[NCUC-EC] Ballots

[Tapani Tarvainen]

I already got a message from Mary about suggested
replacement as Franklin rep.

Tapani

On Nov 16 16:52, Carlos A. Afonso (ca at cafonso.ca) wrote:

> Mary will help us to solve this riddle, I assume.
> 
> sent from a dumbphone
> 
> > On 16/11/2013, at 15:57, Edward Morris <egmorris100 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Bill, rest assured I didn't identify who I was or where I was from. I was just got the name of the person now in charge of the Center, determined she was gone for the weekend and reported back to everyone. My assumption is the membership goes with the institution and not the individual. I was trying to be helpful but certainly would not have done anything affirmative without the consent of all involved. I just didn't like the idea of dropping an institutional member because our contact there is gone.
> > 
> > 
> >> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 6:49 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> FWIW she was shocked and taken aback that the school had been called.  As I said,  she's way out of there.
> >> 
> >> BD
> >> 
> >>> On Nov 16, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Probably best to ask Mary – cold-calling an institution and asking them whether they want to remain a member of NCUC (what’s that?) sounds like a way to waste a lot of time on both ends of the call. Mary can tell us who to contact and advise on the possibility of whether they will continue or not
> >>>  
> >>> From: ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris
> >>> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 3:19 PM
> >>> To: Tapani Tarvainen; NCUC EC
> >>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] Ballots
> >>>  
> >>> Actually, would anyone object to me calling them and seeing if anybody wants to maintain/ know anything about  the membership?
> >>>  
> >>> 
> >>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 15 17:05, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> > Actually, while one doesn’t like to lose org members, I think
> >>> > realistically it might be advisable to drop them.
> >>> 
> >>> Incidentally, our bylaws don't seem to provide for that...
> >>> 
> >>> > See what she recommends, but she's way out of there, and it didn’t
> >>> > sound like there’s anyone left to support a continuing affiliation
> >>> > (not to mention that it’s sort of for profit…).
> >>> 
> >>> OK. If she replies I'll report back here,
> >>> but for now I'll set their rep as "unknown" and mark
> >>> them as inactive (which will drop them from the ballot, too).
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>> Tapani Tarvainen