DSS summary and question

[Onefarmgirl@aol.com]

I'm motivated to continue to beat this issue a bit more.   Why?   Because I 
LOVE Donna's columns - consider them some of the best actual 'meat' in EN 
(apologies in advance to you vegetarians). 

So, to recap, the highly unofficial unscientific RC message is that the board 
has made a significant error in judgement.    With the exception of Bob 
Morris, who rightly points out that we don't give enough to credit to ALL the 
folks who contribute their time the AERC, the sentiment is almost entirely in 
the direction of reconsidering this decision.   Only exceptions that I could 
see were:

1) a few of the board members, including Randy Eiland, Terry Wooley Howe and 
Barb McCrary have written to explain why the board made decision that it did: 
 the need for financial integrity (as they perceived, by following "good 
business practices")

2)  several folks (including Janet Benke, the illustrious Susan Garlinghouse 
and our wonderful Angie McGhee) have noted that the board should apply any 
policy equitably amongst authors.

Meanwhile, Becky Huffman notes that DSS's articles represent the quality we 
SHOULD be willing to pay for.   The wonderful Angie McGhee, certainly 
experienced in these matters, notes how much time and effort goes into 
creating a decent articles, especially on an obligatory basis, and thinks 
"the board is making a mistake".   Roger Rittenhouse notes that the BOD "has 
made an error", and Teddy Lancaster and Truman both quickly agree.  Roberta 
Jo Lieberman, who seems to have some very relevant experience notes that 
trade outs are standard industry practice, and asks the board to reconsider.  
  And so on and so forth.

I totally understand that the BOD can't poll the members on every business 
decision - we'd go nowhere fast.    What a contentious group we are 
sometimes!!    And I totally respect their time, dedication, and efforts 
(remember, I was the one who supported some financial recompense or beni's 
for directors who travel AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE to meetings to discuss how to 
make this a better organization for our benefit).   But in a case like this, 
I sure would like to feel as if the board is listening to the membership.   

Please give this a re-think folks.    Meanwhile, I am standing by for the 
"lots of good articles"  that don't have to be paid for (referenced by Terry) 
and the "many excellent articles" Randy notes.   I have yet to see anything 
of the quality that Donna, Susan, and Angie offer.

sure hope I haven't misquoted anyone - if so, I'm sure I'll hear about it  :-)

pat farmer