meeting with a similar number coming to a second meeting two weeks later. Approximately 50 percent of attendees were common to both meetings. At this second meeting, it was decided to establish a seven-member group who would organize the other volunteers. Initially, the taskforce selected five areas for intervention that were subsequently reduced to three. In deciding the focus of their activities, taskforce members made no mention of any of the other 10 initiatives that were already in place. When interviewed about this omission, some members explained that they were unaware of these previous initiatives. Other members were aware of them, concerned about their ineffectiveness, but reluctant to disclose their judgement. Several of the latter group believed that they could compensate for this ineffectiveness by introducing new, more effective schemes.
Taskforce members were busy people. Their competing commitments resulted in only one of the eight meetings being attended by all members of the group. Invariably, some members arrived late and others had to leave early. The members accepted this intermittent attendance as inevitable because they could all identify with the pressures of trying to meet conflicting commitments.
As the year drew to a close, five months after the initial meeting, little had been accomplished. The Samoan chairperson, Maria, was to go on leave the following year and a new chairperson was appointed. Plans were made to meet and report in the new year but these plans never happened. The explanation given to the researcher was that the new chairperson was overcommitted and unable to undertake the necessary organizational responsibilities.