I think that the socalled rump conclave which Glen Dawson wrote us about is a bad mistake. There should only be one conclave ina year. To call a rumpMessage 1 of 3 , Jul 18, 1999View SourceI think that the socalled "rump" conclave which Glen Dawson wrote us about is
a bad mistake. There should only be one conclave ina year. To call a "rump"
conclave, with out the consent of the Board of Directors, can only undermine
the official conclave, cayse unhappiness and threaten the future of the MBS.
Its a bad precedent. I dont have any problem with MBS members getting
together, but they shouldnt call it a Conclave and they shouldnt make it look
just like a Conclave. The next time someone is unhappy with the site of a
Conclave, he can call a rump instead. Who is going to want to do all the
work of hosting a Conclave in the future if his work can be undermined in
this way? I think its a bad mistake.
Neale M. Albert
Dear Everyone, I don t think the republic is going to fall over two conclaves. Here s a little historical perspective: In 1857, as Minnesota was getting readyMessage 1 of 3 , Jul 19, 1999View SourceDear Everyone,
I don't think the republic is going to fall over two conclaves. Here's a
little historical perspective: In 1857, as Minnesota was getting ready to
become a state, there were three constitutional conventions. The Democrats
had one convention and the Republicans had another, and each one wrote a
constitution. Sounds like a nightmare, right? But a third convention was
held to reconcile the documents and, lo and behold, Minnesota came up with a
constitution acceptable to all and was admitted to the Union.
If miniature book collectors are at all like nineteenth-century
Minnesotans, MBS is going to do just fine. It will be fun, for one year, to
have two Conclaves reported in the Newsletter. So, I extend greetings
from Minneapolis to both gatherings.
Personal best wishes to Glen and to Msgr. Weber.
Be well, do good works and by all means HAVE FUN!
I agree with all the points made by Neale. When I rec d the Broadside/invite early last week, I was puzzled, but couldn t quite articulate what was wrong withMessage 1 of 3 , Jul 19, 1999View SourceI agree with all the points made by Neale. When I rec'd the
Broadside/invite early last week, I was puzzled, but couldn't quite
articulate what was wrong with the idea. Additional point: The financial
arrangements of this 'Rump" are really an abuse of MBS procedure.
Most important, however, is Neale's concern that anyone might design
an alternative conclave willy-nilly, which in turn undermines all efforts of
hardworking, volunteer, OFFICIAL hosts.
By the way, there are several other MBS members, not on MBS Onelist
who object as well.
It would be more productive if we who take issue with the Rump are not
dismissed by others who claim this is not divisive, and that we should
'chill'. Please allow discussion.