Dear Jim, I tried to respond to you off-list but the mail was bounced back
to me because your mailbox was full. Consequently, I'm responding to you
on-list in order to make sure that your concerns get addressed. I'm sorry
to hear that you have been so frustrated in your dealings with SDS. I think
the troubles you have encountered require very particular answers which
I've tried to provide below. If you have complaints it's best to let the
office, the board, or the executive officer know about them. Otherwise we
cannot respond adequately.
At 04:20 PM 2000-05-14 -0400, you wrote:
>After a year of being a "member" of SDS, I am left wondering of this is
>an open organisation along the lines of it's advertising -- or if it is
>more like some sort of 2-part concentric arrangement in which an "Outer
>Ring" of what might be called "members without connections" provide
>economic support and an audience, and the legitimacy of larger
>numbers... for an "Inner Circle" of a dozen or two highly connected
>individuals who, alone, are granted the right of real participation.
*I'm sorry to hear that you have encountered 2 committees that haven't
adequately responded to your offer of volunteer labor. I know that every
committee can use the help. However, we cannot force committees to be
productive no matter how much we try to stay on top of them. Ironically,
this year has been one of the most productive and busy years for a number
of committees: different committees have drafted a new mission statement,
raised substantial funding, revised the organization's bylaws for vote,
compiled a data-base for press contacts, updated and publicized all
finances, sent out a series of press statements for the annual meeting, and
devised a policy position procedure. All of the committees have performed
their duties (and then some) to the best of their ability -- with the
exception of a few. Serious and tangible reasons exist for the lack of
follow-up by one committee, but I hesitate to post these on an
international discussion list-serve. Perhaps you would consider co-chairing
one of the committees that you refer to next year in order to make sure
this situation does not occur again.
>
>The group claims to not have sufficient volunteer labor available, to
>even do such basic things as post on it's website a history of what it
>has presented in it's 2 major activities (conferences & journals)....
>and yet it's web-site, and it's extremely rare e-mails or snail-mail
>envelopes, do NOT contain any invitations for people to volunteer.
>Hmmmmm.
*Yes, all committees thrive on volunteer labor and I can't imagine any of
them turning down help. As you point out the program looks excellent this
year and most of our labor goes into organizing and arranging the annual
meeting. This aspect of the Society's duties involves the lion's share of
time for 5 of the full committees: program, access & arrangements,
financial, membership, and nominations -- not to mention the work done by
the national office (and also the publicity sub-committee). The web-site
has really been a problem this year because our one member who updates it
has been trying to finish her dissertation and we don't have a back-up (if
you know how to update websites please let me know and the office can put
you to work right away). Our secretary has had all minutes ready for
posting, as are committee reports. Your final contention is untrue: there
is an open request for volunteers to help with the annual meeting that went
out with the conference registration packet.
>
>I have tried to get involved with 2 advertised SDS committees, only to
>find that essentially, NEITHER really exists, outside of one "connected"
>person having been designated as the "Chairperson", whose actual
>activity in that position seems to boil down to basically nothing. The
>one whose description sounds like the more important Committee for an
>org. to have, seems to have never had any meetings, and merely tells
>people who volunteer "We'll get back to you, someday."
Again, sorry to hear this. Please let me know who has said this to you and
in what context. I'll be the first to follow-up on the matter.
<cut>
>
>I have no way to even find out what the themes or lists of articles in
>past Journals have been (the button on the web-site offering that info,
>leads to a dead end)... and when I ask "What stores sell the Journal?"
>so I can finally see it, I am told "We'll get back to you on that." (and
>then, they don't.) Obviously, it's impossible to intelligently invest
>time in trying to write something for the Journal, if you've never been
>able to even see a copy..... and I'll be damned if I will pay twice for
>whatever issues may have been published during my first year of
>membership. (Now they recently flip-flopped again, saying "membership"
>will again include the subscription; but a year ago that turned out to
>be a lie; is it now to be beleived?)
*It has only been since 2000 that DSQ was approved by the board to be a
privilege of membership. This was not the case in previous years and if you
didn't receive copies you were due please let us know and we'll get them
right out to you. I agree with David's responses to the other issues you
raise regarding DSQ. He has done yeoman's service this year trying to get
everything up to date in spite of numerous set backs and difficulties. My
understanding is that we are largely back on schedule and I received my
recent issue in the mail today.
>
>It all adds up to creating the IMPRESSION, (right or wrong) of a small
>group of entrenched control-freaks, who do not actually do enough
>volunteer work to make the complete list of the group's advertised
>activities (outside of the one annual event) actually function.... but
>who also do NOT seem to want to open things up, enough, to bring in
>enough volunteers to get the (non-conference) work done.
*This seems unwarranted -- control freaks would be more openly overbearing
and discouraging of your efforts. I think you must be referring to the
failure of a particular committee to follow-up with you but this hardly
amounts to an exclusionary organizational structure. The Society is working
to become as transparent as possible but the move to attain this goal is
complex and time consuming. I assure you that no one in the organization
that I know of is interested in exclusion -- just the opposite. The biggest
problem in the organization is finding people who can devote the kind of
time it takes to pursue and finalize tasks. For most members the
organization often takes a backseat to their primary field of study and/or
full-time job. This is an unfortunate fact that sometimes leads to
undesirable delays.
<cut>
>
>Every question seems to get either lost in "We'll get back to you..." or
>gets referred to yet another "Committee Of One" which then entails
>another e-mail, another follow up, when that other person "yesses" and
>the promised follow up never comes... etc., etc.,ad nauseum, in order to
>ultimately get no real info, or no real access. Eventually one just
>gives up, because how much time can you waste on this sort of thing?
>
>To illustrate that point -- I recently received a Board Election packet
>(only the 2nd envelope received in 12 months of Membership).... and due
>to the extreme difficulty of access to even the most basic information
>about the internal workings & policy options within the group.... I
>have absolutely NO idea of what any of the Candidates' Statements are
>talking about. They all fall short of spitting out any real specifics,
>and rely on what is either diplomatic vagueness, insider "code words",
>or maybe both.
>
>One Board candidate promises to work to "restore" the org. to the way it
>was when it started. But (typical of nearly all of the candidates'
>statements) she gives absolutely no specific info about what that means;
>so, apparently either you're an "old insider with connections" who
>already knows what that means, or "Tough luck!".
>The occasional lip-service given to "opening it up",
>"multi-disciplinary" interest, and "diversity"... seem to be at odds
>with nearly everything (except this year's conference programming,
>which looks great) -- about how the organization actually operates.
*SDS does not interfere in the statements of board candidates. If you find
a statement unhelpful or vague I would suggest you locate another
candidate. If you're dissatisfied with all of the candidates I would
suggest that you run for a slot and write a more acceptable statement
according to your own tastes. In my opinion, this year's slate of
candidates is one of the strongest we've had in years and the statements
reflect the wide range of interests that comprise the organization.
<cut>
>
>SDS could start some basic "Glasnost" by deleting from it's web site and
>brochures, those Commitees / activities / services which it does NOT
>actually operate or provide.
*Yes, perhaps committees that don't perform their work should be
discontinued but I would assume that there is a good reason for the
inefficiency or lack of responsiveness. I'd rather this were not so but
sometimes a committee will fail to come through on its duties. As David P
pointed out in his response regarding DSQ, there are often very good
reasons why individuals find themselves falling behind despite their best
intentions.
As far as "glasnost" is concerned we are in the process of posting minutes
of the board meetings and calling for membership votes on urgent matters
such as the mission statement, bylaws revisions, and policy procedures. We
have the most responsive and efficient national office in the history of
the organization given its present size and complexity. We have also sent
out more mailings (e-mail and snail mail) since the last meeting than ever
before. While I worry about your own frustrations in dealing with a couple
of committees, I am even more worried about the morale of all of the people
who participate in SDS when their contributions go unrecognized or are
misunderstood. Sincerely, David Mitchell, President, Society for Disability
Studies.
David T. Mitchell, Associate Professor
English Department
Northern Michigan University
Marquette, Michigan 49855
906-227-2704 (office)
906-249-1403 (home)
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
