Questionnaire - candidates for the 2014-2018 term

[bgl]

I have received an email this morning from Larry Noblick, Administrative Secretary of the IPS with an attached three page questionnaire, which apparently all who are running for the 2014-2018 term will be asked to fill out. Fair enough.

However, the questionnaire contains incorrect information, and potential candidates should know this since this is critical and crucial information. I should add that I have responded to Larry and asked for a corrected questionnaire to be sent out. In the meantime, it would be wise for anyone who is contempleting sending the questionnaire in to be aware of the following statement/question:

"Are you aware that participating in the annual meetings can cost $3-4,000

USD or more per year and that attendance is mandatory?_______________"

The statement that attendance is mandatory is blatantly false, and it needs to be corrected. Attendance has NEVER been mandatory, and if that were indeed the case, lots of Directors would have been, at the very least, reprimanded, and possibly even suspended. NEVER HAPPENED. For one, our President, among several others, did not attend a recent BOD meeting. (By "recent" I mean within the last few years). Seems to me the rules should apply evenly for ALL. If new Directors are expected to show up for every BOD meeting, than that also needs to be the rule for incumbent Directors. (Yeah, I am being facetious here, because it's not reasonable to insist on this).

In other words, this is a FALSE statement, and we should all wait for a corrected questionnaire as far as I am concerned. The IPS expects the respondents to be truthful in filling out the questionnaire. And guess what - being honest and truthful works BOTH WAYS so potential candidates should also have the right to expect the IPS to be truthful in the statements that are made.

Another minor comment is the $3,000-4,000 cost estimate to attend a BOD meeting. While this may certainly be correct in some cases, the bottom line is that the IPS has NO IDEA how much it may cost the various Directors to attend. We all live in different places, spread out around the globe, and the cost of attending will very greatly because of that. In my mind, an inappropriate and unnecessary comment. We can all, individually, figure out how much it's going to cost us. We don't need Big Brother to do that for us.

[doranakandawatta]

....rules should apply evenly for ALL!

How could that be different? I really feel all the story looks like a bad movie, I didn't pay for that (means I didn't join IPS expecting that!)

If we still hope something from IPS , we'll have to "faire le ménage" !

[LJG]

Hey Bo, fostering another storm in a tea cup? Perhaps it was an error? Before you turn this into another us against them maybe you could have waited to hear the reply from Elena or Larry. She already said once here it was not mandatory and it also doesn't say it is in the By Laws. So perhaps someone made an error. But hey, it gave you another great opportunity to take your digs against the new leadership.

Also the language was "it can cost". People need to know that depending on where the meeting is that there is a cost involved and "it can cost" $3-$4000. Pretty sure we all know if I decided to hitchhike to BOD meeting and sleep in my tent it would be less. Considering I have read post or heard questions like "how much does it cost to travel to do Board functions" maybe a "it can cost" helps answer. But yeah, let's make this about "Big Brother" instead.

[_Keith]

Here is a cut and paste from the questionnaire I received today. Is anything in that statement, like "attendance is mandatory" not crystal clear?

7. Are you aware that participating in the annual meetings can cost $3-4,000 USD or more per year and that attendance is mandatory?

Elena can say whatever she pleases. The above is straight cut & paste from the official IPS document. Cost whatever, mandatory is what it is.

[LJG]

Keith, let's pretend all Board of Directors are professional. I would expect if something is sent and has possible errors that the person having issue would then question for clarification (which was done) if what was sent was indeed correct. Simply a professional courtesy. I would then think one of two things would happen:

1) the responsible party says "oh, so sorry this is in error. Let me correct it". It is corrected and we move on.

2) the responsible party says "no, it is correct" at which stage we question why the NomCom Chair came here and said it was NOT mandatory and why the Bylaws themselves have no such requirement.

Rinse and repeat.

Instead a BOD with obvious issues with others on the BODs once again rushed to PT to fan the flames. He decided to use combative language such as mentioning "Big Brother" and also took liberty to throw others under the bus and make it seem as others in charge don't want to play by the same rules. If the wording was indeed in error, then I guess the finger pointing about the rules would just look like childish badgering.

Personally I want to see solutions and go about by working with those in power instead of creating this ridiculous us against them mentality.

[realarch]

All that was needed to be done was to notify the Nominations Committee of some language on the questionnaire that should be corrected and then have a revised document re-posted.

I'm sure the NC will agree and respond with positive suggestions.

Obviously this particular document wasn't reviewed and just released as has been done many times in the past without comment. There is no need to turn a harmless incident into a full fledged riot, but

it may be too late. We'll see.

Tim

[bgl]

I don't recall ever having seen this questionnaire before so I am guessing it's a brand new document. As far as I am concerned, it would be highly inappropriate to expect those who fill it out to agree to something there's no need to agree to, and that NOBODY has ever agreed to, or adhered to, in the past. So it's important to make this known as quickly as possible which was the reason for my initial post. I have no desire to "foster a storm in a tea cup" but I do believe in fairness. And it should obvous to everyone with common sense that what is expected of incoming Directors should not be any different than what is expected from incumbent Directors. If it's a sincere mistake, then simply correct it and send out a new questionnaire. If the word "mandatory" is not a mistake, then that leads to a whole new series of questions for those who are responsible for putting this document together. And incidentally, I have not heard back from either Larry or Elena yet. Which is fine - I don't necessarily expect instant responses, which is EXACTLY why I started this thread. To make people aware of something. Those who are against others being informed about what's going on - time for some serious soul searching.

And one more comment about the $3,000-$4,000: it's so totally inappropriate to include this in the questionnaire. This strikes me as a warning: "if you can't afford to fork out this kind of money, and since attendance IS mandatory, you may want to seriously reconsider running" or something to that effect. Fact is, it's none of anyone else's business how much I can afford to pay to attend, and for the IPS to volunteer this kind of "advice" is just not appropriate. Yes, it definitely reeks of Big Brother, trying to stick his nose where it doesn't belong.

And for those who don't like my comments - too bad.

[_Keith]

All that was needed to be done was to notify the Nominations Committee of some language on the questionnaire that should be corrected and then have a revised document re-posted.

I'm sure the NC will agree and respond with positive suggestions.

Obviously this particular document wasn't reviewed and just released as has been done many times in the past without comment. There is no need to turn a harmless incident into a full fledged riot, but

it may be too late. We'll see.

Tim

Tim,

I exchanged emails 2 weeks ago with Larry Noblick, who is the official correspondent for IPS in this matter and this particular requirement was stated by him at that time. I informed him that I could not make this commitment. He, too, stated that there might be flexibility on this. However, when I received the questionnaire today, the language was pretty blunt, as I copied and pasted, and left no apparent flexibility. With all of that in consideration, it does seem unlikely that this was a clerical error. However, if any member of the committee wished to clarify, this is the opportunity, as more than one member is active here on PalmTalk, which is the official forum for the IPS.

[George Sparkman]

I would be interested in seeing the entire questionnaire or is that for candidates only ?

I assume it would include the definition of the job and it's expectations.

[joe_OC]

I would be interested in seeing the entire questionnaire or is that for candidates only ?

I assume it would include the definition of the job and it's expectations.

It is not just for candidates. I have been asking for this questionnaire for several weeks. I was told by Elena that it would be posted in PalmTalk as well as the IPS website. With the things that Bo has pointed out, they might be editing it before posting it on the websites. We should see it soon.

[Mr Rare]

I would like to add some clarity to this thread.

I am a member of the Nominations Committee ("NC")and the Questionnaire was reviewed and approved by the NC prior to release.

It was deemed in the best interest of the IPS to make attendance at the annual meeting a requirement of all Directors unless excused by the President. The annual meeting is where the majority of the society's business is discussed and conducted. To miss the only meeting of the year is very problematic and can result in Directors who are uninformed of the facts of the matters discussed and voted upon to misrepresent the facts as recently occurred. The annual meetings are a pleasure to attend and the time spent together with the other Directors is very helpful and productive. I am pleased to see this surge of interest in the business of the IPS and look forward to a slate of qualified candidates who will work hard to advance the business of the IPS.

[joe_OC]

If the questionnaire is accurate, has it been posted? I have not been able to find it.

[bgl]

While I most definitely agree with Jeff that the Interim BOD meetings are a pleasure to attend, I seriously have to question his statement: "...It was deemed in the best interest of the IPS to make attendance at the annual meeting a requirement..".

Deemed in the best interest by exactly WHOM? This is a critical issue that involves ALL the Directors, as well as all prospective Directors. In other words - a very important issue and a clarification would probably by welcomed by many. An issue that affects all the Directors needs to be voted on by the entire Board. No such vote has taken place.

[_Keith]

I would like to add some clarity to this thread.

I am a member of the Nominations Committee ("NC")and the Questionnaire was reviewed and approved by the NC prior to release.

It was deemed in the best interest of the IPS to make attendance at the annual meeting a requirement of all Directors unless excused by the President. The annual meeting is where the majority of the society's business is discussed and conducted. To miss the only meeting of the year is very problematic and can result in Directors who are uninformed of the facts of the matters discussed and voted upon to misrepresent the facts as recently occurred. The annual meetings are a pleasure to attend and the time spent together with the other Directors is very helpful and productive. I am pleased to see this surge of interest in the business of the IPS and look forward to a slate of qualified candidates who will work hard to advance the business of the IPS.

Jeff,

First, since this decision affects all current and potential BOD members, should it have been a board decision, with a motion, second, and vote? And since this impacts the entire membership in their ability to choose the Board members they want, should they not have been afforded the ability to comment prior to that vote? And if all that was done, should not the bylaws be amended to reflect this requirement? Two board members who recently commented on this, aside from Bo, said nothing of a president's permission. How was this communicated to the BOD, when, and by whom. Exactly what was that communication? When was it planned to be communicated to the membership?

Second, how will this be enforced for existing BOD members. If the average attendance at a Biennial is 25 people, will the missing BOD members be removed at that point? Will the President give permission to all or some for missing? Strictly enforced over the last few years, the BOD might be quite diminished over the last decade. Enforced inconsistently, it could be misused. What are the President's guidelines by which to make the decision for permission?

[bgl]

Assuming we go along with Jeff’s statement that it will be up to the President to “excuse” those who may, for whatever reason, decide that they can’t participate in a particular BOD meeting, we are left with some fascinating scenarios:

First of all, we have never had a BOD meeting with 100% attendance. At least not since 1994 when I joined the Board. In other words, there are always a few, and sometimes more than a few, who don’t show up. I’m sure for all sorts of good reasons and I would never question those reasons. But, now we’re going to have ONE person – the President decide whether the reason given is a legitimate one or not. And I have to assume that if the reason given is not deemed to be legitimate, then there will be repercussions.

Is this really the kind of organization we want? Seems to me there have been lots of cases in the past where one person took control of an entire country and ran it as he deemed fit. Those experiments never ended in a good way. Yes, the IPS is just a small organization. It doesn’t change anything. Big or small, giving one individual the power to decide who is right and who is wrong is just not a very well thought out plan.

Where’s Plan B?

[bgl]

And one more issue (I know, I've probably used up my allowable air time long ago... ) - if there's an attempt to make BOD attendance mandatory, it would seem reasonable that this should be made clear to ALL Directors in a prompt way. Only those who are up for re-election in 2014 will receive the questionnaire and find out about this. So, the Directors who have a 2012-2016 term are presumably currently in the dark, unless they have logged in here and seen this thread. Seems to me they should be informed as well.

[Kim]

Last time I checked, no one could arbitrarily make a change in the By-Laws. This arbitrary, unilateral judgement is in direct conflict with Robert's Rules of Order* and is not acceptable.

Edit: or any other rules.

[Dr. George]

I would like to add some clarity to this thread.

I am a member of the Nominations Committee ("NC")and the Questionnaire was reviewed and approved by the NC prior to release.

It was deemed in the best interest of the IPS to make attendance at the annual meeting a requirement of all Directors unless excused by the President. The annual meeting is where the majority of the society's business is discussed and conducted. To miss the only meeting of the year is very problematic and can result in Directors who are uninformed of the facts of the matters discussed and voted upon to misrepresent the facts as recently occurred. The annual meetings are a pleasure to attend and the time spent together with the other Directors is very helpful and productive. I am pleased to see this surge of interest in the business of the IPS and look forward to a slate of qualified candidates who will work hard to advance the business of the IPS.

Jeffry - Without debating the merits of the proposed requirement, the requirements for serving as a Director are generally set out by an organization's governing documents, most generally the By-laws, and not by act of the nominating committee.

I am unable to find the IPS Charter or By-laws on the IPS website, but in review of the By-laws posted on this forum [IPS By-laws] it appears that the only requirement for a Director is to be a member of The Society in good standing for two years before being nominated (Article V, 3). In my review of Article VI Nominations and Elections, I see that each proposed nominee must fill out and return a questionnaire provided by the Secretary, but I do not see where the Nominating Committee is empowered with the authority to establish qualifications for Directors other than those outlined by the By-laws.

While making attendance at the annual meeting mandatory for Directors may or may not be a good thing, making it a requirement for nomination likely requires an amendment to the organization's governing documents before it can be implemented.

gmp

[Jerry@TreeZoo]

I want to remind people that a Board meeting and a Biennial are two different things. You can attend a Board meeting and not the Biennial, which is the costliest thing. You might say that it would sound silly to travel around the world and not attend the Biennial, but it has been done before and will in the future. You might have money, time or family constraints that prevent you from attending a week long convention but still be able to put in the full one day of the actual meeting.

So that $3000 to $4000 thing is a little inaccurate.

As far as attendance being mandated, with all due respect, the Nom Com does not have the ability or authority to mandate this.

[PALM MOD]

Warning!!!
This is an important discussion, and there have been some legitimate concerns and questions raised. But we have to limit it to that? Provocative language like "Big Brother" and references to a take over are not necessary or productive. Dr. George, in his post above, was respectfully seeking to be informed - without any innuendo - so it is possible.

I am not able to jump on every post immediately after it is posted. I can make it so every post has to be reviewed before posting - but what a pain for us all. Or I can just delete entire topics when even one post is out of line. So, if we are not able to discuss these complex issues in neutral tones, the victim is going to be informative discourse. And that would be a shame.

[_Keith]

Dean, no doubt you are paid to give these things more scrutiny than I am, and I do not dispute your accuracy, but I had to re-read this thread twice to find those terms. I think this has been a very respectful thread overall. There are many unanswered questions here posted by good people, IPS members and even Board members who care. The easiest way for any hint at disrespect to be diffused immediately would be a response from the Nominations Committee Chair or the President.

Perhaps you could forward this to them if they do not participate in PalmTalk, and relay their response.

[PALM MOD]

Dean, no doubt you are paid to give these things more scrutiny than I am, and I do not dispute your accuracy, but I had to read this thread twice to find those terms. I think this has been a very respectful thread overall. There are many unanswered questions here posted by good people, IPS members and even Board members who care. The easiest way for any hint at disrespect to be diffused immediately would be a response from the appropriate Nominations Committee Chair or the President.

Perhaps you could forward this to them if they do not participate in PalmTalk, and relay their response.

Keith, you are never going to experience the response time or get the answers that will make you completely satisfied - so I would temper your expectations. We all have lives. I have been attending to PT/IPS business for 10 of the last 11 hours, and I just got around to this thread.

I can tell you this - that as much as we would all like instant and personal attention to all our individual concerns, this is not the job the Directors signed on for. There are many things in the works to improve the communication between the BOD and the Members. And there are other items that also need attending to. So please, back off a bit, chill out, and give them a little bit of breathing room.

[realarch]

Why is this document being issued now? It seems pretty late in the game. The deadline for candidate submittal is Nov. 20 which is a little over a week from today. If language in the document

needs to be revised and the document reissued, the deadline either needs to be extended or maybe scrap the application all together for this go around.

Tim

[_Keith]

Why is this document being issued now? It seems pretty late in the game. The deadline for candidate submittal is Nov. 20 which is a little over a week from today. If language in the document

needs to be revised and the document reissued, the deadline either needs to be extended or maybe scrap the application all together for this go around.

Tim

Tim, that seems to be a very common sense approach.

[_Keith]

Dean, no doubt you are paid to give these things more scrutiny than I am, and I do not dispute your accuracy, but I had to read this thread twice to find those terms. I think this has been a very respectful thread overall. There are many unanswered questions here posted by good people, IPS members and even Board members who care. The easiest way for any hint at disrespect to be diffused immediately would be a response from the appropriate Nominations Committee Chair or the President.

Perhaps you could forward this to them if they do not participate in PalmTalk, and relay their response.

Keith, you are never going to experience the response time or get the answers that will make you completely satisfied - so I would temper your expectations. We all have lives. I have been attending to PT/IPS business for 10 of the last 11 hours, and I just got around to this thread.

I can tell you this - that as much as we would all like instant and personal attention to all our individual concerns, this is not the job the Directors signed on for. There are many things in the works to improve the communication between the BOD and the Members. And there are other items that also need attending to. So please, back off a bit, chill out, and give them a little bit of breathing room.

Dean, with all due respect, I have no "individual concerns." The thread above represents the concerns of many, including members of the current BOD. I did state that a response from the appropriate party could diffuse this immediately. This was not a request, but simply a statement. My apologies if that was misunderstood.

And actually, I think Leland did exactly that in another thread just a few minutes ago.

[Cindy Adair]

Why is this document being issued now? It seems pretty late in the game. The deadline for candidate submittal is Nov. 20 which is a little over a week from today. If language in the document

needs to be revised and the document reissued, the deadline either needs to be extended or maybe scrap the application all together for this go around.

Tim

Just to clarify and expand on Tim's point, the questionnaire part is to be completed and returned by November 15, not November 20. No weekend included which is perhaps a burden for those still working.

I understand the need for the Nominating committee to want all documentation in hand prior to the deadline especially with the goal of a final decision on candidates by November 28. However, potential nominees were given notice of the existence of the new questionnaire only mid day 11/11 allowing only a few days to provide a fair amount of information including an updated resume.

When I ran unsuccessfully for director 2 years ago, there was a request for a general biography to be in the Palms supplement containing the ballot, but no questionnaire was given to me. I was directed to look at the information posted under the directors' names in the IPS website. When I asked a director at that time I was told no questionnaire was in current use.

Also, it isn't clear if the resume requested should include sufficient detail as if the candidate were applying for a job or a "How I got interested in Palms" biography such as has been used on the last ballot information.

I have just written the nomination committee for clarification about the resume preference this year. Some applicants may not have updated a formal curriculum vitae in decades so that portion alone by 11/15 will take some time.

I do not envy the job of the nominating committee this year. What was probably very routine taking minimal time has likely expanded greatly this election cycle. Thanks for your time and efforts on behalf of the IPS.

[joe_OC]

Last time I checked, no one could arbitrarily make a change in the By-Laws. This arbitrary, unilateral judgement is in direct conflict with Robert's Rules of Order* and is not acceptable.

Edit: or any other rules.

Kim,

Are you saying that the new questionnaire conflicts with the IPS By-Laws? If that is the case, why use the questionnaire if it is not valid?

[bgl]

I take back my "Big Brother" reference. I should not let my personal feelings get in the way of more diplomatically worded comments here. Dean, thanks for pointing it out.

[George Sparkman]

I would be interested in seeing the entire questionnaire or is that for candidates only ?

I assume it would include the definition of the job and it's expectations.

So one has to be a member in good standing for two years and what else (excluding the issue of mandatory attendance at board meetings) ?

Is there not a document defining the job ?

[George Sparkman]

I am not trying to be difficult , it just seems normal to want to know something about a job before you decide if you might want to apply for it.

[George Sparkman]

I know it does not pay anything.........

[Mandrew968]

Not saying he'll run, but if I see a 'Sparkman' on my ballot, it's getting a big check--not a regular sized check, a big one!

[bgl]

I have just been informed (via email) by Larry Noblick that a corrected questionnaire will be sent out shortly, where the word "mandatory" is being replaced by "essential". It's very encouraging that this issue was addressed so promptly, and I am appreciative to all of those who have been instrumental in making this important correction.

Bo-Göran

[Kathryn]

I am new to the nominating committee this go around, but from what I understand a questionnaire has not been used in the past but was recently realized as a requirement in our bylaws. The nominating committee has been working via e-mail to finalize the questionnaire. I have been traveling with limited internet access and I missed the “mandatory” statement in the wording while reading on my phone. The attachment detailing director requirements has much clearer language. In addition, I don’t recall a decision by the nominating committee to make this a requirement.

To prevent spreading misinformation, I would hope one would address the respective committee or board of director with questions prior to stirring up the rest of the membership.

[LJG]

I am new to the nominating committee this go around, but from what I understand a questionnaire has not been used in the past but was recently realized as a requirement in our bylaws. The nominating committee has been working via e-mail to finalize the questionnaire. I have been traveling with limited internet access and I missed the “mandatory” statement in the wording while reading on my phone. The attachment detailing director requirements has much clearer language. In addition, I don’t recall a decision by the nominating committee to make this a requirement.

To prevent spreading misinformation, I would hope one would address the respective committee or board of director with questions prior to stirring up the rest of the membership.

Thanks Kathryn. I would hope the same. I am sure it makes your job easier.

[Cindy Adair]

I am new to the nominating committee this go around, but from what I understand a questionnaire has not been used in the past but was recently realized as a requirement in our bylaws. The nominating committee has been working via e-mail to finalize the questionnaire. I have been traveling with limited internet access and I missed the “mandatory” statement in the wording while reading on my phone. The attachment detailing director requirements has much clearer language. In addition, I don’t recall a decision by the nominating committee to make this a requirement.

To prevent spreading misinformation, I would hope one would address the respective committee or board of director with questions prior to stirring up the rest of the membership.

Kathryn,

I agree with your suggestion to contact the nominating committee before posting here and I did so. However, I didn't give nearly enough time for the nominating committee to reply to me before posting here.

I started with simply correcting the due date in a previous post to the 15th rather than the 20th for the questionnaire, which I did to be sure no one missed that deadline. I regret that I kept going with further comments rather than waiting for a reply off the forum first.

[PALM MOD]

I take back my "Big Brother" reference. I should not let my personal feelings get in the way of more diplomatically worded comments here. Dean, thanks for pointing it out.

Explanation accepted and appreciated.

[_Keith]

Perhaps I have missed the answer and if so I apologize for all that follows, but the question that has been asked of the president, the nominating committee and Larry Noblick both publicly and privately concerns the mandatory board meeting attendance. I have yet to hear a clear concise answer on its exact definition, how it would be enforced and its legitimacy. One person says this, another says that. Existing members of the BOD, more than one have questioned its legitimacy, even as vaguely and unofficially stated.

This is a very significant matter. It should be addressed publicly and definitively as an official communication to the membership from the president with the backing of the BOD. It is only this that has stirred up the membership. Well, that and the way the PM issue was handled, but the PM issue is not at the core of this thread, mandatory attendance is.

This answer should not only be easy, as with the nominating process underway these rules should already be in stone not being made on the fly, and readily available without having to be asked.

So, not to beat a dead horse I will not ask again. Neither I or anyone else should have to. Do as you may from here.

[PALM MOD]

Perhaps I have missed the answer and if so I apologize for all that follows, but the question that has been asked of the president, the nominating committee and Larry Noblick both publicly and privately concerns the mandatory board meeting attendance. I have yet to hear a clear concise answer on its exact definition, how it would be enforced and its legitimacy. One person says this, another says that. Existing members of the BOD, more than one have questioned its legitimacy, even as vaguely and unofficially stated.

This is a very significant matter. It should be addressed publicly and definitively as an official communication to the membership from the president with the backing of the BOD. It is only this that has stirred up the membership. Well, that and the way the PM issue was handled, but the PM issue is not at the core of this thread, mandatory attendance is.

This answer should not only be easy, as with the nominating process underway these rules should already be in stone not being made on the fly, and readily available without having to be asked.

So, not to beat a dead horse I will not ask again. Neither I or anyone else should have to. Do as you may from here.

As I understand it, the word "mandatory" has been replaced with "essential."

[_Keith]

Perhaps I have missed the answer and if so I apologize for all that follows, but the question that has been asked of the president, the nominating committee and Larry Noblick both publicly and privately concerns the mandatory board meeting attendance. I have yet to hear a clear concise answer on its exact definition, how it would be enforced and its legitimacy. One person says this, another says that. Existing members of the BOD, more than one have questioned its legitimacy, even as vaguely and unofficially stated.

This is a very significant matter. It should be addressed publicly and definitively as an official communication to the membership from the president with the backing of the BOD. It is only this that has stirred up the membership. Well, that and the way the PM issue was handled, but the PM issue is not at the core of this thread, mandatory attendance is.

This answer should not only be easy, as with the nominating process underway these rules should already be in stone not being made on the fly, and readily available without having to be asked.

So, not to beat a dead horse I will not ask again. Neither I or anyone else should have to. Do as you may from here.

As I understand it, the word "mandatory" has been replaced with "essential."

Dean, I do not question your accuracy, however the last official communication I have has not made that replacement. If it is indeed, I look forward to receiving it through the nomination communications point, Mr. Noblick.