CCDL 3rd Business Meeting 14 April 2009

imported post

It's great that we are getting all of this organized, but we are putting the cart before the horse in some cases. All of this activity well and good, but we have to get legally recognized before we can do alot of this stuff. Getting more members is good, but we must be able to tell them what we are about and we all have a vague idea, but nothing concrete. We must be established before we can even start worrying about approaching legislators. We do not want come across as a loose confederation, but as professional, well run advocacy group. The Rogers Rangers did a fine job, but it was the Continental Army that finally did the British in.

Also remember that not everyone can access the internet during the day. Alot of the discussion aqbout our mission statement was discussed during the day today. This excluded alot of people who may have wanted input into the statement.. While I think it is a very good statement and puts forth our goals and objectives well, it really should be discussed at a meeting without having been defacto approved here.

Alot of good intentions, but there is alot that still needs to be done before we should expand, or incur any more expenditures for our members. If we are professional and organized the membership will come as will the legislative clout we want.

Just my .02¢

imported post

I really thought that for the time being that this forum was the best place for us, since other people use this site and we get exposure for our group here.

My real concern is that we did discuss the web name/domain nameat the meeting, and I thought that there was a vote on it.

Maybe the new domains can redirect to CCDL.US

imported post

Agreed Protector. And that is whyI personally felt a waiting period of at least a few days is hopefully appropriate andsufficient. If it is not, please take time to offer input like you are doing now and letme or whomeverknow if you have different thoughts, or alternate"Mission Statements" in mind. I am glad you object to the process, as it is Ira and nothing is final till we speak our minds, and vote on it as a group.

I will put the brakes on trying to move forward some till we hear more. And maybe we should change the process up a bit...

Food for thought: Voted on and Agreed upon "Ad-Hoc" members to author key items relevant to our cause... Just an idea thatmay help us expedite things..

The Ad-Hoc members can arrange the communication times, places andmeans to work with each other. Thoughts?

imported post

Protector wrote:

It's great that we are getting all of this organized, but we are putting the cart before the horse in some cases. All of this activity well and good, but we have to get legally recognized before we can do alot of this stuff. Getting more members is good, but we must be able to tell them what we are about and we all have a vague idea, but nothing concrete. We must be established before we can even start worrying about approaching legislators. We do not want come across as a loose confederation, but as professional, well run advocacy group. The Rogers Rangers did a fine job, but it was the Continental Army that finally did the British in.

Also remember that not everyone can access the internet during the day. Alot of the discussion aqbout our mission statement was discussed during the day today. This excluded alot of people who may have wanted input into the statement.. While I think it is a very good statement and puts forth our goals and objectives well, it really should be discussed at a meeting without having been defacto approved here.

Alot of good intentions, but there is alot that still needs to be done before we should expand, or incur any more expenditures for our members. If we are professional and organized the membership will come as will the legislative clout we want.

Just my .02¢

Click to expand...

I did offer the sameinput about some members not being available on here during the day, as so there have been no decisions made on the wording as of yet, or anyhting else for that matter.

We need discussion time on here and I think that this will allow us to concentrate on things that can be discussed here and then just finalized at the meetings where time is precious. At the rate of 1 meeting a month we are looking at 24hrs a year of face time with most of the members. At that rate it will take a year just to get this launched properly.

I really believe that a lot can be accomplished on the forum. The mission statement is something that we can hash out here and finish it here, and then just vote on the final draft at the meeting, thus keepingit open and up frontto the membership that do not actively particpate on the forum but who do show up to the meetings.

imported post




Well will you be able to attend on the 14th Army2000? you may play a vital role...

imported post

Protector wrote:

It's great that we are getting all of this organized, but we are putting the cart before the horse in some cases. All of this activity well and good, but we have to get legally recognized before we can do alot of this stuff. Getting more members is good, but we must be able to tell them what we are about and we all have a vague idea, but nothing concrete. We must be established before we can even start worrying about approaching legislators. We do not want come across as a loose confederation, but as professional, well run advocacy group. The Rogers Rangers did a fine job, but it was the Continental Army that finally did the British in.

Also remember that not everyone can access the internet during the day. Alot of the discussion aqbout our mission statement was discussed during the day today. This excluded alot of people who may have wanted input into the statement.. While I think it is a very good statement and puts forth our goals and objectives well, it really should be discussed at a meeting without having been defacto approved here. ....

Click to expand...

Personnally, I like the idea of a loose confederation, but yes, we must also be a professional, well run advocacy group. CCDLMUST be rock solid on its purpose, but I would like to seeindividualsstepping up in the name of CCDLto lead the charge with or without a centralized CCDL effort. However, I do agree that we must be legally established before anyone acts in the name of CCDL. We don't want anywackos out there tarnishing our name before we even get off the ground.

As far as the internet goes....it is a discussion forum only, I think we can work and refineissues here, but final decisions must be made at the physical meetings. Our mission statement is not complete until it is voted on. I agree again, no exclusion of members!

(And of course....all this is only my opinion)

imported post

This forum can be good place to bring up, and banter about things to be discussed at the meetings.That being said substantive debates about things such as the mission statement,bylaws, etc.should be reserved for the meetings. I agree there is notmuch time at the meetings to discuss a wide range of topics, so we do need to be selective about what is discussed atwhich meeting.

I like Scott's idea of the Ad-Hoc groups. They can debate things among themselves, come to a conclusion and present it to the membership at large for debate and vote. If it fails, they can continue on with the input gathered at the meeting and then re-present at the following meeting. Many other organizations have committees that meet independent of the main body and then report to the main body at the monthly meeting.

It always takes time to organize any group, if we rush getting our foundation we can wind up having to come back and revisiting basic topics later, and that could be detrimental to our cause.

I don't think we should have just anybody be able to say stuff in our name. While we may agree with what they are saying, if we have too many messages out at one time their impact will be diluted, and we will appear as though we are all over the map. I think any statements made upon behalf of CCDL should be co-ordinated in some fashion, be it either by the executive board (once elected) or by the membership at large, or by whomever we appoint as our PR person/group.

imported post

Right on Ira!! I am too tired to formulate a cognitive path to offer at the moment, so It is lights out for me...

imported post

Ad-Hoc groups are a great idea for the future. But at the present we must be realistic, we are about 12 real members strong. Out of that 12 about 6 or 7 are being vocal with input here or in the emails or even in the meetings. These are the first few steps of a potentially big group. When our founding fathers started it all they did not open every item to a vote for the entire population. They did what they thought was best and later opened the floor to changes, also known as amendments.

The basics of this group can be hashed out by the few for the good of the many.

In my humble opinion

imported post

For what it's worth:

It is my strong feeling that the upcoming meeting should focus on just two items:

1. Election of Interim Officers

1a) Discussion of necessary information to register with SOS, including

aphysicalstreet address, which is required and where all legal papers must be

kept on file.

1b) Discussion/adoption of the Bylaws proposed by Justin at the last meeting.

(This would greatly aid in directing who will do what and when)



2. Discussion/adoption of Mission Statement, which should be succinct, professional.

As I stated in my earlier e-mail it will be the first thing people will see if they look

us up, and we want to be taken seriously. A legislator is not going to waste time

if they think we are just a bunch of nuts or loose cannons.



I believe if we could get through these items we will have accomplished a tremendous amount and will have more solid footing to proceed on by the May meeting. It will, after all take a bit of time to get the paper work filed, and we can't open a bank account without the paperwork, which precludes soliciting at large donations for the moment.

imported post

Well folks, we need a way forward through the matter at hand with regards to what we have done with the nearly proposed Mission Statement that has been crafted over the last few days.

If there are objections to what has been accomplished so far,and no one offers alternative Mission Statement proposals soon, then the next meeting will bebogged down with lots ofdiscussion on this matter,therefore taking time from modifying Bylaws that should be the focus of thewhole of the body that will be present.

As far as it being too soon for Ad-Hoc committees, all we need to do is vote on two or three existing members to work with each other on-line, or over the phone exactly as we have done over the last few days building the mission statement.

Same process, except the people are voted in to work with each other.