tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14910575.post3258236170744387347..comments2023-10-04T11:35:50.986-04:00Comments on Out of the Jungle: AALL changing definition of Active Members!James Milleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07368391001719650329noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14910575.post-561232389690154532012-07-17T13:26:04.695-04:002012-07-17T13:26:04.695-04:00(I am posting this for a colleague whose Ipad seem...(I am posting this for a colleague whose Ipad seemed not to link correctly to blogspot)<br /><br />The question is not whether it is wrong to revisit the active membership issue. I think that everyone would agree with the AALL Executive Board that changes in the legal profession more than warrant a broader definition. The question is whether AALL members had enough notice to tell their Board whether, in the first place, they would want to vote definition as broad as this one. Members like me prefer an opportunity to see if we can first craft a compromise that balances the Board's praiseworthy goals with concerns about the appearance of significant conflict of interest. An issue of such importance and potential for controversy seems to justify a departure from ordinary Board procedure to exercise its own discretion in deciding policies and goals of our Association.<br /><br />Michael GinsborgBetsy McKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824582240163409553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14910575.post-62875301356268419542012-07-16T11:38:34.314-04:002012-07-16T11:38:34.314-04:00Betsy,
The two points I want to make are these: 1....Betsy,<br />The two points I want to make are these: 1. There is plenty of opportunity for discussion. Please see my post at http://tinyurl.com/7vndtxq. 2. More than a decade has passed since the last consideratoin of this, and 25 years since the earlier one.There is nothing wrong with revisiting the idea.KenHirshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04646803840386211229noreply@blogger.com