From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Sep 22 13:20:18 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.240.7]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OyVnb-0000Mw-WE for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:20:18 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100922202009.FQWY17186.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:20:09 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id 9wL91f0093Xcbvq02wL9PX; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:20:09 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Ve2E6xT+YqPv90BJPa9Z7cy3eVbY/842O+E6p2NWdSs= c=1 sm=1 a=bgiPEJ_n5i4A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=5SJ4HkV6FeMMP7VJcPYA:9 a=Sc3yoHgv8u8J-lCp95UA:7 a=7D7WAmciRs1IkDnh80cKi1XygYAA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <4C9A64F7.9080901@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:20:07 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: 2010 Annual Meeting - Old Business References: <4C8C2009.7060606@lojban.org> <4C8F787E.9000101@lojban.org> <4C97E04A.4030007@lojban.org> <20100921200647.GH30871@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20100921200647.GH30871@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 973 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Robin Lee Powell wrote: >More specifically: I have outright refused to determine how to do > this legally (it's across state lines) or to fill out the required > paperwork. I've been doing the books for years, and I *HATE* it. > I'm not adding this unless someone does all the research and hands > me a *really* clear set of instructions. > > Sorry, but I have to draw the line somewhere, or risk hating this > project due to its association with work I loathe. This really isn't part of old or new business, but seems like more a delayed comment on the Secretary report (though my comment at the end may make it germane to the current topic) Robin has been doing the secretarial paperwork and bookkeeping for several years now, far more effectively than I did it. He's been offloading other chores on volunteers, so why not this one? Is there anyone, probably best in the SF Bay area (some stuff may need his signature as officer), who could take the bookkeeping work off Robin's hands (some stuff may need his signature as officer)? Robin can correct me on this, but we aren't talking about more than an hour or two a month, if even that much, but it really has to be done dependably on time. Technically the Board can select someone not on the Board as Secretary/Treasurer, but at this point, I'm mostly looking for someone long-term dependable to make sure Robin has as little as possible to do. All this assumes that Robin thinks it possible to delegate the work without his spending more time training said person than it takes to do the job himself. (I would have much fewer qualms about LLG paying for someone to handle the paperwork, than to do byfy or other language work.) -- Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.