[Durham INC] DRAFT January minutes

Tue Feb 4 11:45:46 EST 2014

Hi Darius,

Thanks for the suggestion to improve this resolution.     I agree with your
point that resolutions are generally more effective if they minimize the
use of emotional or
controversial language.    However, in this case I'm afraid that our
process will not allow your suggestion to be considered.  The resolution
was already fully approved
at the meeting, and in my opinion it is too late to consider a proposed
change.    My understanding from our bylaws is that the INC's official
business is to be only
conducted at our delegate meetings, and occasionally as necessary in
executive committee meetings, but the bylaws do not provide for business to
be conducted
on a listserv.   So even if there was support for your change, our process
would not allow it to be made at this point.

I do appreciate your interest in reviewing the resolution in this level of
detail and for taking the time to express your concerns for enabling the
resolution to be as effective as possible.

Scott Carter
INC President

From:	"Darius M. Little" <Darius.M.Little at alumni.unc.edu>
To:	"Pat" <pats1717 at hotmail.com>, inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org, "inc
            listserv" <inc-list at durhaminc.org>,
Date:	02/01/2014 08:29 AM
Subject:	Re: [Durham INC] DRAFT January minutes
Sent by:	inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org

INC'ers:

I'm not certain as to the procedural legality of what I'm preparing to
suggest, but I'm throwing it out there and we'll see what happens.

1. Draft Minutes, usually in and of themselves, are distributed so that the
membership of the organization may make immediate recommendations as to
spelling corrections and other types of modifications;

2.  In dealing with the Resolutions however, I am wondering if I may
procedurally make a recommendation via email and it be allowable (since the
Resolution was voted upon in a live meeting, which would trump an out of
meeting, suggested, change/friendly amendment/minutes correction
suggestion, from me);

3.  Having expressed these concerns, my recommendation and explanation for
such are as follows:

3a. Appendix A TC1200012

Change the existing language:

"Whereas no developer has the right to rules that optimize their profits,
and.."

To

"Whereas no developer has the (inherent) right to rules that optimize their
profits, and.."

3b.  Explanation

- I've recommended change to this section of the Resolution due to my
belief that it undermines the spirit of INC's position by becoming too
personalized.

As we all should know, when we allow personal feelings and emotions to get
the best of us, such behavior(s) can become counter-productive and may
invalidate the greater good for which one is sincerely seeking.

Whether one likes it or not, a developer -as any other professional- DOES
have the RIGHT to rules that optimize their profits.

Ex. 1.  Upon retirement, Attorney Tom Miller can charge Senator Woodard,
Phil Azar, John Martin, or me, for legal advice/counsel that he provides.
Why?  Because he has the legal right to charge for his services, as long as
his business is appropriately structured and has met the professional
requirements of his specific arena of work.  We may not like his price, his
office location, or the suits he wears during consultation, but he can
charge clients in an effort to obtain, and yes, maximize profits.

This is basic capitalism.

Ref 1. (Wikipedia)

"The degree of competition, role of intervention and regulation, and scope
of public ownership varies across different models of capitalism.[5]
Economists, political economists, and historians have taken different
perspectives in their analysis of capitalism and recognized various forms
of it in practice. These include laissez-faire capitalism, welfare
capitalism and state capitalism; each highlighting varying degrees of
dependency on markets, public ownership, and inclusion of social policies.
The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules
defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy. "

I have long observed that when discussions about development and
developmental tactics begin to arise, due to prior disputes, both sides of
development discussions buckle down and old grudges are revived, which
affects the tone of the discussion.

My recommendation here is to remove what I feel is language
counter-productive (and, easy for anyone who is against the Resolution to
attack).

A developer DOES have the right to rules which optimize their profit.

I have a lot of overhead at my company, due to buying a very plush business
office, in a very plush business environment - and I made the decision to
hire professional staff and assistants.  Why? Because I realized, years
ago, I had to create MY OWN brand.  Client rates have soared and God has
blessed me.

Additionally, instead of doing my own legal work *cough, cough* I have
Business Attorneys handle my contracts.

Due to all of this, I charge a lot more today, than I did six(6) years ago.
I have the right, in a capitalistic economy, to optimize my profits.  So
does a developer, or any other entrepreneur.

HOWEVER, when my entrepreneurship crosses the spectrum of governmental and
tax payer involvement, the spirit of the law becomes more important than
the letter (because we move from dealing with 'self' -MY COMPANY, to
dealing with the 'public' - TAXPAYERS).

Therefore, I recommend adding the word inherent, because when business and
politics collide, the elected officials/hired staff are supposed to put
"the public good" ahead of the rules of capitalism.

Thus, our tone should not be personal (which saying developers don't have a
right to optimize profits expresses), but instead, one which reminds
elected bodies, as well as City/County/State/Federal staffers that they are
not operating in the private market, as Tom Miller, or me, but instead,
their decisions are a part of public policy.

And in public policy, no private business has an inherent (or, right to be
entitled) then, to rules which optimize profits.

Why?  Because at this point, you're putting 'individuals' before 'the
people'.

So, please place the word "inherent" before right.

Unless someone has a major gripe......

- Brother Little

--------------------
Darius M. Little
President and CEO
Little's Executive Business Consulting L.L.C.
2530 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713

Office Phone: 919-806-4510
Office Email: LittlesExec at gmail.com

(web) www.about.me/darius.m.little

(web) www.linkedin.com/in/dariuslittle

*A MANTA Verified and Approved Industry Leader in Strategic Business
Consulting*

http://www.manta.com/c/mtlwj1m/little-s-business-consulting

"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall
receive." [Matt 21:22]

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat <pats1717 at hotmail.com>
Sender: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.orgDate: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 06:51:21
To: inc listserv<inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Subject: [Durham INC] DRAFT January minutes

_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20140204/92b2897b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20140204/92b2897b/attachment.gif>