I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
[I. Call to Order]
[00:00:08]
CAN I GET A ROLL CALL? FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.>> DAVID, JOE, ROBERTA, TRACY LIKE I'M HERE.
I DO KNOW THAT THIS MIGHT BE MR. TROUT DIALING END.
I WAS JUST GOING TO RENAME HIM.
>> YOU ALL MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, SHE LOST HER MOTHER MAYBE A WEEK OR TWO AGO.
I'M NOT SURE IF SHE WILL BE ON.
SO WE ARE JUST MISSING JIM LEWIS.
>> MARK, I DIDN'T EVEN RECOGNIZE YOU WITH YOUR BEARD.
BEFORE I START ON THE AGENDA, FIRST OF ALL I WOULD JUST, CO CHAIR AND SCHOOL BOARD CHAIRMAN, LOST HER MOTHER.
WE WISH TO OFFER OUR CONDOLENCES FROM THE GROUP TO HER AND OUR FAMILY.
THE DIRECTOR OF AC LOST HIS SISTER A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
SO AGAIN WE WANT TO OFFER CONDOLENCES TO HIM AND THIS FAMILY ALSO.
[III. Adoption of Meeting Agenda]
ALL RIGHT.WE WILL START THE AGENDA TO ADOPT THE MEETING AGENDA.
I LIKE TO ADD ONE STATEMENT IN OUR AGENDA THAT IS NOT ON THERE.
AS WE LOOK AT THE OLD BUSINESS.
I NEED TO SAY IN THAT STATEMENT, WE RAISE CRITERIA.
AND THAT SHOULD BE A COMMITTEE MEMBER ALSO.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET THERE.
BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT THE AGENDA.
BUT I ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEKEND.
>> THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.
>> CAN YOU ALL SEE THE AGENDA?
>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.. ALL OPPOSED.
>> APPROVED MINUTES FROM LAST JANUARY FOR THE MEETING.
[IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes]
I HOPE EVERYONE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO OVER THAT.THE CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS, THIS IS THE TIME TO SPEAK UP ON THAT.
>> MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.. ALL OPPOSED, MINUTES FROM OUR JANUARY 5 MEETING HAS BEEN ADOPTED.
IN THE COMMUNICATION FROM OUTSIDE OF THE COMMITTEE, ANYONE? THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION FROM OUTSIDE.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE OLD BUSINESS.
LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THE
[VI.1. Revisit criteria for voting/abstaining from voting for a family member.]
PROCESS WITH NUMBERS MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.[00:05:04]
WE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE.COULD I GET A MOTION? I HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT I SAW THAT YOU MIGHT BE PREPARED TO LOOK AT.
WE HAVE TO GET A MOTION ON REVISING THE CRITERIA FOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REVISE, I DON'T KNOW.
>> I MOVED TO ACCEPT THE, AND AGAIN I AM FORGETTING THAT REVISED.
[LAUGHTER] I COULDN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID, I'M SORRY.
GOING THROUGH TWO SCREENS HERE.
>> SO YOU WANT TO MOVE TO ACCEPT THE REVISED CRITERIA CORRECTLY?
>> YES WE WANT TO MOVE TO REVISE THE CRITERIA FOR VOTING FOR THE COMMITTEE.
CAN I GET A SECOND? THAT WAS TRACY WITH THE MOTION?
THAT IS MICHAEL JOHNSON SECOND IN IT.
THEN WE MOVED TO REVISE THE BUILDING CRITERIA.
HAS IT ALREADY BEEN BROKEN DOWN BY WHAT HAS BEEN REVISED?
>> NO, I AM LOOKING AT A STATEMENT NOW THAT I HAVE PUT TOGETHER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ TO THE COMMITTEE.
>> ARE YOU ABLE TO SHARE YOUR SCREEN?
I AM ON MY IPHONE, I CAN EMAIL IT TO YOU REALLY QUICKLY.
THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IS I DO NOT WANT TO TRY TO BREAK IT DOWN TO EVERY SINGLE FAMILY MEMBER IN THIS.
IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS COULD BE A GRANDCHILD, COUSINS.
STEPDAUGHTER, THERE IS A WHOLE THING INCLUDED WITH THAT.
CAN YOU ALL SEE THAT? HERE IS THE LANGUAGE IN THE EMAIL CORRECTLY.
>> EACH COMMITTEE MEMBER SHOULD HAVE ONE VOTE AND MAY NOT CAST A VOTE FOR HIS OR HER OWN INDUCTION OF IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS.
>> HAVEN'T WE BEEN DOING THAT ANYWAY? GOING BY THAT?
>> HYPOTHETICAL WE HAVE., BUT WE HAVE NOTHING IN WRITING.
SO WE NEED TO BE MORE DIRECT WITH WHAT WE ARE SAYING.
BUT THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING AND THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE.
SO THIS WOULD BE TO INDUCE THE WHOLE THING.
>> WHEN YOU SAY IMMEDIATE FAMILY, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL RELATIVES CONNECTED WITH A FAMILY CORRECT?
THIS INCLUDES STEPSONS, OR UNCLES, SECOND COUSINS.
AGAIN WE COULD LIST EVERYONE BUT IT WOULD BE A LONG LIST.
TO READ THAT, THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALSO.
[00:10:05]
>> OKAY THAT WAS MICHAEL JOHNSON MAKING A MOTION.
HEARING THAT MOTION PASSED, THIS IS THE LANGUAGE WE WILL USE GOING FORWARD FOR MAKING SURE COMMITTEE MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF WHAT WE ARE DOING WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING ALL RIGHT? LET'S GET BACK TO THE SECOND THING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
[VI.2. Increase the number of Individual Inductees for the Class of 2022]
TO INCREASE THE NUMBER FOR THE CLASS OF 22.WE DISCUSSED IT HEAVILY LAST MEETING.
SO WE WILL BRING IT BACK UP TO SPEED.
>> IS THERE GOING TO BE A NUMBER?
>> THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMITTEE, IF THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.
IF THIS IS A ONE-TIME THING, WE WILL DO IT.
IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO DO IT AGAIN.
THERE WAS A CONVERSATION TO TRY TO CATCH UP.
KEEP IN MIND THAT, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS HANDBOOK.
WE TALKED ABOUT HOW LONG AN APPLICATION CAN STAY ON.
AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO GO THROUGH AND CLEAR OUT SOME APPLICATIONS.
TO SEND A NOTICE OUT THAT THEY HAVE TO REAPPLY.
BECAUSE SOME OF THEM, YOU NOTE NOW SIX, SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS OLD THAT IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALSO.
BUT JUST A THOUGHT, THIS WAS A THOUGHT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
MOVING FORWARD, WE CAN DO THAT.
>> CAN YOU ASK A QUESTION? SO ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE NUMBER THAT IS, SAY IT IS SEVEN RIGHT NOW.
AND YOU WANT TO INCREASE IT TO SAY 12.
IS THAT 12 GOING FORWARD OR IS THAT 12 FOR THIS YEAR?
>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FOOTAGE.
THERE IS GOING TO BE A BACK LAW.
I KNOW THAT FIRST YEAR, YOU GUYS WERE 20 SOMETHING NAMES AND THE PROCESS.
>> SO WHAT IS, I AM NOT FOLLOWING THAT PART.
WHY IS IT SUCH AN URGENCY TO CATCH UP? IF WE ARE NOT FOCUSING ON THE OLDER GENERATION BEING NOMINATED?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE OLDER GENERATION? THAT HAS BEEN NOMINATED? IT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
>> CATCH UP IS, IF YOU SPEND AS MUCH TIME ON THOSE APPLICATIONS AS I HAVE, THERE ARE A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MET AND GONE BEYOND THE CRITERIA.
AND IT IS GOING TO BE ADDED THIS YEAR.
THOSE PEOPLE CONTINUE TO GET PUSHED BACK AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE CONCERNS AND COMMENTS.
THIS IS ABOUT, WHEN IS MY TURN? THE FACT IS, THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER REAL HIGH QUALITY PEOPLE THAT DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY.
FIVE YEARS AFTER WE HAD ACTUALLY GRADUATED.
WE HAD ALREADY HAD 40 TO 50 PEOPLE.
[00:15:01]
SO THOSE 40 OR 50.IS GETTING SETBACK MORE AND MORE.
THE HONEST LOOK AT THEIR APPLICATION.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THEN WHAT WE PUT IN TO CATCH UP WE SLOW DOWN.
EVERY FIVE YEARS, DO 28 SO YOU CAN CATCH A FEW KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THAT IS JUST WHAT I WAS THINKING.
BECAUSE THAT IS HOW WE STARTED OFF.
WE WILL HAVE TO INCREASE SO WE CAN FILL THAT VOID.
ALL WE ARE DOING IS ADDING PEOPLE WHO ALREADY MET THE CRITERIA.
AND AGAIN, THAT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT BECAUSE THE OTHER PEOPLE.
I AM LOOKING AT THE REVISED FEBRUARY 21 2021 THAT WAS THEN APPROVED AND MARCH ONE OF 2021.
UNDER NUMBER ONE, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF INDUCTEES EACH YEAR IS AS FOLLOWS.
ETC. THEN UNDERNEATH HERE IT SAYS THAT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF INDUCTEES EACH YEAR SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 10.
SO WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT IT BE INCREASED.
IS THAT CORRECT? I'M NOT SUGGESTING THE CONVERSATION.
>> THAT NUMBER THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, I AM LOOKING AT THE SAME DOCUMENT.
I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WANTED TO, LIKE MICHAEL JUST SAID.
THAT INCLUDES THE PRE- CONTRIBUTORS AND TEAMS. WHAT WE TALK ABOUT NOW IS IF WE WANT TO INCREASE.
THE ONLY THING THAT WILL FALL ON THE INDIVIDUAL.
THERE ARE A BUNCH OF US WITH OUR HANDS UP.
I AM ASKING THE FIRST QUESTION.
>> ARE YOU ALSO SUGGESTING THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT AGE.
THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PRE-1965 AT ALL? BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE PROBABLY MORE LIKELY TO BE DROPPING LIKE FLIES THAN THE ONES AFTER 1965.
>> THE STATEMENT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL.
AND THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE YES.
IF THERE IS A NUMBER YOU WANT TO CREATE.
WE RAISED FOR THIS YEAR OUT OF THAT 15.
THE PRE-AND POST 65 WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THAT NUMBER.
>> JUST A THOUGHT FOR THE SAKE OF A POTENTIAL NUMBER.
I THINK WE SHOULD AT A MINIMUM, DOUBLE THE NUMBER SO IF IT IS SEVEN NOW.
SINCE IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR INDUCTION CLASS.
BUT AT A MINIMUM WE SHOULD DOUBLE IT.
WHEN THE NUMBERS START COMING IN.
WHEN PEOPLE START READING THEM.
AND THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS AND GRADING THEM COMPARATIVELY.
CAN WE LOOK AT THEM AND FIND OUT HOW MANY WE HAVE IN THE PRE-1965 THAT HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY OVERLOOKED? SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT NUMBER WE ARE LOOKING AT TO GET TO.
IS THAT A DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE TODAY?
[00:20:05]
>> IT IS NOT A DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE TODAY.
BUT A DECISION THAT THE LAST TWO TIMES WE MOVE THINGS ALONG JUST TO ACCOMMODATE THINGS.
IF WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THEN, WE HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE AND LOOK AT OUR OPTIONS.
I WAS TRYING NOT TO GET TO THAT POINT BECAUSE IT BECOMES WHY NOT ME?
>> WHAT I WAS AIMING TO RECALL IS THAT AT SOME POINT THERE IS A LINE.
YOU GET THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE 75 OR HIGHER POINTS AND THESE PEOPLE ARE DOWN LIKE 30 AND LOWER.
CAN WE SEE WHERE THAT LINE IS? IF THERE ARE 35 PEOPLE THERE AND WE DECIDE TO DO 10 OR EIGHT OR WHATEVER FROM JUST THIS GROUP.
I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THAT.
AND MAYBE THAT LINE IS NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE.
>> CHAIR AK JOHNSON: PEOPLE WANT TO DO THAT EVERY YEAR.
IF WE WANT TO DO THAT AS A GROUP FOR 2022, AND LOOK ONCE WE GET OUR FINAL BREAKDOWN AND SEE THE TALLY THERE.
AND THEN MAKE THAT MOTION TO ADD A CERTAIN NUMBER AT THAT POINT.
>> I AM A NEWCOMER TO THE COMMITTEE.
I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS VERY HELPFUL.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN A GROUP THAT HAS THIS KIND OF A PROCESS.
IT SEEMS THAT THE GROUP HAS TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF CATCHING UP AND I THINK WE SHOULD REMAIN FLEXIBLE LIKE EVERYONE IS SUGGESTING.
WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT AT SOME POINT IT IS GOING TO GRIND BACK TO EVERY YEAR IT WILL BE A CERTAIN NUMBER.
I HAD NOT EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT UNTIL THE LAST MEETING MINUTES.
SO I AM ALL IN FAVOR OF BEING FLEXIBLE AND NIMBLE.
>> MICHAEL JOHNSON: ALSO, CAN WE JUST DO SEPARATING THE PRE-65 AND HAVE A DAY WHERE WE ALL LOOK THROUGH THE APPLICATIONS AND LIKE EVERYONE IS SAYING.
WE MOVED FIVE, SIX OR SEVEN UP.
INTO BEING NOMINATED IN THE HALL OF FAME.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE CAN SORT THROUGH THOSE AS WELL.
WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT DAY TO VOTE FOR THOSE.
>> CHAIR AK JOHNSON: WE DO NOT WANT TO COMPLICATE THE WHOLE PROCESS.
WE ASKED THE GROUP BASED ON THE NUMBER THAT THEY WANTED.
WE ASKED HIM TO COME BACK WITH FIVE.
WE ASKED THEM TO COME BACK AT 10.
AND THAT NUMBER THAT IS COMING BACK.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ON THIS LIST THAT WE DID NOT EXPECT TO LOOK AT.
I KNOW I AM NOT A PARLIAMENTARIAN BUT I WANTED TO CLOSE IT DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE OVER 10 MINUTES LONG.
WE ARE GOING TO, DO YOU NEED A MOTION NOW? OR DO YOU NEED US TO WAIT ANOTHER MONTH? THAT IS WHERE I AM GETTING LOST.
IF WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO BRING IT BACK.
IF WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO RAISE OUR NUMBERS TO GET PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE
[00:25:02]
SYSTEM FOR A MINUTE.DO WE DO THIS RIGHT NOW AND TAKE CARE OF IT RIGHT NOW WITH THE MOTION? AND WAS THERE A NUMBER.
I NOTE MR. LEWIS SAID DOUBLED.
I THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT IT.
WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT TOTALS OR JUST POST 65?
>> KAMILAH LAWSON: SO DO YOU WANT SOMEONE TO PUT IN MOTION? I'M TRYING TO LISTEN AND TYPE.
>> AGAIN I THOUGHT WE HAD A MOTION TO LOOK AT AND WE STARTED OUR DISCUSSIONS.
WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN TAILOR THIS.
OR WE CAN VOTE ON THIS MOTION.
I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON IT NOW.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON A NUMBER NOW SO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH.
>> THEN OVER THE NEXT MONTH WE CAN GET TOGETHER WITH OUR RESPECTIVE GROUPS AND IF ANYONE IS NOT ON HERE, WE CAN SAY THIS IS THE NUMBER, THE TARGET THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR THEN WE CAN SET UP OUR OWN LITTLE.
I KNOW WE CAN'T BE OUTSIDE OF THIS.
WE CAN SET UP OUR OWN KIND OF TIMELINE TO GET BACK TO EACH OTHER ON WHAT OUR LIST LOOKS LIKE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AM I ON THE RIGHT TRACK?
AND ALSO INCLUDE THE EXACT NUMBER THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION.
>> A 2ND TO WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND?
>> WAS IT SOMEBODY ELSE OR ME?
>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.. MIKE IS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MICHAEL JOHNSON.
>> FOR THIS YEAR ONLY TO THE NUMBER OF 20.
>> AND MOTION FOR MICHAEL JOHNSON INCREASING THE NUMBER 220 FOR THIS YEAR.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS CORRECTLY?
>> YES INDIVIDUAL MOTION TO INCREASE TO 20.
>> WE TALKED.[INAUDIBLE] ONE KIND OF THING WHERE YOU DID NOT DO A TEAM SO THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MANY PEOPLE IS THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW? SHE HAD MADE A COMMENT THAT TOOK AWAY WITH LARGE NUMBERS.
>> YES IT WILL BE JUST INDIVIDUALS.
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AGAIN.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ATHLETES PRE-AND POST 65? YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE TEAM? YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT COACHES, ADMINISTRATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS?
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYONE BUT INDIVIDUALS.
IN OTHER CATEGORIES IT IS NOT PART OF THAT PROCESS.
>> WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ATHLETES.
>> ACPS: I JUST WANT TO REPEAT THIS FOR CLARIFICATION.
WE ARE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PRE-1965 ATHLETES AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME.
WE ARE NOT DOING 20 PRE-AND 20 POSTS.
[00:30:02]
>> WE ARE DOING 20 TOTAL INDIVIDUALS.
>> CHAIR AK JOHNSON: THEY COULD BE EITHER PRE- OR A COMBINATION OF PRE- AND POST.
>> ACPS: AND DOES NOT MEAN THERE WILL BE NO TEAMS NOMINATED THIS YEAR?
WE ARE ON ANOTHER SUBJECT HERE.
THIS CAME UP IN THE LAST MEETING.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS ONLY.
BECAUSE WE SAY WE WANT TO DO THIS EVERY YEAR WITH THE TEAM AND CONTRIBUTORS.
THERE ARE TEAMS OUT THERE THAT MEET THE CRITERIA.
THE FIRST CLASS WAS 20 INDIVIDUALS? NO TEAMS, ANYONE ELSE OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THEN I THINK THIS ADVANCED TO A 20 NUMBER IS SYNERGY.
I THINK IT FITS WELL WITH OUR DESIRE TO INCREASE AND WHAT THAT FIRST CLASS REPRESENTED.
>> CAN I JUST REREAD THE MOTION FOR CLARITY?
>> MICHAEL JOHN MOVED FROM PRE-AND POST-1965 ATHLETES TO 20 INDIVIDUALS TOTAL.
THEN I HAVE A PARENTHESES : THERE WILL BE NO TEAM INDUCTEES OR CONTRIBUTORS FOR 2020 2022 ONLY.
AND JIM LEWIS SECONDED THAT MOTION.
>> CHAIR AK JOHNSON: THE LAST PART NO.
CONTRIBUTORS AND THE TEAM WILL STAY AT THEIR PRESENT NUMBER.
>> KAMILAH LAWSON: THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE.
>> CHAIR AK JOHNSON: TO TEAMS AND CONTRIBUTORS.
>> IT REALLY COULD BE MORE THAN 20.
>> IF YOU DO 20 INDIVIDUALS PLUS.
I THINK WE SAY, WE KEEP THE NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTORS AND TEAMS TO BE THE SAME.
WHATEVER WE SAID BEFORE ABOUT THE OTHER CATEGORIES TO BE THE SAME.
AND YOU ADD THE INDIVIDUAL PRE-AND POST.
UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 20 INDUCTEES.
I THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN 20 INDUCTEES.
THAT WHEN WE DID THE VERY FIRST TIME WAS REALLY GOOD.
>> I THINK THE CONCERN IS ONCE YOU HAVE ADDED A TEAM, YOU HAVE ADDED A BUNCH MORE PEOPLE.
SO THAT IS WHERE, WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO KEEP IT PERSONAL FOR THOSE THAT ARE RECEIVING AWARDS, THAT TEAM CAN SOMETIMES GET OUT OF CONTROL.
WHAT I DON'T WANT US TO DO IS BACKTRACK AND CHANGE THE THINGS WE HAD BEFORE.
NOTHING CAN OUTNUMBER WHAT WE DID THIS PAST FALL.
SOME TEENS MAY HAVE SMALLER NUMBERS.
AND YOU LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY SHOWED UP.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO BACKTRACK WHAT WE HAVE SET UP LAST YEAR SO WE KEEP SOME FORM OF NORMALCY WITHIN OUR PROCESS.
THE NORMALCY IS THAT WE HAVE SAID IN OUR STATEMENT THAT WE WILL CONDUCT ONE OF EACH EACH YEAR.
I THINK WE WANT TO STAY THAT WAY.
AND WE GET TO THAT NUMBER, IT MAY NOT BE 20 THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH.
BUT WE DON'T WANT TO WORD IT DOWN.
WE WANT TO JUST INCLUDE THOSE PEOPLE THAT DESERVE TO BE IN THERE.
[00:35:01]
SO THE MAX NUMBER IS A GOOD NUMBER TO START WITH.BUT WE MAKE IT TO 16 AND SAY THIS IS WHERE WE ARE.
>> CHAIR AK JOHNSON: END OF DISCUSSION.
THE MOTION READS THAT WE INCREASE THE NUMBER OF INDUCTEES AN INDIVIDUAL FOR 2022 TO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 20.
AND THAT WILL NOT INCLUDE TEAM AND CONTRIBUTOR COACHES AND ADMINISTRATORS.
>> YOU OKAY? YOU SAID TRENT AYE.? THE MOTION PASSES.
[VII.1. Review all submitted nominations]
I GUESS I NEED TO ASK, ANY EXTENSIONS? NO.REVIEW ALL SUBMITTED NOMINATIONS.
WE TALKED BEFORE THE GROUP GOT TOGETHER?
>> ACPS: LET ME FIND THE DOCUMENT FIRST.
I HAVE A DOCUMENT HERE THAT SHOWS WHAT THE NEW APPLICATIONS ARE.
SO FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE A BINDER AND DON'T SHOW WHAT OUR NEW APPLICATIONS ARE.
IT IS REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU THINK IT WILL BE DIFFERENT OR MORE.
AND IT IS NOT AS MANY AS YOU THINK IT IS.
CAN YOU ALL SEE THIS? SO THE FIRST THING I DID WAS LIST THE ONES THAT NEED TO COME OUT OF YOUR BINDER.
BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INDUCTED AND SHOULD NOT BE THERE, THERE IS A LIST OF THOSE THAT COME OUT.
THAT IS KIND OF A FRONT GROUP.
THEN HERE IS THE POST-1965 AND YOU WILL NOTICE YOU HAVE THE TWO LYLES BROTHERS IN THERE.
WE HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD ONES HERE.
WHEN YOU GET THE APPLICATIONS YOU WILL SEE THEM ALL OF THESE SEEM TO BE GOOD APPLICATIONS.
WE HAVE RECEIVED A COUPLE OF APPLICATIONS ON WIKIPEDIA.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK OUR NOMINEE FORMS ARE COMING AND BETTER THAN IN THE PAST.
BUT WHEN WE GET SOME ESPECIALLY NAMED PEOPLE.
THAT HAS ALMOST NOTHING IN IT.
THEN WE RECEIVED A COUPLE OF PIECES OF INFORMATION FROM OUR FRIEND MR. FILE TO ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT ATHLETIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF DIFFERENT ATHLETES AND TEAMS ASSOCIATED WITH GW.
SO THESE WILL ALL BE UPLOADED TO GOOGLE DRIVE.
THE THEORY IS THAT EVERYONE STILL HAS THEIR BINDER.
[00:40:02]
BECAUSE WE NEVER PICKED IT UP.I'M JUST UPDATING YOUR BINDER FOR YOU.
BUT I AM ASSUMING EVERYONE HAS THEIR BINDER CORRECT.
>> THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING TO DO.
YOU WILL GET A HARD COPY OF THEM AND YOU CAN JUST PUT THEM IN THE BINDER WHERE YOU NEED THEM.
THEY ARE ALL ALPHABETICAL BY THEIR AUTHENTICATION.
AND YOU CAN JUST FIX YOUR OWN BINDER AND THEN YOU CAN GO THROUGH AND START READING YOUR ATHLETES.
I AM A BIG PROPONENT OF THE RATING OF ATHLETES.
AND I THINK THEIR COMMITTEE, WHATEVER REIT COMMITTEE YOU ARE ON NEEDS TO DETERMINE THAT AND LET US KNOW WHO IS COMING OUT.
BECAUSE I COULD GO THROUGH AND TAKE PEOPLE OUT BECAUSE IT IS JUST A NAME.
I THINK YOU ALL NEED TO DO IT AS INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEES.
>> WHEN CAN WE EXPECT THIS WILL BE UPDATED AND THE GOOGLE DRIVE?
>> I HAVE ANOTHER MEETING THAT STARTS AT SEVEN SO I HAVE TO SIT THROUGH THAT MEETING.
>> IF YOU COULD JUST EMAIL US BY THE END OF THE WEEK.
SO WE WILL KNOW THAT IT WILL BE THERE.
AND AS FAR AS THE HARD COPY BINDERS.
THOSE OF US THAT HAVE THEM EVERYTHING IS IN THE GOOGLE DOC THAT YOU ARE UPDATING IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT WILL HAVE NEW PEOPLE.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE INPUTTING INTO IT CORRECT?
I CAN DO ALMOST ALL OF IT TONIGHT.
BUT I HAVE TO GO TO THE OLD GOOGLE FORM, TAKE OUT THE OLD AND DELETE SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT NEED TO COME OUT.
SO, PUT ALL THESE NEW APPLICATIONS UP TONIGHT IN THE GOOGLE DRIVE SO YOU CAN GO IN AND READ THEM.
YOU CAN SEE THEM AND YOU WILL RECEIVE THEM AS A HARD COPY.
SO YOU SHOULD ALL RECEIVE THEM THIS WEEK.
>> WILL THE HARD COPY INCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF LAST YEAR ALSO?
>> YOU ARE ONLY GOING TO RECEIVE HARD COPIES OF THE NEW ONES.
THEN YOU CAN GO THROUGH YOUR BINDER.
I WILL EMAIL THIS OUT TO EVERYONE.
BUT I WILL EMAIL THIS DOCUMENT OUT SO YOU CAN SEE WHICH ONES YOU CAN TAKE OUT.
AND YOU CAN JUST RIP THEM OUT OF YOUR BINDER AND THROW THEM AWAY.
OR DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH THEM.
OR MOVE THEM TO THE BACK OF YOUR BINDER.
HOWEVER YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT.
BUT WE DON'T WANT YOU TO KEEP CONSIDERING THEM BECAUSE YOU FORGOT.
THEN THESE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE THE HARD COPIES OF.
WHEN I POST THIS THEY WILL ALL BE COMBINED AS ONE UNIT.
SO EACH SECTION IS LIKE THE PRE-1965 GIRLS.
I DID WANT TO MAKE A NOTE THERE IS ONLY ONE WOMAN ATHLETE NOMINATED.
AND THIS IS WHERE WE RUN INTO TROUBLE.
IF WE GET A LOT OF MAIL NOMINATIONS AND NOT A LOT OF FEMALE NOMINATIONS.
SO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT.
BUT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT THIS YEAR.
BUT THEN I APPLIED TO GOOGLE DRIVE.
YOU WILL GET THINGS IN ITS CATEGORY.
YOU WILL GET THE FEMALE ATHLETES POST-19 FIVE AND PRE-1965.
BUT THE MALES POST AND PRE- AND I WILL HAVE EVERYBODY IN IT.
IT SHOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT YOUR BINDER HAS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYONE? WOULDN'T HE BE WITH THE PRE-65 GROUP EVEN THOUGH HE GRADUATED IN THE 6465 YEAR?
>> I NOTICED ONE GRADUATED 65 BUT HE PLAYED AND 64.
WOULD HE GO WITH THE PRE-65 GROUP?
[00:45:01]
>> WE CAN PUT IT WITH THE PRE-.
>> IT IS THE CLASS OF 65 WHICH WOULD BE THE LAST CLASS.
BY THE END OF THIS WEEK, CORRECT?
>> MY DAY HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM ME.
I WOULD LIKE TO GET IT UP TONIGHT.
NELSON IS IN THE FRONT OFFICE.
>> I WILL COME AND PICK MINE UP.
>> SUSAN, CAN YOU RESEND THE GOOGLE LINK IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY? I THINK THERE MIGHT BE PEOPLE THERE ANYWAY.
>> KAMILAH LAWSON: THE DEADLINE OF FRIDAY TO HAVE EVERYTHING UPDATED.
I WILL SEND OUT ANY EMAILS YOU NEED ME TO SEND OUT.
>> THAT UPDATED LINK AND GET ALL OF THE OLD PEOPLE OFF OF IT.
>> YOU CAN GO TO GOOGLE DRIVE AND START REVIEWING AS WELL.
I WILL GET YOU THE BINDER AND ALL THAT.
I REALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH AND CALL FROM THEIR CATEGORIES.
WE KEEP GOING THROUGH ALL THESE APPLICATIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON ABOUT 35 WOMEN IN THERE THAT YOU KNOW, THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND ON THEM.
BUT YOU ARE WELCOME TO FIND THEM.
AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND GET THE APPLICATION FILLED OUT.
WE CAN FILL OUT THE APPLICATION.
WHEN I GET APPLICATIONS I TRY TO PUT THEM IN THE DRIVE.
>> I KNOW WE ARE RUNNING LATE ON TIME.
I AM NOT ASKING OR SAYING THIS TO ENCOURAGE US TO POTENTIALLY BUILD ON IT.
I KNOW YOU WERE JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.
BUT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT ONCE THEY ARE NOMINATED THEY ARE IN THE PIPELINE FOREVER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SHOULD GO OUT UNTIL WE DECIDE WHETHER THAT IS A GOOD THING OR NOT.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TOLD PEOPLE THAT.
WHO IS TO SAY THAT WHEN I GET IN AND FIVE YEARS OR SO? I JUST HAD A CONCERN ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT IS A NARD NOT A HARD TASK RULE.
>> CAN I GIVE MY OPINION HERE SINCE I HAVE THE DATABASE? I THINK THAT THOSE ARE ACTUALLY WORTHY OF KEEPING, WE JUST NEED TO KEEP THEM THERE.
BUT I THINK THOSE THAT WERE JUST TURNING THE PAGE EVERY YEAR.
BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ON THEM.
BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TOLD SOME PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE IN THERE.
AND WE USUALLY DO THAT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE.
WE WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE 71 TITANS OUT NO MATTER WHAT.
I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO EVALUATE OUR LIST.
AND IF WE ARE ABLE TO REACH OUT TO THOSE WHO HAVE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION.
LET THEM KNOW THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMING OUT.
AND IF THEY HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE.
[00:50:02]
>> IT IS A MATTER OF MORE INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION AS OPPOSED TO IT THEMSELVES.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER IS THAT PEOPLE COMMIT TO SIT DOWN AND GO THROUGH SOME LOGS.
AFTER FIVE YEARS, THE NOMINATIONS HAD TO BE RESUBMITTED.
>> HE HAS GONE THROUGH A LOT OF TROUBLE RESEARCHING THESE GREAT ATHLETES.
IF WE CANNOT GET THEM WITHIN FIVE YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE ELSE WILL COME UP BEHIND THEM AND NEVER RENOMINATE THEM.
>> THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE THE BYLAWS.
>> THAT IS A DISCUSSION THAT CAN BE CHANGED.
>> KAMILAH LAWSON: ROBERTA HAS HER HAND UP.
>> ROBERTA SPEIGHT: DO WE HAVE ANY TALKING POINTS SO THAT WHEN WE ARE TALKING TO THE PUBLIC AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS, WE ARE ALL GETTING THE SAME RESPONSE?
>> THE TALKING POINT SHOULD BE THE BYLAWS.
TALKING POINT IS MAKING SURE YOU GET APPLICATIONS AND MAKE SURE YOU GET ENOUGH SUPPORT DOCUMENTS THAT HELP US.
BECAUSE THEN WE BECOME RESPONSIBLE TO DIG UP INFORMATION.
>> WE ARE ANSWERING QUESTIONS IN DIFFERENT MANNERS.
SO MAYBE WE NEED TO PULL OUT SPECIFIC ONES THAT HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND MAY BE LIKE A ONE SHEET.
YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE CONSTANTLY ASKED.
WE DON'T SEEM TO BE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS ALL THE SAME WAY.
BEFORE WE COULD PUT SOMETHING ON THE WEBSITE SO WHEN PEOPLE GO TO THE PAGE.
WE COULD DO A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS PAGE.
THEN PUT PEOPLE TO THAT RATHER THAN ANSWERING IT YOURSELF.
BECAUSE TRULY I GET PHONE CALLS AND IT IS COMING FROM THE COMMITTEE, THINGS THAT
[VIII. Chair’s Report]
PEOPLE ARE TOLD AND YOU ARE RIGHT, IT IS NOT CORRECT.OR PEOPLE ARE TOLD THEY WILL GET AN AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING IN.
THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WOULD BE GREAT.
BUT WE SHOULD ALL BE TRYING TO SING FROM THE SAME HANDBOOK.
MY TALKING POINT WHEN PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS.
BUT I THINK THE QUESTION ASKED WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.
BUT DO SOME OF US WANT TO SPEAK BECAUSE WE NEED TO MOVE ON HERE.
>> I DON'T WANT TO SAY ONE MORE THING.
YOU DID NOT HAVE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC.
JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A COMMITTEE.
>> AND WHAT IS SAID IN THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT HAVE TO GO OUT.
AGAIN WE ARE DOING ZOOM RIGHT NOW.
AND SUSAN INFORMED US THAT WE CAN GO IN PERSON.
WHEN WE GO IN PERSON, THE MEETING AND MARCH IS WHEN EVERYONE COMES AND GETS READY TO CONTRIBUTE.
AND THIS TIME MARCH IS VERY CRUCIAL WHEN IT'S COMMITTED.
GETTING YOUR INFORMATION TOGETHER FOR THE WHOLE CREW.
IF SOMEONE CAN'T BE HERE ON THE SEVENTH PLEASE EMAIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE DO
[IX. Announcements by Members]
[00:55:04]
NOT HAVE A QUORUM AND IT GIVES SUSAN ENOUGH TIME TO SET UP.THE OTHER THING I THOUGHT ABOUT IN MY REPORT IS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT MOVING THE TIME TO 630 IN PERSON.
HELP PEOPLE COMING FROM WORK OR NEED MORE TIME TO GET HERE.
BUT IF YOU COULD EMAIL ME BY THE END OF THE MONTH.
THAT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL AS I DO THE AGENDA.
AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE GROUP.
CAN WE DO BOTH IN PERSON AND IN ZOOM FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAN MAKE IT?
I DON'T WANT A LONG DRAWN OUT CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
>> YOU COULD DO THAT BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IT THERE.
IT WOULD PROBABLY ONLY BE AN IPHONE AND SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A PHONE TO DO THAT WITH.
>> CHAIR AK JOHNSON: IF YOU GIVE ME AN OPTION.
THAT DOESN'T HELP BECAUSE SOME DOCUMENTS ARE RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE OR WHATEVER.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SHOW UP IN PERSON ON THE SEVENTH.
PLEASE EMAIL ME BY THE 20TH OF THE MONTH.
[LAUGHTER] BUT ALSO AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
ALL RIGHT? IN THE FUTURE BUSINESS, ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TALK ABOUT IT.
>> ONE QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT PLEASE.
MAYBE EVERYONE IS NOT AWARE, I NOTE WE TALKED ABOUT HER MOM PASSING.
RYAN HAMMOND CLASS OF FIVE OR 66 WAS FOR AND REALIZED SATURDAY.
OUTSTANDING BASKETBALL PLAYER.
THOSE WHO DIDN'T KNOW RONNIE ROSS FROM HAMMOND HIGH SCHOOL.
>> HE HAS BEEN IN BAD HEALTH FOR YEARS.
>> I JUST REALIZED SOMEONE POSTED AND I SAID WAIT A MINUTE.
I SAW HIM AT THE FIRST DEDUCTION.
>> OKAY CALL FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
EVERYONE, HAVE A GREAT REST OF YOUR MONTH.
AND WE WILL SEE YOU ON 7 MARCH.
>> ACPS: I WILL
EMAIL YOU DANIEL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.