|
Grex > Coop13 > #36: Grex Board of Director’s Meeting 11/25/03 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 82 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 38 of 82:
| 
Dec 2 03:22 UTC 2003 |
#24..."the by-laws requier voice participation" Then I think the bylaws
conflict with state law and need to be amended. If the bylaws require voice
participation, you make it impossible for anyone who is deaf to participate
(and grex has had deaf users before btw)
|
richard
|
|
response 39 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:26 UTC 2003 |
and by state law I mean laws prohibiting discrimination...if grex's bylaws
require "voice participation", is it not specifically disallowing text
participation by those who might want to participate and who are deaf or hard
of hearing? Grex should amend the bylaws to allow any participation
acceptable by the board as "live" participation, be it by voice, or by text,
or by sign language, or .etc
|
richard
|
|
response 40 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:34 UTC 2003 |
why not change the bylaws from:
d. The BOD shall hold face-to-face meetings on a regular,
if he or she can, via a telephone or other electronic system,
hear and be heard by all the other attendees
TO
d. The BOD shall hold meetings on a regular basis, either face to face if
possible, or via a telephone or other electronic system that the board is
unanimously willing to accept as "live" participation. All other
attendees must be able to hear or have access to the text of comments of
those members who are not physically present.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 41 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:46 UTC 2003 |
Wow mary! Thanks for following up. Looks like you've been really busy. I'm
sure everyone appreciates it.
I don't think a private channel is a good idea. Especially if the person on
party is going to get someone's interpretation of what's happenning in a
couple of lines. It's easy enough to vote, but my interpretation of the
minutes is that there is a lot of discussion, and by having one person on
text, you're limiting his contribution to the meeting. (Also what he gets out
of the meeting till he reads the inutes, and even then he'll prolly miss much
of the discussion. )
|
gelinas
|
|
response 42 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:54 UTC 2003 |
What's that telephone system for the deaf? TTD? TDD? Rather common in the
US, I've heard. So the 'voice' limitation is no where near as restricting
as Richard opines.
This issue was discussed and decided may be a year ago. Do you have any thing
*new* to offer, Richard?
|
richard
|
|
response 43 of 82:
|
Dec 2 03:58 UTC 2003 |
good points mynx, but doesn't change the fact that by requring voice
participation you are effectively discriminating against potential members
who are not deaf. Their comments could not be "heard" by the other members
unless the other members knew sign language, or that member wrote his/her
comments down. And how would writing down the comments down be different than
typing them on the screen. I think a deaf user could sue Grex in court for
the right to run for the board, in spite of being in violation of the bylaw
requiring the other members to be able to hear their comments, and win.
The courts would probably require Grex to allow non-oral participat ion
|
gelinas
|
|
response 44 of 82:
|
Dec 2 04:05 UTC 2003 |
They would only win if there were damages: if it could be shown that their
failure of election was directly related to their disability. Since, to the
best of my knowledge, none have run, none have standing to sue.
|
richard
|
|
response 45 of 82:
|
Dec 2 04:42 UTC 2003 |
no, they'd win if they were elected to the board and then not seated because
they informed the board they were deaf and could not participate orally. OR
if they indicated a desire to run and were not allowed on the ballot because
they indicated they were unable to participate orally. Grex is a non-profit
and to maintain that non-profit status, Grex cannot discriminate, and its
bylaws cannot allow discrimination. If the bylaws have as a membership
requirement a rule that precludes the participation of any users due to their
own physical limitations, that would be against the law.
An online chat is a LIVE communication. So long as a member agrees to bring
a laptop and communicate online to members not physically present, why is this
an issue? Grex's problems aren't so complex that text participation need be
precluded
|
gelinas
|
|
response 46 of 82:
|
Dec 2 04:44 UTC 2003 |
Richard, your claims presuppose taht an elected director would not be seated.
What evidence can you offer that such would happen?
|
keesan
|
|
response 47 of 82:
|
Dec 2 05:01 UTC 2003 |
The two deaf people I know read lips well and also speak pretty well.
|
richard
|
|
response 48 of 82:
|
Dec 2 06:24 UTC 2003 |
the evidence is the bylaws. the bylaws say they cannot serve on the board
if the other members can't "hear" what they are saying
|
keesan
|
|
response 49 of 82:
|
Dec 2 10:00 UTC 2003 |
Why worry about this if nobody deaf is currently running for office?
|
willcome
|
|
response 50 of 82:
|
Dec 2 11:31 UTC 2003 |
I'm going to picket Grex.
|
aruba
|
|
response 51 of 82:
|
Dec 2 13:47 UTC 2003 |
Geez, Richard, you really can blow things out of proportion.
The bylaw is not meant to discriminate, and I have absolutely no doubt
that if a deaf person was elected to the board, the board would find a way
for him or her to participate. (And this issue was discussed at the time
the amendment was voted on.)
The reason I insisted on the "hear and be heard" phrasing was:
1) Trying to have a meeting in which people participated textually would
be very slow and very tedious, and it would be very hard to get anything
done.
2) It's been my observation over the years that Grexers who interact in
person do so much more civilly and productively than those who only
interact online. This has to do with voice tones, body language, and
general realization that the person you're dealing with is real, not just
pixels on the screen or an automated responder. It was worth giving up
the body language to allow remote board members to participate, but not
worth giving up the whole package, IMO.
Anyone's welcome to propose an amendment to the "hear and be heard"
amendment, of course. But keep in mind that it passed by the minimum
margin.
|
jp2
|
|
response 52 of 82:
|
Dec 2 13:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 53 of 82:
|
Dec 2 15:00 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:37: Even my boss, who is a determined Microsoft-hater, likes MS
Internet Messenger's voice chat feature.
Re resp:38: I think if you want to pursue this, you should probably
create another item for discussing the bylaw change.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 54 of 82:
|
Dec 2 15:56 UTC 2003 |
I'm with aruba on this one. Richard, you're being extremely nit-picky.
Even if you're not happy with the "heard and be heard" clause, we
could change it to "through lip-reading or by sign language". I think
this would satisfy everyone. If the deaf person happens to be a remote
user, he can have an interpreter who can sign him and talk into the
phone. I view this like the problem with long distance charges. If a
remote member wants to be on board, they need to come up with the
phone charges.
I don't think holding the board meeting through text is a viable option
|
scg
|
|
response 55 of 82:
|
Dec 2 18:55 UTC 2003 |
Presumably if there's somebody who actually needs to meet via text due to some
sort of disability, the board will be reasonable and will make accomodations.
|
willcome
|
|
response 56 of 82:
|
Dec 2 20:40 UTC 2003 |
That doesn't mean the by-laws aren't discriminatory.
|
tod
|
|
response 57 of 82:
|
Dec 2 23:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 58 of 82:
|
Dec 3 12:51 UTC 2003 |
Zing's is fine with us using their public wireless network.
Unfortunately, we won't be able to hook up to a POTS line from
any room at Zing's.
The simplest way of connecting a remote board member would be for Grex to
purchase a $30 speaker telephone and have the remote user call us using
his mega or unlimited minutes. But this would mean we'd need to move our
meetings to one of our homes, most likely. I could live with that but I'd
like to hear what others think.
If we find a cheap used laptop, or if one was donated to Grex, then we
could stay at Zing's and use their network. Zing's can make no promise as
to network uptime. They are offering this as a courtesy. I expect there
would be times when we'd find it's not working - and we'd need to be
understanding.
|
keesan
|
|
response 59 of 82:
|
Dec 3 13:03 UTC 2003 |
We own several speaker telephones that grex could use, and Kiwanis has more.
Why waste $30 on a new one?
|
gull
|
|
response 60 of 82:
|
Dec 3 14:24 UTC 2003 |
Keep in mind that any speaker phone in the $30 range will be half
duplex. That means any time anyone in the room is talking (or there's
any other noise) the speaker will be muted and the person at the other
end won't be able to be heard. I've found this type of speakerphone
worse than useless in anything but a totally quiet environment.
|
tod
|
|
response 61 of 82:
|
Dec 3 17:18 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 62 of 82:
|
Dec 3 19:59 UTC 2003 |
I've heard the same thing David has about half-duplex phones. Why does it
cost more for a full-duplex one?
|