As MaryLisa pointed out at the end of another thread... not many folks subscribe to the MDGA list serve and that because of this, she feels this is a better forum, since the viewership is larger. For those who many not know, MDGA just sent tis members notice that the organization is not longer a sole proprietorship and is instead a non-profit. MDGA sent all of its members a copy of their new bylaws. Over the last few days, there has been a bit of flurry on the list serve regarding the bylaws, I have been a part of that discussion. In the interest of wanting to broaden the discussion, I provide below a copy of the last post I made to the list serve yesterday evening. *********************************************** I think the conversation the last day or so has been helpful for me to frame in my mind the concerns I have... They all boil down to a codified process. Brenda gives an example of getting an exemption for registering an outstanding buck that did not meet the registry guidelines. From the information provided, that sounds like a good decision, one that will improve the strength of the founding stock. What is worrisome is that there is no process for doing that. Having a set of rules that can then be ignored potentially undermines the integrity of the registry. It also potentially creates the perception of nepotism. If there was a clear (written down) process for decision making outside of the stated rules, and documentation of the decision process, then the integrity of the registry remains. When decisions are made that seem counter to the mission (the example provided including nigies and the confusion it creates with the branding of minis), clear documentation of how that decision IS aligned with the stated mission of the organization or the modification of the mission to accommodate such a change is helpful. A comment was made that generations dont matter, quality if the goats is what matters. I completely agree. I have made the choice to start back at ground zero and create my own lines. Not because the existing lines arent good, but because my real job is a population ecologist and founding genetics and numbers of lines/parentage really matters. But at some point generations will matter... At some point the registry could be closed, because the breeds will have been established. At some point the registry will have to declare this is what a mini goat is, because if it doesnt, how will it have achieved its stated purpose-- creating new breeds? But, if I am starting out on this huge venture, dont I need some assurance of stability in the registry? Isnt there value in sharing with me, a member of less than 3 months, that rules can be changed and this will be the process of rule changes? I will certainly be breeding for the best goats I can, with my clearly identified goals of butterfat, ease of milking, and extended lactation... But at the end of the day, there is some value in the goats being registered, otherwise there wouldnt be the need for a registry. And I have to figure out how my personal goals fit in/compliment the registry goals, otherwise Ill end up with goats that cant be registered or progress the breed, right? Lastly, I think Paula did a great service in pointing the difference between the registries dismissal clauses, with the piece that is currently missing in the MDGA bylaws- the procedures for which to apply the clause. In real estate it is location, location, location... With membership groups it is mission, policies, procedures. I applaud the shift in a more sustainable direction, knowing that MDGA will live beyond a single individual is critical. But, it is clear that there were a few big misses in the current bylaws... Like the processes described above, or the mentioning of elections, or the committee of advisors (hope I got that name right... Still so confusing to me)... Instead of making the declaration that the bylaws are done and that is that for the foreseeable future... MDGA could take a page out of our great countrys history book.... Our founding fathers wanted to codify the institution of change, the acknowledgement that they could not foresee every future need, and after writing our constitution, immediately amended it. I see no reason for the leadership of MDGA to not follow that wise example. Yes, MDGA did a tremendous amount of work writing the bylaws, but that does not preclude them from being amended, to incorporate feedback from members who have expressed reasoned and articulate concerns. Such an act would not only strengthen the organization by shoring up these identified potential flaws, but also demonstrate that is it an organization that is receptive to its members. Im off for the rest of the night. I wish you all well. Cheers- Amy Parker Stitch-N-Thyme Farm Wilton, California
Posted on: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:20:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015