<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">On Feb 3, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; ">But if you really think it is constructive to propose cutting off the small amount of funds required to finish this project, please make that motion openly and explicitly and see if you can get other NCUC members to support that. Keep in mind that you are accountable to the membership for your decisions.</span></blockquote></div><br><div>I support funding but improving it. That said, the decision to undertake the project was not approved by the membership. There was no discussion of we have $5k and let's think about the best thing we can do with it for outreach. In fact, in the four + years I've been in NCUC, I can think of very few decisions of any note, including with regard to expenditures, that have been discussed and cleared with the membership. So to try to pressure the current EC on a decision by asserting a new requirement to get approval from the general membership is, sorry, disingenuous. </div><div><br></div><div>Actually, part of the broader debate that's influenced the video discussion is precisely about establishing processes that are transparent and accountable. People are saying instead of decisions being made by a couple friends talking to each other and no readily accessible paper trail, we should follow structured group processes, have publicly transparent list decisions and account management, etc. We can't run NCUC like an off the books family business because future ECs and members will cycle in and, if they intend to do more than be names on paper, face the same dilemmas of not be able to figure out where info is what was done about xyz via what process, etc. Putting mechanisms in place now will help to establish institutional memory and reduce transaction and information costs for everyone going forward. It will also strengthen our political claims viz e.g. CSG to be angelically practicing what we preach re: good governance.</div><div><br></div><div>Which, BTW, reminds me: prior to LA I was barked at for being naive because I said we could call attention to the discrepancy between our practices and those of CSG with respect to good governance, and leverage the norms for our benefit. Turns out it wasn't too naive. We drew Fadi's attention to the gulf between NCSG and CSG and he was visibly taken aback, asked us to give him something in writing, and said he'd look into hiring Transparency International to assess relevant practices and make recs. Also had a lovely moment when I asked IPC in full meeting about their utter lack of transparency and they sputtered about their secret membership and list etc. </div><div><br></div><div>Process is good. Let's build and follow it, it helps internally and externally.</div><div><br></div></body></html>