Writers in StuttgartMinutes for meeting of March 16, 2019
Attended:
Jim, Andrea, Irene, Ellen, Michael O’B., Katharine, Harish, Erica, Sara D., Barbara
Chaired: Jim
Opening/Website:
Jim opened the meeting. He had planned to give a presentation on the new WIS website, which he has been working on, and is nearly finished with. Due to difficulties with the DAZ projector, he gave the floor to Andrea, to discuss possible dates for a summer reading. Later in the meeting, due to time constraints, Jim said he would not give a detailed report during the meeting on the website. He asked that members log into the new website, [see an e-mail from Jim from March 15th for instructions], take a look at the various pages, and send him feedback.
One-Page Play festival:
Andrea took a moment to suggest that WIS members may want to attend the premiere for the one-page play festival, which will be at 8 p.m. on April 1 at Merlin. [See an e-mail from Andrea from later in the day with more information on the festival, for which several WIS members have written plays.]
Summer Reading:
Andrea said that Helen at the Dreigroschentheater had suggested dates for a possible reading in May or June. Since only three people had expressed interest in participating in a reading during those months, and Helen needed an answer this weekend, those present agreed with Andrea that we would not try to plan a reading then. Those present briefly discussed the possibility of a July reading, decided that month would not fit their schedules, and suggested instead a reading for October, when several of those present said they would be able to read. Andrea pointed out that we will need someone to coordinate a possible reading in October.
Group structure:
Erica, Barbara and Sara commented on the current lack of a president for WIS, [since Valerie resigned shortly before the February meeting], and they said they were concerned about the group’s future.
Jim said that a steering committee including him, Jadi, and Cindy had discussed this issue, and added that no one had volunteered to take on the presidency. He said the committee had concluded that the problem was that in the past, all responsibilities had fallen to the president, which “caused them to say, I can’t do it.”
Jim added that the committee had suggested that in the absence of a president, we rotate the chairing of the meetings, and maintain an uniform time structure for the meetings. He added that committee could meet once a month to discuss administrative matters, so that meetings could be devoted to sharing and critiquing work, and doing writing prompts.
Jim then turned to the question of the timing of meetings, saying that we could not have meetings start at 10 if those attending don’t arrive until after 10:30, and suggested we wait to start critiques until 10:30. Jim said he thought it was a problem if people tend to arrive late, and added that he thought this could show a lack of commitment to the group.
Barbara said that she wanted to know more about the steering committee, and how it came about; Katharine concurred, and added that she had asked about it at an earlier meeting.
Time structure of meetings:
After a few members said they did not agree with the linking of a late arrival time with the level of commitment, Jim asked for everyone in turn to give their opinion regarding timing of the meetings, with particular attention to a cut-off time at which it would be decided how to allocate the time for sharing and critiques.
[Given the number of members present, only a summary is provided here.]
The consensus of the 10 members present was that a cut-off time of 10:30 is a good idea, if handled sensitively. The cut-off time makes it possible to decided how much time each reader will get, and also serves as an incentive to arrive at the meeting by a certain time; if only a few members wish to read, and there is enough time available, those arriving later could be given time to read in the order of their arrival. Several people said they did not like the idea of people coming to share work and then leaving early, so that later readers do not receive as much feedback. It was agreed that the bulk of the meeting should be devoted to sharing and critiquing of work, and Jim said he suggested two full hours for this activity.
This round of comments ended with a suggested meeting schedule:
10:00 to nearly 10:30 — Open with prompt;
10:30 — allocate time for sharing and critiquing of work
10:30-11:30 — sharing and critiques
11:30-11:45 — break
11:45-12:00 — discussion of administrative and planning questions
12:00– 1:00 — sharing and critiques
Steering commitee/group structure, again
Following the discussion on meeting timing, those present turned to the question of group organization. The main points of this discussion follow:
Jim again said that the “steering committee” had consisted of Jadi, Cindy, and Jim; he mentioned that Valerie had also talked with the other three before announcing her resignation. Jim said that he and Jadi and Cindy had met before the last meeting because no one had volunteered to take on the job of president.
Jim noted that in the roughly 12 years that he has been a member of WIS since its inception, the current lack of leadership is the third time that he has seen the group go through a period in which, as he said, “It feels as if the group is falling apart.”
Most of those present shared Jim’s concern for the group’s current situation, with a few, however, noting that with 10 members in attendance, and others having sent regrets, it is clear that members have an interest in keeping the group going.
Concerning the current leadership structure, at least two members noted that it had been suggested at the meeting in December, at which Valerie was elected president, that there should be a vice-president as well, and there had been a volunteer for that position.
There was consensus on the need for transparency in going forward, and the necessity of giving members a chance to consider, discuss, and vote on an organizational structure for the group going forward.
Those present agreed that members should be asked to attend a meeting at which decisions will be made on the group’s organizational structure. At first members talked of an “extraordinary meeting,” but as the discussion proceeded, those present concurred that the discussion should take place during a regularly scheduled meeting. The consensus was that members who know in advance that they are unable to attend that meeting should be able to either vote online during the meeting, or designate another member as a proxy to vote for them.
All members agreed that the meetings in general should be mostly devoted to sharing work and critiquing, and doing writing prompts.
Work shared
Katharine read a draft for a one-page play, and a haiku.
Erica read two one-page plays.
Sara read a new piece that she said she was considering developing as either an essay or a poem; she also read a poem.
Jim concluded by thanking everyone for their contributions to the discussion and critiques, and asked for members to take a close look at the website and send him feedback. [He has since announced via e-mail that he has finished working on the website.] Members in turn thanked Jim for chairing the meeting.