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