Will do, and thank you!

Hello Judd,

I have the list from Starr’s diss. To avoid having long lists of numbers and As and Bs heading to everyone’s inbox, please email me at VishioA@wpunj.edu and I’ll send it on.

Anton

Hi Tara,

I remember the discussion, and I thought the consensus was that the language needed to be tweaked. I don’t think it’s far off and I voted to ratify it as is.  But I do think the question of tweaking should be considered in a future update to the bylaws.

Josh

Hi Josh,

There was some discussion of this section on draft 2, and the consensus seemed to be that the language was adequate as it is now, which is why we left it that way in the next two drafts. Since we’re already voting, let’s see how the vote turns out, and if it becomes a problem, we can always revise it in the future.

Thanks!

Tara

The bylaws look got to me, and thanks for all the work on them.  The only question I have is what happened to saying “for scholars of art music after 1945, with an emphasis on the modernist, experimental, and avant-garde.”

or

“for scholars of non-commercial music after 1945, with an emphasis on the modernist, experimental, and…[Read more]

Timothy, thanks, your suggestion makes sense – I’ll make that change in the final version.

Looks great to me! Thanks, Tara and Laura!

Great work everyone! The one thing that still trips me up is the first line: “scholars of 20th- and 21st-century music.” The group is Post-1945. The quoted part implies that we include pre-1945 and project an end date for the group. Maybe it outlives us?

I suggest: “scholars of music since 1945” instead of the above.

Tim Johnson

Good point! We had 21 responses last year. That’s 29% of our HC membership, and I would guess the average attendance at meetings is lower. (Although I suppose if we are going to use attendance numbers as a metric I had better make sure we can find those numbers… using the HC membership would certainly be a bit easier!)

I think it’s worth asking how many responses you had to the survey last year—if 20% of the average of the last two meetings works out to be more people than responded, that would presumably cause some problems.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for these comments! I agree that changing it to a larger percentage makes sense. How about 20%?

If anyone else has comments or suggestions, please feel free to weigh in!

Tara

Thanks, Bob. Yes, we thought about this, too. I borrowed the quorum percentage from the Pop Music IG, which makes more sense for them since their membership is large (of course, nothing compares to our FB page membership 😀  )

We could definitely increase ours to 20%-25%, granted people vote and stay engaged with the IG issues.

Laura