|
Grex > Coop11 > #99: Minutes of the May 24, 1999 Meeting of the Grex Board | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 20 new of 30 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 30:
| 
Jun 1 16:50 UTC 1999 |
The option "or holding a collection to pay the dues" is not valid, as the
board cannot force anyone to be a member by paying their dues. Joining a
membership-based organization is an act only an individual can validly do
for themselves. I realize that lots of people have memberships given to
them or "bought for them" in many organizations, though most of those
involve titular memberships, not ones carrying legal responsibilities and
authorities. Some people are given Grex memberships but if they don't
refuse to accept them, they have implicitly accepted membership. This is a
rather trivial matter for most memberships, which are just associated with
donations, but raise more serious questions if the person is a board or
staff member (an elected or appointed individual).
If all this seems pointless, consider buying Feiger a membership in the
NRA, and then holding him responsible for being an NRA member. Such a
membership would be solely titular, but who "pays" makes a big difference.
|
scg
|
|
response 12 of 30:
|
Jun 1 18:55 UTC 1999 |
I'm assuming if a board member doesn't want to be a member, they can say so
and people won't hold the collection, or they can refuse the gift membership
that would result from the collection.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 30:
|
Jun 1 19:02 UTC 1999 |
Personally, I'd not mention or suggest a collection. A primary role of a
board member in any organization is to provide support or access to
support. If a board member declined (even out of necessity, but then might
wonder how they eat, house, travel, clothe, etc) to pay dues, that's their
way to resign.
|
mta
|
|
response 14 of 30:
|
Jun 1 20:09 UTC 1999 |
Re: resp:9
We already have a precedent for that number in that if a board member fails
to attend 3 meetings in a row, the seat is declared open.
How much does it matter if the board member is there but can't act?
|
aruba
|
|
response 15 of 30:
|
Jun 1 21:00 UTC 1999 |
Sorry, Misti - I didn't follow that. What were you responding to?
|
davel
|
|
response 16 of 30:
|
Jun 2 00:59 UTC 1999 |
(Pretty clearly it related to Jan's statement "... but there is still the
question of how long a board member's dues can go unpaid (thus rendering that
person ineligable to vote on board motions, etc.) before we declare the seat
open and call a vote for a replacement.".)
Re 11: Rane, AFAIK there is no requirement that staff people be members. In
general, they are, and there are good reasons for this practice, but I don't
think it's a requirement.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 30:
|
Jun 2 05:13 UTC 1999 |
Dave, I hadn't really thought out the matter in regard to staff, so
you are quite right to question it. I withdraw that thought.
|
janc
|
|
response 18 of 30:
|
Jun 2 17:24 UTC 1999 |
If a person doesn't want to continue as a board member they can resign. If
they are willing and able to continue to serve, but are so broke that they
can't come up with membership money, then of course it is possible to buy them
a gift membership. Even if we had some reason for not wanting to allow that,
then how would we know if they were paying us their own money or if someone
had slipped them $6 under the table?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 30:
|
Jun 2 17:39 UTC 1999 |
As long as they took responsibility for paying their dues. We don't ask
how or where any member gets the money to pay their dues. But a board
member that has been bought?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 20 of 30:
|
Jun 2 23:07 UTC 1999 |
Since it doesn't matter where the money comes from, if the member takes
responsibility for it (by accepting the membership); then take out the
"collection" clause in the proposed policy. Also, I suggest that the policy,
if a part of the bylaws, be a bit less specific about the point during the
meeting that is the hour of reckoning. Let the board decide when to bring
it up when it is an issue.
|
mta
|
|
response 21 of 30:
|
Jun 2 23:17 UTC 1999 |
The reason for having it be quite specific is so that no one needs to "be the
bad guy" when the time comes. It seems like a good idea to me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 30:
|
Jun 3 00:56 UTC 1999 |
If a board member's dues are not current they can't be considered 'present'
as a board member. I am on the board of an organization where the
secretary announces just before a meeting starts who is in arears on
their dues, and there is a scramble to pay. Very amusing, since they
several prior written notices.
|
aruba
|
|
response 23 of 30:
|
Jun 3 03:34 UTC 1999 |
Re #20: This isn't a motion to amend the bylaws, just a motion to make a
policy. I think Misti said it very well in #21.
Re #22: I suppose we could do it that way. Sometimes people arrive late,
though, and it's common for people to pass me money during the meeting. So
I thought it would be good to give them until the end (keeping in mind that
their votes don't count if they're not paid up). Besides, if the board didn't
discuss the matter under "new business", when would they discuss it?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 30:
|
Jun 3 03:46 UTC 1999 |
Discuss what matter? Whether dues are current and a board member may "sit"
is a matter of fact, and can be announced when the roll is taken. People
arriving late doesn't matter - they may not "sit" as board members until
their dues are paid. Do you mean, when should the vacancy be filled? In
new business. But this is all theory. There is no problem to address
unless an elected member just refuses to pay dues due. Then it is clear
that there is a vacancy to fill. Of course, vacancies don't *have* to be
filled when they arise - or ever for that matter. That's up to the board.
|
aruba
|
|
response 25 of 30:
|
Jun 3 15:17 UTC 1999 |
There would be something to discuss if the board member said he just couldn't
afford it right now, but will be able to soon (an explanation I hear not
infrequently from regular members), or (more likely) if the board member
hasn't paid and didn't come to the meeting.
As you know, Rane, Grex board meetings are open to the public, and we
always meet in a place that has chairs, so anyone may "sit" at a board
meeting, whether they have paid dues or not. This is perhaps different
from the way most boards of directors function. (I think we agree,
though, that board members shouldn't be allowed to vote on motions if
their dues are not current.)
What would that board which reads names at the beginning of the meeting do
if a delinquent board member arrived late?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 30:
|
Jun 3 16:47 UTC 1999 |
Board members can come late (or leave early) from a meeting. The minutes
should record such arrivals and departures, so who is in attendance
(of board members) is on the record at all times.
I put "sit" in quotes to refer to a board member in official attendance.
Whether a board member can afford dues or not isn't the point. That is
a personal matter with which the board should not be concerned *as a
board*. The only question is whether dues are current. It also is not
a board matter where a person gets the money to pay dues (although a
person really should step down if they expect to be in jail for any
significant period of time).
|
aruba
|
|
response 27 of 30:
|
Jun 3 17:10 UTC 1999 |
<sigh> Rane do you object to the policy proposed in the minutes? If so I'm
afraid I've lost the thread of your argument.
|
janc
|
|
response 28 of 30:
|
Jun 3 17:22 UTC 1999 |
I think we may be over-analyzing a pretty trivial thing. This is a
board policy describing how the board will handle a particular situation
that basically effects only the board. The board isn't really in any
way bound to follow it, since they could change it at any time. It's a
pretty trivial operational procedure for how the board will implement
the existing bylaws.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 30:
|
Jun 4 04:37 UTC 1999 |
I think it is pretty trivial too, and if I had been at the board meeting
I would have suggested not including that bit about a collection to
pay the dues, since it wouldn't be done for others, and it might have
been accepted (or not) and be over with in a few seconds. But this medium
gives us all an opportunity to pontificate at length upon the trivial...
and we do.
|
remmers
|
|
response 30 of 30:
|
Jun 8 18:02 UTC 1999 |
The policy will be up for a vote at the next regular board meeting.
I favor keeping it simple and just require that the board member be
paid up by the end of the meeting. Trying to spell out ways in which
this could be achieved adds nothing, and I agree with Rane that how
the member comes up with the money isn't and shouldn't be the board's
concern.
|