[SBU Board] Our Contribution to Seattle NextGenBridge

[JC (TsuKata)]

I mostly want to +1 on Kim's comments.  While there is nothing in this
compromise that I would not have voted to approve had it been presented
this clearly and succinctly at the initial meeting, I am concerned about
the precedent and practice of how this has happened.  Part of the reason we
put so many controls on the funding is that Anne Farmer has a history of
re-allocating the board's funding without communication and because the
initial proposal we got from Anne was so unclear.

That having been said, it is entirely reasonable for NextGenBridge to come
back with an alternate proposal for a vote given logistics and/or improved
information, but we're now without a meeting to do that motion and handle
it in the way we need to do via by-laws, right?  Don't we have to have an
in person meeting and quorum to approve this or do the by-laws allow for us
to have an adjunct via email?

If we can't handle this properly within our by-laws, I think we need to
stick with the dollar amounts we allocated.  We can contribute the amount
allocated for an award, which Anne and/or NGB can add to as they see fit to
get to the awards Anne intends to distribute and/or add to the awards that
Anne wants to distribute.  We can contribute the amount allocated for
need-based travel expenses.

Thanks,
JC


On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Eng, Kim <Keng at forestridge.org> wrote:

> I have to admit I am a little confused. I am not clear why we as a board
> vote on a proposal and agree what we want to do, and then Anne decides that
> she wants to do something different. And we let her.
>
>
>
> This is bridge. There aren’t 4 winners. There are 2.
>
>
>
> To be clear, I am sorry John, that you and the others on the next gen
> board have to deal with this craziness. But, how are we going to stop the
> craziness if we let it happen?
>
>
>
> As a matter of policy, I am uncomfortable with the board approving one
> number and then a subset of members agreeing to a different number. This is
> true no matter what the money is going to.
>
>
>
> Does this mean that we are only offering $600 as a financial scholarship
> instead of $750? I get that Anne thinks there is only one family that may
> need it this year. What about the following years?
>
>
>
> I would much prefer giving Seattle Unit money to kids in need and not
> pretending that there are 4 winners.
>
>
>
> Clearly I’m frustrated. Probably not half as frustrated as you were, John,
> during the phone call.
>
>
>
> Kim
>
>
>
> *From:* Sbuboard [mailto:sbuboard-bounces+kimen=
> forestridge.org at mailman.celestial.com] *On Behalf Of *John
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:34 PM
> *To:* Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> *Subject:* [SBU Board] Our Contribution to Seattle NextGenBridge
>
>
>
> Greetings, all!
>
>
>
> As we decided at our board meeting this week, I called Anne Farmer to work
> out the details for our contribution to the kids in her group.
>
> As always seems to be the case in this relationship, things did not go
> entirely smoothly or as expected.
>
> But I think we have worked out a resolution which will satisfy just about
> everybody.
>
>
>
> As you recall, Anne is running the end-of-season tournament for her kids
> on May 6.
>
> Our intention was to give $125 cash to each member of the winning pair.
>
>
>
> Her organization is also taking some of the kids in the group to the Youth
> NABCs in Washington D.C.
>
> We offered to pay up to $750 total to kids who could demonstrate to our
> satisfaction that they needed the subsidy.
>
>
>
> Here is what has developed since then.
>
> At the tournament May 6, there will be four winners – a North-South pair,
> and an East-West pair.
>
> Also, Anne wants to award an Amazon gift card of $100 to each of the
> winners.
>
>
>
> As to travel to D.C., she expects a total of four kids to go, all from the
> McClure Middle School.
>
> Of those, she thinks three of the families are financially
> self-sufficient; and only one kid needs a partial subsidy to be able to go.
>
> Anne says she is prepared to pay that subsidy herself (or maybe it is
> Seattle NextGenBridge money).
>
>
>
> She and I discussed it (at some length!); and here is what we worked out,
> subject to your approval.
>
> We propose that the Unit buy the four Amazon gift cards, for a total of
> $400.
>
> Patti, or Ann Romeo, will be present at the tournament, and will award
> those prizes to the four winners, on behalf of the Unit.
>
> Travel subsidies will be totally up to Anne Farmer and NextGenBridge.
>
>
>
> I have discussed this proposed resolution with Tim, and with Patti and Ann
> Romeo.
>
> Patti, Ann and I are the members of our Unit board who are also members of
> the board of Seattle NextGenBridge.
>
> The four of this are agreeable to this resolution – although I think all
> of us are a little frustrated as to the bumpy road which led to it.
>
>
>
> The purpose of this e-mail is to see if any of the other members of the
> Unit board object to this resolution.
>
> If so, please “reply to all” this weekend.
>
> But if I don’t hear any prompt objections from anyone, I will let Anne
> know that this will be the arrangement.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> John W.
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160417/2cc9a43e/attachment.html>