Transcribe
Translate
National Fantasy Fan, v. 5, issue 4, June 1946
Page 15
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
President's message (cont) Many of the points Speer brings out I am personally whole-heartedly in favor of, but I would like to point out a few things. Two facts Speer is mistaken in: (1) That the Constitution as presented to the members for vote was, I believe presented to the Directors for consideration. As Sec'y at the time I was taken into the discussions. I voiced my opinion and two changes I suggested were made. The first "rough draft" Constitution was presented to all officers and some of the older members for consideration and suggestion. After the suggestions were received the changes were noted and a list of the changes was sent out. I can't speak for all of the officers at the time, but I know that I received a copy of the changes and was asked to vote on them or to at least give my opinion. I did so. (2_ A sec'y-Treas. report was included in the July, 1945 issue of the official organ. As the then official editor Speer should have been and should still be aware of what he did or didn't include in the publications. Several criticisms can be made concerning his suggestions. As a treasurer, a few years back, did not turn the organization funds over to the succeeding treasurer and hence left the treasury in an embarrassing condition, I believe that experience has shown that bonding of the treasurer is essential. The money withheld at that time still, to my knowledge, hasn't been returned to the organization. Bonding removes such a risk. The other criticisms will occur to you as you read his article through: places too much power in the hands of a few without any checks and balances, and many other points. Simplicity is a fine thing, but, if in achieving it, you surrender democratic rights and privileges it isn't worth it. Please give the article your earnest thought. In spite of its many errors, inaccuracies and faults it has much that merits your consideration. ///////////////////////////// SECRETARY'S MESSAGE 14 April 1946 I have the following gripes to get off my chest about the lack of cooperation from officers and members of this organization. 1. The board of directors, with the exceptions of Tarr and Hevelin have neglected to respond to cards sent them asking approval of new members. This had previously been done by the president in his bulletins to the BD. It was my intention to save time by sending these applications direct to the BD so prospective members would not be kept waiting while their applications went to the pres, hung around until the next bulletin went out to the BD, answers came back to the Pres and the Pres finally notified me. The treasury would be $10 richer and ten new mems would be on the roster instead of only two if the BD had cooperated. It took over 15
Saving...
prev
next
President's message (cont) Many of the points Speer brings out I am personally whole-heartedly in favor of, but I would like to point out a few things. Two facts Speer is mistaken in: (1) That the Constitution as presented to the members for vote was, I believe presented to the Directors for consideration. As Sec'y at the time I was taken into the discussions. I voiced my opinion and two changes I suggested were made. The first "rough draft" Constitution was presented to all officers and some of the older members for consideration and suggestion. After the suggestions were received the changes were noted and a list of the changes was sent out. I can't speak for all of the officers at the time, but I know that I received a copy of the changes and was asked to vote on them or to at least give my opinion. I did so. (2_ A sec'y-Treas. report was included in the July, 1945 issue of the official organ. As the then official editor Speer should have been and should still be aware of what he did or didn't include in the publications. Several criticisms can be made concerning his suggestions. As a treasurer, a few years back, did not turn the organization funds over to the succeeding treasurer and hence left the treasury in an embarrassing condition, I believe that experience has shown that bonding of the treasurer is essential. The money withheld at that time still, to my knowledge, hasn't been returned to the organization. Bonding removes such a risk. The other criticisms will occur to you as you read his article through: places too much power in the hands of a few without any checks and balances, and many other points. Simplicity is a fine thing, but, if in achieving it, you surrender democratic rights and privileges it isn't worth it. Please give the article your earnest thought. In spite of its many errors, inaccuracies and faults it has much that merits your consideration. ///////////////////////////// SECRETARY'S MESSAGE 14 April 1946 I have the following gripes to get off my chest about the lack of cooperation from officers and members of this organization. 1. The board of directors, with the exceptions of Tarr and Hevelin have neglected to respond to cards sent them asking approval of new members. This had previously been done by the president in his bulletins to the BD. It was my intention to save time by sending these applications direct to the BD so prospective members would not be kept waiting while their applications went to the pres, hung around until the next bulletin went out to the BD, answers came back to the Pres and the Pres finally notified me. The treasury would be $10 richer and ten new mems would be on the roster instead of only two if the BD had cooperated. It took over 15
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
