response 25 of 95:

May 29 06:03 UTC 1999

The solution to the problem is for the board to act now to enter the suit,
and then someone enter a motion for members to vote upon to *reverse* the
board action.

I am not suggesting any "fast one's". If the board adopts a motion, and
then later the membership defeats the same motion, that cannot reverse the
board action. It could just mean that the membership is happy that the
board has spoken on the issue, and they don't want to have the same motion
adopted twice. A negative vote does *not* always mean disapproval, but can
simply be used to clear the docket or to say "we don't need to vote
again".

response 27 of 95:

May 29 17:55 UTC 1999

In general I don't think Grex should be taking political positions, whether
I agree with that position or not.  In this case, however, a law has been
passed that may outlaw our orginization.  In order to continue to exist,
assuming there would not be other lawsuits that would establish the precident
for us, we need to sue to allow Grex to keep existing.  This nice organization
called the ACLU has volunteered to represent us and others affected by the
law for free.  Joining in this lawsuit is taking them up on that offer. 
There's nothing terribly new about that for us.  Grex has hired a lawyer (who
also represented us for free) in the past to help us in a dispute with our
then landlord, so while that never went to trial, it's not the first time we
have threatened legal action.

response 29 of 95:

May 30 01:47 UTC 1999

I am not a member (but will be again soon) but I definitely would/will 
vote yes.  (JEP, while I understand and to some extent agree with your 
position on the ACLU, I don't see how grex can _not_ take part in this 
suit.)  

response 31 of 95:

May 30 18:28 UTC 1999

I read the bylaws and do not see sufficient explanation of the
responsibilities of the 'Board Members', actually, "Board of Trustees" as
spelled out in the Articles of Incorporation to determine if the Board has
sufficient authority to commit the organization to paying for a lawsuit
without the members voting.  Article 6 paragraph 2 clearly says, "No part <of
Grex> shall be the carrying on of propagating legisltation...", so I do not
see how you would risk alienating your membership by Not having a general
membership vote at the next meeting.  The more you email all members about
the issue and how you want their vote and the implications of their vote, such
as thousands of dollars in attorneys fees, the more you are protecting
yourselves, as Board members, from accusations of 'stampeding'.  Have the
general membership vote as prescribed in the Bylaws.

response 33 of 95:

May 31 14:47 UTC 1999

Re #31: Re-read some of the previous items, preferably while conscious. 
Grex is contributing its name, some time and the manpower of certain
individuals. The probability that Grex will be liable for "thousands of
dollars in attorneys fees" is virtually zero, and for you to suggest
otherwise is intellectually dishonest. If this needs to be cleared up,
then perhaps the Grex board should consider adding specific language to
any resolutions clearly stating that no money will be allocated for
attorney fees.

response 35 of 95:

May 31 18:33 UTC 1999

Oh - as far as I can tell from reading the Grex bylaws (Item 2 in this
conference), there is *no* authority for any kind of phone poll of
members at large or the Board.  There are only two ways for Grex
to act:  By a Board vote, or by a member motion (which has a mandatory
delay of two weeks before voting can begin).
        An organization can only act in accord with its bylaws.  
Ergo, since the ACLU wants a decision by the end of this coming week,
the *only* was that Grex can act both legally and timely is for the
President to call a special meeting of the Board.
        Just one person's opinion...

response 37 of 95:

May 31 19:52 UTC 1999

re 35:
        There's nothing in the bylaws saying that the membership couldn't be
polled by phone, as long as that poll wasn't a way of setting policy.  If
somebody wanted to do such a poll, turn the results over to the board, and
then have a board vote to enact the outcome of the phone poll, I'm assuming
that would be permissable.

response 39 of 95:

May 31 20:35 UTC 1999

A special board meeting has been called for, but not yet scheduled. 
Apparantly John is out of town this week.  We still need to figure out which
board members are available when this week.

response 41 of 95:

Jun 1 01:17 UTC 1999

I'm available any evening this week.

response 43 of 95:

Jun 1 20:20 UTC 1999

I've cleared the deck for every evening through Friday to be available for
this critical meeting.

response 45 of 95:

Jun 2 05:01 UTC 1999

Avoid this lawsuit Grex, you have nothing to fear.  I used to like the ACLU
about 20 years ago, but they changed quite a bit since then.  Now, the ACLU
considers hard-core pornography to be "free speech".
   
Saying parents should oversee their children's web surfing, not the government
is a cowardly cop-out from people who mistake "freedom" for "licentiousness".
Yeah, if Grex allows, passively allows, sexually explicit material to be
transmitted to or solicited from minors, Grex should be busted and fined.

response 47 of 95:

Jun 2 12:05 UTC 1999

Good point. Many years ago, when I was in high school, the parents of a
friend of mine got him a subscription to Playboy. Without re-reading the
entire text of the proposed act, it occurs to me that there are no
provisions for parents who may wish to permit their minor child access to
pornography (although I guess they could claim "educational purpose"). So
jep and gutchess, what about those all-important parental rights? 

response 49 of 95:

Jun 2 14:06 UTC 1999

The board meeting to discuss joining the suit will be Monday the 7th at
7:30 PM.  Location TBA.