I think a Federal rep is a good one to add as a large user and potential
funder and certainly an unrepresented sector. 

 

As far as other interest groups I can see two schools of thought there.
One, if we start adding interest groups where does it end - who's in and
who is out?  But, on the other hand, interest group representation could
bring new funding sources...and maybe the Board is too
government-centric.  What if we added a single Industry representative?
The seat could be filled by forestry folks or surveyors or marine
interests, we could solicit from whatever areas we felt were
unrepresented at each time of filling.  

 

Regarding Legislative representation, I think there is some validity to
that for survival purposes - funding.  Having a relationship and
understanding inside of that world would be helpful.  Could that be
accomplished by soliciting members for the existing seats who happen to
be a legislator?  Should it be a more permanent area in the legislative
branch like a staff member and not a legislator?  Maybe one of the
government seats could be taken by someone from this branch.

 

As far as the Board growing too big and unwieldy, I don't know why the
Commissioner of the Dept. of Admin and Finance (DAFS) has a seat (my
seat).  I was actually appointed by Dick, the CIO, as was Mike, so does
he really have two reps.  Should he?  Why should DAFS be specifically
represented when other more GIS-involved agencies are not?  I think the
answer is the history - the seed money that DAFS put in back in 2002?
But is it still relevant?   

 

I think the scheme for non-attending members that we discussed will work
- missing 3 consecutive and 4 over a 12 month period makes sense.  The
most we would live with is a year of under-representation but it could
be as little as 4 months if the person never shows up - right?  Do we
have a county rep right now?  I know we have a seat but I don't think
its been filled for a long time (at least physically).

 

I think the quorum and the voting number should be the same and about
half the members.  To safeguard against a simple majority win that might
be contentious, could we add some language that says if a vote is close
and only half the members are voting then a revote with at least 2/3 of
the members voting would be necessary?     

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Maine GeoLibrary [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Smith, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: GeoLibrary Board membership

 

Please recall our discussion at the previous meeting, I need your
comments regarding changes in the Board membership, i.e.:

What the membership profile should be - including adding a federal
representative and perhaps others such as we dicussed

Removal of members not attending regularly 

Quorum # 

Voting # 

I need this by Thursday so I can compile for our next meeting. 

********** 
Michael Smith 
State GIS Manager 
Maine Office of GIS