 |
 |
anthony's so righteous when he's angry that i hesitate to point this out, but californians (at least three of us here) got left out of the loop this time too. perhaps the computer cannot handle "ca" designations??? just so you know--the forms are available on the web at http://www.uta.edu/english/cgb/cccc/97cfp/prop_form.html shantih om. --susan dobra ______________________________________________________________________________========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 13:34:30 -0500 From: Roger Graves <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Canadian Caucus proposal submitted Yes, this makes great sense to me. And thanks for doing the paperwork! Roger > Hi...while Roger is rounding folks up for the Canadian sponsored Panel, I've > filled out the paperwork so that we can have another Canadian Caucus--which > traditionally meets later in the early evening after the first two days of > sessions. This year at Milwaukee it was not structured with any speakers, > but it could be. NOw I didn't specify any speakers again this year, but the > new rule about multiple speakers doesn't apply to Caucuses, Workshops and > Special Interest Groups, so if anyone out there wants to make the Caucus > meeting more formal, we could have speakers giving talks (who could be on > other panels/roundtables, etc. with impunity). > > (does this make sense?) > > mary-louise >