RE: Discussion on ABRF Bylaw changes

Paul Morrison2 (p_morrison@dfci.harvard.edu)
27 May 98 15:41:22 -0400

Reply to: RE: Discussion on ABRF Bylaw changes
Lowell Ericsson wrote:
>Before sending in my ballot I would appreciate a discussion on this
>bulletin board on the pros and cons ......stuff deleted

I was thinking there was a policy over not discussing a ballot because no one had brought it up but now that Lowell has let the cat out of the bag, I can put my two cents in.

In short I agree with both of his arguments.

In long: Changing the name of ABRF to ABRT. What is this about? The reason the ABRF is the most valuable group I am connected with is because it is a bunch of people who do what I do. Work in a core facility. When I need answers to problems concerning the running of a resource facility there is one place I turn to. Only one place I can turn to. The ABRF. I just reread the mission statement at abrf.org.. It mentions core or resource facilities four times in one sentence. So unless we want to change the mission of the ABRF I would keep the two words that best describe us in the title. There has been past discussion about certain words we use in a facility to describe what we do. They have been described as if they are George Carlin's seven words you can't say on TV. They are Core, Facility, customer, pricing, price list, order, requisition. OK I had to stretch to get seven. I have tried to get my group to stop calling the researchers customers (as well as other things) but the!
rest of them I still use. I post a price list so I can take requisitions or orders and then I bill them. I don't think any of those words belittle the work done. I also agree that the ABRF has built a great reputation and why confuse people by changing the name. I will vote no so I can continue to meet new people through ABRF who populate resource facilities or in some way help those facilities.

Question 2: Four years seems like a long time but if we can find dedicated people who will toil at a hard job without getting enough credit then we should sign them up. The organization has become much larger and spreading the load on more people would certainly be an additional benefit.
I will vote yes to extend the EB term to four years.

I also agree with Lowell's encouragement of more discussion. Who out there wants us to sound like a misspelled Bay Area Rapid Transit?

-Paul

Paul Morrison D830
Molecular Biology Core Facilities
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
44 Binney Street
Boston, MA 02115
p_morrison@dfci.harvard.edu
http://mbcf.dfci.harvard.edu
phone 617-632-3082
fax 617-632-4814