|
Grex > Coop9 > #7: Members with more than one vote |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 135 of 186:
| 
Nov 29 05:32 UTC 1996 |
i see no problem with either 123 individuals joining as members who
also happen to be members of the same, but different (i.e., not grex)
organization. well, i guess i *do* see a 'problem.' however that problem
has always existed.
the rest of the 'either' is one ppl joining to represent the views of
122 other ppl who also happen to be members of .......
if there is a 'membership with voting rights requested' that loginid votes
and receives whatever other benefits membership includes.
i *am* a bit surprised that teh owner of convocat was given no choice
as tothe attached (chfn) name! at first blush that *appears* to smack
of an un-grexian approach UNLESS (and i do NOT know) aruba is the
owner of convocat. apologies in advance if convocat is aruba's other
account.
since grex welcomes all, (shudder) dominos could be a member with
single, full voting privileges and dominos and the nazis could hvae
their own conference for all that matters as far as grex is concerned.
besides, no one has tackeled the question about corporations being
legally classified as "people."
|
dang
|
|
response 136 of 186:
|
Nov 29 18:15 UTC 1996 |
Tsty, you were confusing the "Real name" attached to a account, the
"Conference Name" attached to an account, and the "Who owns the account" name
that is maintained purely by and for the treasurer, and is based on the id
given with the account. It was this last, which only the treasurer controls,
that was set to the person who registered the convocat account.
|
aruba
|
|
response 137 of 186:
|
Nov 30 03:46 UTC 1996 |
dang is correct.
|
tsty
|
|
response 138 of 186:
|
Nov 30 07:05 UTC 1996 |
oh?
grep convo /etc/passwd
convocat:x:6287:50:Magical Education Council of Ann
Arbor:/home/convocat:/usr/local/bin/tcsh
i guess i am confused - !really confused.
|
scg
|
|
response 139 of 186:
|
Nov 30 07:34 UTC 1996 |
I think the name in /etc/passwd was there before, put there by some user of
the convocat account. What aruba did was to change his records to agree with
that.
|
robh
|
|
response 140 of 186:
|
Nov 30 07:49 UTC 1996 |
Right. aruba (wrongly) assumed that the account was owned by Kami,
since she'd sent the check. The account's full name was always
MECAA.
|
janc
|
|
response 141 of 186:
|
Nov 30 16:16 UTC 1996 |
I think that record dates from danr.
|
tsty
|
|
response 142 of 186:
|
Dec 1 06:43 UTC 1996 |
aruba?
|
robh
|
|
response 143 of 186:
|
Dec 1 17:24 UTC 1996 |
#141 is probably true; if so, my apologies to aruba for implicating him.
|
srw
|
|
response 144 of 186:
|
Dec 4 18:08 UTC 1996 |
Yes, Mark explained back at the beginning of this whole issue that the
"situation" of having two voting accounts belonging to the same person
is a situation that he inherited.
|
tsty
|
|
response 145 of 186:
|
Dec 7 07:51 UTC 1996 |
aruba?
|
srw
|
|
response 146 of 186:
|
Dec 7 16:23 UTC 1996 |
Yes, Mark (aruba) Conger
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 147 of 186:
|
Dec 9 03:39 UTC 1996 |
I think Tsty is calling for Mark to come out and say something..
|
davel
|
|
response 148 of 186:
|
Dec 9 11:48 UTC 1996 |
Ok, but why?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 149 of 186:
|
Dec 10 21:29 UTC 1996 |
For verification, I guess.
|
tsty
|
|
response 150 of 186:
|
Dec 29 07:59 UTC 1996 |
not a bad guess, really. a guess though.
|
tsty
|
|
response 151 of 186:
|
Jan 30 06:43 UTC 1997 |
well, after all this time, at least a curiosity.
|
aruba
|
|
response 152 of 186:
|
May 12 19:10 UTC 1997 |
Sorry, didn't mean to leave you hanging TS - yes, the situation with convocat
was one I inherited from danr (i.e., Dan had recorded "Kami Landy" as the name
associated with the convocat account, and I assumed that meant that convocat
was Kami's pseudo. (I think I heard someone else refer to it as such, too.))
What I did last fall was change the name in the treasurer's records from
"Kami Landy" to "Magical Education Council of Ann Arbor". I certainly didn't
run chfn on the account (I don't even have the system privileges to do that).
I hope I haven't reopened this can of worms by responding to this item. :)
|
tsty
|
|
response 153 of 186:
|
May 13 06:20 UTC 1997 |
no , quite teh opposite ... you canned shut the potential for worms <g>
thankxxx
|
rcurl
|
|
response 154 of 186:
|
May 13 06:34 UTC 1997 |
A MIchigan non-profit, charitable (501(c)3) is about to apply for
CCI membership. I am on their board and maintain their web page here,
and will likely serve as their "agent" toward CCI. Since as a member
they would get a vote, I am faced with possibly having more than one
effective vote (the other as a private member). I know this is not
desired. Therefore I have been thinking of proposing a bylaw amendment
to create a "non-profit organizational membership", and provide for
them to have a vote *by action of their board of directors*. Any
worms here?
|
aruba
|
|
response 155 of 186:
|
May 13 07:41 UTC 1997 |
I suspect that the part about allowin them a vote, even though it require
board approval, will bring out some worms, yes. Does the institution in
question really badly want a vote, or is it just interested in supporting
Grex?
My opinion is that the simplest thing to do is for them to make a donation,
and leave it at that. THe next simplest thing is to amend the bylaws and
add a category of "corporate" membership, which is non-voting. But as you
have often reminded us, Rane, State law requires that what they call a
"member" be a person. I guess I'm not sure how to reconcile that with having
a class of corporate membership, unless we abandon the one-to-one relationship
between "Grex memberships" and "memberships-for-the-purposes-of-state-law",
which was an idea you didn't seem to like at all.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 156 of 186:
|
May 13 18:40 UTC 1997 |
A corporation is a person in state law.
Organizations can indeed just make a donation. I think this is less desirable
as it is easy to forget to make the donation, but a member is reminded to pay
dues. In addition, there is an element of mutual identification between an
organization and members - a closer sense of member non-profits supporting
each other.
The MNAC, and probably most non-profits using Grex, would likely not vote,
because the board members mostly would not know the candidates. The main
reason for including the right to vote, even if unexercised, is to not
make a non-profit corporate membership a "lesser" membership.
|
scg
|
|
response 157 of 186:
|
May 13 22:26 UTC 1997 |
Corporations are people under state law, to an extent. Corporations can not
vote in governmental elections.
|
mary
|
|
response 158 of 186:
|
May 14 01:49 UTC 1997 |
Rane, I don't remember Grex ever granting organizations full membership
status with voting rights? Am I mis-remembering? Did the organization
kami is associated with ever vote here on Grex?
I would rather Grex not allow organizations to hold voting memberships.
If I thought all the individuals who make up the organization's Board of
Directors would follow the events here and each place an informed vote on
how the organization's vote would go, that would be reasonable. But
that's unrealistic and unlikely to happen. Instead, the person who is the
contact here would most likely make a recommendation to the Board as to
how the vote should go, and the organization's Board would accept this
advice, making it a proxy vote. And if this contact person also held a
personal membership he or she would indeed be voting twice.
We depend on folks to follow an honor system here - one vote per person.
We ask individuals not hold multiple voting memberships (and they could
with very little effort if they wanted to do so). I don't think it would
be fair to expect most everyone else to abide by such rules while we allow
a few who are associated with organizations to vote twice with our
blessings.
Keep it simple and fair, please.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 159 of 186:
|
May 14 05:52 UTC 1997 |
There may be a significant use of Grex by non-profit organizations, who
would likely be glad to support the organization with dues. I can see this
as a very mutually beneficial interaction. However if an organization
is considered inferior (or unethical, as suggested above), there is not
much basis for suggesting organizational support.
|