[NA-Discuss] Changes to OP

[Thompson, Darlene]

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 at gov.nu.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at 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