FOS Meeting – 12 November 2003

Meeting commenced at 6:37

In attendance – Ron Beard moderator + Ed Pontbriand, Garry Levin, Rosemary Levin, Jeannie Wilson, Peter Drinkwater, Deedee West, Robert Babcock, Roger Bowen, Bill Stone, Stan Torrey, Bill Zoellick, Pauline Angione, Tom Mayer, Dirk Faegre, Nancy Horschak, Jay Horschak

Results of survey …

Ron opened by listing the priorities that people listed in response to his request for input and viewpoints in advance of this meeting.  The most often mentioned objectives for this meeting were to provide the organization with:

o       direction on mission and scope

o       interim structure

o       a plan to strengthen membership, including communication with members

o       a plan to get short term priority projects happening for 2004

 

additions to list of concerns

Ron asked whether these objectives were a fair reflection of the interests and concerns of the people present at the meeting.  People suggested that the following concerns should be added to the list of things that the group should try to figure out:

o       how to better engage in political action – such as ensuring that the Park is funded.  Other political issues are possible.

o       how to add research activities to the program – we might address this as part of the workplan – possibly built around the gatehouse

o       how to extend institutional relationships, particularly with regard to  SERC

Running Account of Discussion

What follows is a running account of the discussion that followed.  I tried to capture all of the ideas and major topics …

Ron starts with question:  are we making decisions tonight?

Garry suggests that, instead of decisions, let’s surface the issues.  This is accepted.  The focus for the meeting is on framing the issues and on deciding what needs to be worked out.

Tom suggests that clarifying the mission is NOT the right starting place.  Garry agrees that debating the mission statement is not what we need – but, instead, the question is how do we apply it?  This ties back to the question of whether the mission is Narrow or Broad.

Bob suggests that working out By-Laws – which frames the mechanism for decisions – would be a good alternative starting point.  Ron suggests that, less formally, what we need are operating rules.

Nancy reminds everyone that By-Laws were developed earlier this year.

One question that keeps coming up is the relationship with Schoodic Futures.  How do the organizations relate?  Bill Stone recounts the starting point – which is that he appointed Tom as committee chair.  No further definition was placed on the FOS organization when it was first set up.

There is discussion of the difference between By-Laws and “operating rules.”   We definitely need operating rules.  Whether or not we need bylaws depends on whether the organization strikes out on its own, away from Schoodic Futures.

Proposal – dust off the draft by-laws – see if they address the issues.

Discussion of relationship with Friends of Acadia – which is understood to be important.  Ron suggests that it would be appropriate to report back to Ken Olsen at this point—reporting on the initial year.

Garry would like to add another concern – “vision”

Tom’s response to this is that he would like see FOS be an appendage of FOA.  They have clout.

Ed suggests that the reason that FOA has clout is that a it is an organization that deals with issues – issues that the NPS cannot address itself.  FOA represents the NPS and the community.

Bob point out that much of FOS is focused on SERC – and SERC does not yet exist – and so that is a problem.

General sense is that there needs to be more communication between FOS and FOA to make sure that the nature of the relationship is understood by both parties.

Jay objected that we should not go talk to Ken Olsen – or send someone to do that – until we DECIDE to do that.

Which brings us back to the question of HOW we decide.  For example, is it by consensus?  Is it by majority rule?

Agreement to develop draft rules to post on the website:

distinction between general rules and detailed bylaws

they need to be written down

Substantial discussion of relationship with Schoodic Futures.

Decision – come up with operating rules for FOS – take these rules to Schoodic Futures

Rules will address:

o       who is the membership

o       decision making body

o       relationship between the previous two

o       officers

o       decision making process

o       financial autonomy

there is a small group that will work these matters out.  Tom Mayer, Garry Levin, Bill Stone, Stanley Torrey, Bill Zoellick, Nancy Horschak

Plan for 18 Months

o       select one project that NPS cannot do – and do fundraising for it

o       ongoing projects and budget

o       transportation issue – policy debate here

o       membership growth

o       established communication channels with members

o       policy and connection to SERC – role in SERC board

o       develop institutional relationships – FOA and others

o       commit ourselves to becoming informed on:

§         SERC

§         legislation

§         NEON

§         GMP

o       Budgets and Timelines for the above

The Key to a Five Year Plan

If FOS was wonderfully successful in five years, what would be happening?  Activities, funding, institutional relationships.

Next Meeting

December 10

notes by Bill Zoellick
please send email with corrections or additions