response 51 of 95:

Jun 3 16:13 UTC 1999

By arguing that it should ignore a statute which would dramatically
change the way it does business, and perhaps put it out of business?
With friends like you, does Grex need enemies?

response 53 of 95:

Jun 3 23:38 UTC 1999

The board meeting will be in the Kids Room at Zingerman's Next Door on Monday 
the 7th at 7:30 PM.

response 55 of 95:

Jun 4 13:52 UTC 1999

re #52: John, I think you need to spend a bit more time thinking, and a bit
        less time reacting instinctively to your jerking knee. I did not
        state that you didn't mean well -- just that your advice is
        misguided and destructive. If you think through the consequences of
        the act, you may be able to understand why your suggestions are
        being so uniformly rejected.

        It's a bit like telling a choking person to follow the folk
        remedy of "eating a piece of dry bread." You mean well, but your
        advice is entirely misguided.

response 57 of 95:

Jun 6 03:14 UTC 1999

You will only understand, John, if you make an effort.

response 59 of 95:

Jun 8 03:05 UTC 1999

Cyberspace Communications should continue to act as a plaintiff in the lawsuit aimed at overturning Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999.

First, since the board has already voted to join the lawsuit, the issue is not whether to join but whether to continue. I also think this makes it a bit clearer that a "NO" vote on this would force us to withdraw. Also it more accurately names the law in question.

response 61 of 95:

Jun 8 05:26 UTC 1999

This was discussed at the board meeting tonight.  Jan said that he understood
the technical reasons for Rane's objections to the motion, but that he's not
willing to propose a motion to get out of the suit, since he's not willing
to be the sponsor of a motion he disagrees with.  The board considered putting
into their motion to join the suit a clause saying that Grex would pull out
of the suit if the members didn't ratify the decision but decided not to,
instead verbally agreeing that if this motion didn't pass they would convene
another board meeting to vote on getting out of the suit.  Since nobody
expects this motion to fail, having to deal with it failing was not seen as
very likely.

response 63 of 95:

Jun 8 14:43 UTC 1999

I'm sorry - NO only means that the voters don't want *that* motion - it
does not mean they want something else, unless that something else is
spelled out. It is very bad procedure to put just one unspecified
interpretation on a NO vote on the motion.

I don't understand Jan's reluctance to word a motion that is offered in
order to give the membership an opportunity to countermand the board's
decision. It makes one think that all he wants are "yes members". 

It is quite proper and often necessary for a person strongly in favor
of an action to offer a motion exactly opposite to that, especially when
this is the only way to provide an alternative. These are procedures
to faciliate democratic processes. The only reason that most motions
are made by people that favor some action is because that's what they
want. 

So, what's the purpose of Jan's motion, which just repeats what the board
has already decided, and is therefore redundant? Is it to determine whether
or not that is what the members really want? If it is, the best procedure
is to give them a choice - a chance to vote against the action. 

This is getting to be too wordy.... I will enter a motion to discontinue
particpation in the suit. 

response 65 of 95:

Jun 8 19:28 UTC 1999

Rane, I don't want to sponsor a motion to drop the suit because I don't want
to be perceived as supporting such an action.  The notion that I should make
a motion and then campaign against it and vote against it is just too weird
for me.

response 67 of 95:

Jun 8 19:40 UTC 1999

A REFERENDUM on the continued participation of Cyberspace Communications, Inc. in the lawsuit aimed at overturning Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999: A vote of "YES" shall be construed as supporting continued participation, while a vote of "NO" shall be construed as supporting withdrawal from the lawsuit described herein.

response 69 of 95:

Jun 8 20:02 UTC 1999

The Grex bylaws have no provisions for referenda - only for motions.

I don't have any difficulty in making motions with which I disagree, so
have entered item 103 as a motion to reverse the board vote. Motions are
just tools for accomplishing things. It usually happens that when one has
what one thinks is a good idea, one poses it as a motion - and one
naturally agrees with it. However motions have other uses, such as
offering an alternative. Grex is peculiar in having two bodies, both of
which can adopt valid acts of the Corporation. It is useless both to adopt
the same motion, so the simplest way to obtain the opinion of the members
after a vote of the board is to move the opposite. 

response 71 of 95:

Jun 9 16:50 UTC 1999

I correct myself: I have come to realize that a referendum is a vote by a
membership (or constituency) to initiate or modify a law otherwise adopted
by a legislative body. Therefore the bylaw provision for membership
initiation and adoption of acts IS the referendum power. However the form
of an initiative must still be as a motion to adopt some policy or course
of action, and a NO vote still means only that the proposal fails. 

The problem with a vote such as in #67 is that it means that one of only
two possible actions, A or B, will result, but NEITHER may be what voters
want. No motion can force a group to adopt either action A or action B,
but neither no other action or no action at all. The A and B in #67 are
not the only possible actions that could be proposed. 

response 73 of 95:

Jun 9 19:07 UTC 1999

We could put a time limit on our participation; we could specify how our
involvement is publicized; we could have had other modifiers on our
involvement. We didn't, but we COULD - so there are other alternatives. 

I'd like to know what authority you draw on to say what form the
referendum must take, and why you think that Grex is bound by that
authority. 

I could quote custom, conventional practices in non-profits, RRoO, but of
course you will reject all of these as not binding Grex. Are you saying
only *your* rules bind Grex? 

I don't know if I have to say this or not, but I have absolutely no
animosity, axe to grind, wish to upset anyone, or hidden motive, in
offering what I believe is a better motion than Jan's to show what the
wishes of the membership are. There is absolutely no reason, either, why
they both cannot go forward, if you so wish. At least what I perceive
to be the minority will be given the chance to vote in favor of what they
believe, given that the board majority has already spoken.