to get the extension in place to give the web team time to come up with a resolution. It's good to see the BOD respond in a timely manner to keep things going.

[George Sparkman]

Before the Board left Peru, we set in motion a technical team of web-related people. Most are not even on the Board but either administrators, outside experienced web savvy and technical people volunteering their input on a gratis basis since they too have an love relationship with palms.

It is great to see that this is all on a gratis basis.

[Mandrew968]

I need to clarify one little detail, but a very important detail. Tom (sonorafans) finished his post with the words "...leak from the board meeting". A "leak" can only take place if something is supposed to be kept a secret and then someone breaks the silence and "spills the beans". NO SUCH THING HAS TAKEN PLACE.

It needs to be made abundantly clear to everyone that IPS Board meetings are OPEN AFFAIRS. Yes, any IPS members can sit in on a BOD meeting and listen to everything that's being discussed. And then leave the room and inform others about what took place. No secrecy, no confidentiality and complete transparency. For any individual to insist on secrecy when it comes to BOD meetings is just plain wrong and a sign of ignorance of how the IPS operates. Seems to me a lot more education needs to take place!

Thank you Tom for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight!

If this is the case, why has it been such a big deal to mention anything before the minutes come out? I personally don't think the board wants (sure people can)people to sit in on the meetings which is why the board flys out to all these obscure places to have meetings--are you guys trying to be exclusive?

[Mandrew968]

I need to clarify one little detail, but a very important detail. Tom (sonorafans) finished his post with the words "...leak from the board meeting". A "leak" can only take place if something is supposed to be kept a secret and then someone breaks the silence and "spills the beans". NO SUCH THING HAS TAKEN PLACE.

It needs to be made abundantly clear to everyone that IPS Board meetings are OPEN AFFAIRS. Yes, any IPS members can sit in on a BOD meeting and listen to everything that's being discussed. And then leave the room and inform others about what took place. No secrecy, no confidentiality and complete transparency. For any individual to insist on secrecy when it comes to BOD meetings is just plain wrong and a sign of ignorance of how the IPS operates. Seems to me a lot more education needs to take place!

Thank you Tom for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight!

Bo - I share your concerns about openness and transparency, and agree with the above completely. You well know that I am not an attorney, and that being the case, I am hesitant to venture into a legal discussion, but this 60 day gag rule imposed on the Directors continues to bother me considerably.

Maybe there is something about this that I have missed or don't understand, but it seems to me that if the IPS is incorporated in one of the 50 states of the USA, it is subject to the laws of that State and the Federal government of the USA. While defined privileged information discussed in executive session may be protected from public disclosure, and individual Directors may voluntarily choose not to speak about a matter discussed by the Board in an open meeting, I do not think that any rule adopted by the Board preventing or restricting any Director from discussing open meeting agenda items (for any period of time) would be enforceable as it seems to me such would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment rights of the Director.

When we start getting what appears to be restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press (e.g. IPS related topics that can not be posted on the Forum, or are ordered removed, or even just ordered "hidden for a period of time") I think it tends to foster suspicion and erodes the membership's trust in the Board. Not good for the Board. Not good for the IPS.

Just my thoughts - gmp

Well said, once again.

[Mandrew968]

That is not completely accurate. The by-laws in the IPS site stated that each nominee will fill out a questionnaire that the nominating committee uses to make their selections. I have asked for a copy of that questionnaire on several occasions via email / PMs / and even in the forum. Elena responded to my email, and said that I would get a copy of it, but I have yet have been provided a copy. It will not surprise me if I get the questionnaire AFTER the BOD elections are over.

All details are right on the website minus the questionnaire: https://www.palms.org/nominations.cfm

As far as your email to Elena about the questionnaire. Did you send her a follow up? Sometimes a little more follow up goes a long ways. Also says on the website she prefers email. Please let us know what she says or post what she sends online as I am curious too.

I have heard from a member of the BOD that there are a lot of BOD members who are not active and do not volunteer their time in support of the IPS. Why are they still there? There are sections in the by-laws that clearly state that members of the BOD can be dismissed. I have also asked for details in how this happens. Who can start that process? Is it only the members of the BOD or do IPS members have a say? Again, no answers to my questions.

Joe, I couldn't agree more. This is my biggest pet peeve with any volunteer organization that I have been on or am a member of currently. Why don't you email the people? Here is the entire list with links to their email addresses.https://www.palms.org/directors.cfm

I personally emailed Leland (whom I have never meet) yesterday asking if he can send just an ordinary member like me the list of who voted and who didn't on the latest IPS business regarding PMs and the new Forums Dean put up. He emailed me back and was very responsive. I would love to post for others to see who actually votes and is on the Board for example. Another thing, I would love to know who doesn't even show up to annual meetings to vote. Why are these people on the BODs when they knew going in they had no intention of showing up? After all, it is clearly a requirement (like it or not) to be on the board.

So did Leland provide that information? If so, why not post it for all to see? Was it "for your eyes only"?

Stop assuming, just like in your insulting PM to me. I clearly stated I asked and what my intent would be should I get it. Since you don't see it posted, it is obvious I didn't get it. Why would I post what I did and hold it for myself? Leland stated in his email to me that the volunteer that records the votes has been very busy and the IPS never really weeded through all the emails to list who voted for what, only what was a "yes" or "no". So the matter is a process one not one of avoidance. This email voting process has been used long before the current Board I guess. By the way, this is something I have an idea on how it can be fixed but must volunteer more of my time to research before presenting.

My whole point is some of you guys need to be more proactive in reaching out to the BOD to get your questions answered. We already know most don't use PT so why sit around and complain that they are not coming here to reach out to you. Go to them.

Len,

I was not assuming...simply asking if Leland provided the information...It was not clear in your post if he, in fact, did or not.

With regards to my PM to you, I apologize that you feel that way. It was not intended to come off that way. It was different in the past when you were an IPS member vs. now where you are going to be on the BOD.

Len, to Joe's defense, you were vague on the content of Leland's email. Also, remember that we no longer have the right to be contrite or rude to anyone on Palmtalk. I know it will be hard, but you don't strike me as an " I can't " person.

[Ken Johnson]

I'm still confused. The President bypassed the BOD and asked for 45 more days even though the directors made a MOTION to close PMs in 30 days. (Those 45 days will be over soon and PM's will close.) Seems to me all this fuss needs to be expanded upon to include fussing about following the laws of non-profits. If a motion passes and it needs to be rethought then I believe that Roberts Rules say one of the members that voted on the winning side of the motion must present a new motion that conflicts with the original. If it gets a second then it can be voted on by the members. A tie is broken by the Chairman. In this case the President could have easily asked one of the members to do just that.

If a motion passes and the President then does not follow the directive of the BOD then what? I believe that would set a dangerous president. Does anyone else see this or am I wrong?

I know that closing PM's would cripple PalmTalk, not necessarily because it could not function for a while in any case, but because our moderator has told me he would not be able to moderate without it and that indeed he would not continue moderating if PMs shut down. I urge someone that voted for closing Pms to send a motion "not to close PMs" to the chairman asking for it to be published in an email so it can get a second, be discussed and then voted on.

[LJG]

I do believe that the BODs (or Executive committee) DID vote for a 45 day extension but are you one of the few that did not even vote?

FYI the PT Committee and Risk Management are very close to ensuring the PMs will never be turned off again. People are working very hard to get this done. It takes time for volunteers to do work and also deal with lawyers. Let's not make things more difficult for them by opening old wounds.

[doranakandawatta]

Ken, dear IPS DIRECTOR,

It seems YOU want the PM to be closed,

Have you seen how many Palmtalk members don't agree (or don't understand) ?

It seems to me that Palmtalk community is much wider than IPS BOD or IPS members meeting at the biennial, basic poor undereducated Palmtalk supporters and IPS members like me should be listened to too!
We may wonder which interest conflict is behind all this trouble (PM' story + questionnaire issue + disappointed candidates ...)
Since one month Palmtalk forum threads is no more so funny to read.

Where has the camaraderie and friendly atmosphere gone?

Sorry for my french english, I did my best.

Kindest regards

Philippe

[Ken Johnson]

Sorry Philippe and All, I am sure I have done some damage to the atmosphere and I may have been able to be more diplomatic. I will try harder in the future to point out problems with a smile.

[PALM MOD]

As Len said, and to speak directly to the subject of this topic - that is, the PM issue.

I don't think anyone will argue that this entire event was handled badly. But it is being worked on as I type, we have breathing room at the moment, and it is moving in the right direction. So, I am cautiously optimistic that this will be resolved satisfactorily shortly.

[doranakandawatta]

I am cautiously optimistic that this will be resolved satisfactorily shortly.

All my best and friendly wishes it happens so.

many thanks, Dean

Best regards

Philippe

[Mandrew968]

It often amazes me how people confuse Ken Johnson's intentions... I don't think you would find many people who would advocate for Palmtalk, more so than he. I believe his issue was the lack of use of Robert's Rules...

[Ken Johnson]

The motion to shut down Pm's is worded to say that if closing Pm's would cause PalmTalk to shut down then we would not stop Pm's. As I understand it from Dean closing Pm's would cause PalmTalk to close so the good news is Pm's will not close. The bad news is the 45 days are up soon and they need more time. More time to keep Pm's open I think but it is stiff fuzzy. I wish we could get some information out to membership to help them understand but I know so far is that this will lead to more education and understanding of how valuable PalmTalk is so things are looking good.

[PALM MOD]

There was another motion placed on the table yesterday, and already seconded, for another 45 day extension.

But I am cautiously optimistic that we are on the right track to avoid closing PMs.

[_Keith]

I would be pretty sure that everyone here already has an email address. Give people the option to publish their email address in their profile, and that profile to be view-able only to IPS members. Not an IPS member, or don't want to do that? Arrange to meet up on chat to exchange email addresses in private. There are other options as well. I see no reason that PalmTalk needs to replicate a service that everyone already has, anyway.