In order to clarify established intent and eliminate potential conflict
resulting from possible differences between relevant law and our intent, I
propose an amendment to the relevant portions of the bylaws of Cyberspace
Communications, to wit:
For all matters subject to a vote of the membership, a quorum
shall consist of the lesser of
1. Ten members, or
2. Half the number of members whose votes have been counted in
the matter at hand at the end of the election period.
91 responses total.
If I read point 2 correctly, you're saying that if only four members vote, the quorum becomes two? Since you say the lesser of 1 and 2 applies, isn't that equivalent to eliminating quorums altogether? (Which would be my preference, actually.)
Yes, but by encoding a flexible quorum defined as some number smaller than the number of voters, we altogether avoid the problem of a law superceding our intent. I'm not sure that the current definitions reflected in item:39:20 do not render this proposal moot, but I think it very likely, given the wording. However, given that this proposal defines a quorum and not the proportion of votes required for a measure to pass or an election to be won, it would in no way conflict with the existing bylaws.
By the way, if anyone has a suggestion as to which portion of the bylaws should be amended by this proposal, please make the case and the proposal will be adjusted accordingly. This might be appropriate to add as a new subsection rather than as an amendment of an existing one.
I think making it a separate section is the right way to go.
I really really think that bylaw provisions should not be worded in such a way that they are apt to make readers scratch their heads and say "Huh?"
If an amendment is needed at all - and I'm not convinced that it is - why not just say: "A quorum shall consist of the number of members casting votes"?
Hmm... If we can't say
A quorum is not required.
let's say
A quorum shall consist of one member.
I'm not opposed to the notion, but we should keep the contextual bit at the beginning.
This response has been erased.
I dunno what I was trying to do. Somehow it just didn't seem proper to just call one person a quorum. Maybe I need(ed) more sleep...
This response has been erased.
I think the second wording is better. It accomplishes the same thing and is clearer. There will be less opportunity for future versions of jp2 to argue about it. ;>
This response has been erased.
Those things always involving complete capitulation by those who disagree with you?
This response has been erased.
As I seem to recall, you were working to *exploit* another (perceived) hole.
This response has been erased.
You have certainly substantiated your claim to being a(n) &%#&$
Actually, you've merely made claims. Others have produced evidence to show your claims false, but then you simply deny it is evidence, because we are saying you things YOU don't like.
This response has been erased.
Pointer: http://grex.org/local/grex/bylaws.html
See also the specific proposal that was passed to remove the requirement of a quorum.
This response has been erased.
No, you *claimed* such. But you are not a credible witness.
This response has been erased.
Your discussion of monetary policy comes immediately to mind. Would you prefer I word it, "I do not find you to be credible"? The result is the same.
There was lots of evidence compiled that proved David Irving was a holocaust denier.
SZLIPP!!
This is reminding me a lot of the "photocopying a driver's license is illegal" nonsense we went through a while back. I think this is just a game jp2 likes to play.
You know, I freely admit I was wrong about that. But I am not the one who brought up the quorum issue. That was other. I just agree with him.
Yes, you did bring it up, as an excuse for asking for the membership list.
Wait, hold on. What I am saying is that I said a quorum has not been met in some years. Other is the one who realized that the quorum was not properly eliminated. Frankly, I wish I were the one to come up with that. You know how much I love hassling you guys.
I did no such thing. You suggested it, and I merely made a proposal to eliminate any doubt or confusion the current wording might allow.
Y'know, it just occurred to me that there may be another solution. People are not generally required to vote. Since the vote is announced in the motd, everyone who logs in during the polling period is aware of the election. Therefore, they can be judged "present" if they log in, even if they decide not to vote. At the end of the polling period, it should be fairly simple to determine what number of members logged in during the interval of interest. Still, I do not think a 'quorum' is currently required. And I like it that way.
(I didn't like it at all when the quorum was "removed," but I remember being clearly in the minority on that one. my complaint remains that if an issue or an election fails to stir enough passion in the body to generate a reasonable turnout, then the issue or election is not worth deciding and should be modified until it is worth deciding.) (I don't find it at all ironic that apathy about Grex and its governance seems to have increased in the intervening years.)
(what carson said)
Re resp:35: How would you suggest dealing with the situation where a quorum problem makes it impossible to elect a board? Or should the quorum only apply to non-board elections?
(Since this item is a formal member proposal for a bylaw amendment, I'll don my voteadm hat for a moment and remind folks of timelines and procedures. Discussion of a proposal takes place for a minimum of two weeks. After that, the proposer may decide either to submit a final wording for a vote by the membership, or to drop the proposal. In order for a bylaw amendment to pass, at least 3/4 of those members who vote must vote in favor. Eric posted this item on December 1, so the two week period ends December 14.)
re #37: (I thought I stated it pretty clearly the first time, but
to specifically address your question: if the candidates
available for election are so milquetoast that, despite
their numbers, they are unable to stir enough passion in the
electorate to generate a reasonable turnout, then they should
not be elected. what I would have rather seen when this
occurred way back when was a new slate of candidates and/or
a realization by the Grex membership that, hey, if you're not
willing to participate in how Grex is managed, then Grex
will go away. I think it's important for members to feel
like members and accept the responsibility of being members,
and, one more time, I don't believe that that is the present
case.)
Re resp:39: Right, but what happens if we don't elect a board? Does the old board remain in effect? Does Grex have no board? Does Grex shut down? That's what I'm not clear on.
This response has been erased.
Why do you bring this up, Jamie? Do you _want_ grex to shut down? Do you _want_ grex to be faced with fines or other penalties for not following the law? What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish? What good do you expect, or want, to come from the questions you keep asking?
Re resp:41: Is there actually any way we could meet your definition of an "annual meeting" and still allow non-local voting members? It sounds to me like you're suggesting the board can only be elected in a face-to-face meeting.
This response has been erased.
gull asked because you are continually bringing these matters up. Why? Why not just let the sleeping dog lie?
Re 39: carson, I sympathise with your viewpoint, but I offer this in counterpoint: the UM Sailing Club has MUCH higher dues, and higher membership, usually between 150 and 200 people, some times higher. The quorum to elect officers and to approve the annual budget is one-half that required to approve capital expenses. This past October, the numbers were something like 12 and 23 (it's a complicated formula). The finance meeting, requiring the larger quorum, is held first. This year, we had enough members attend to approve the budget but NOT enough to approve the proposed capital expenditures. Three weeks later, at the election meeting, we had about twenty-seven members show up, which was enough to approve the proposed expenditures and elect officers. Still, the longest part of those meetings, year after year, is spent waiting for the last few pople to show up to make quorum. I don't think it is apathy, but it is something.
This response has been erased.
AHAHAHA< AND SAME REASON YOU"RE USING GREX ON A SATURDAY NIGHT
This response has been erased.
Re 45> I thought gull asked because carson brought it up this time. Seems like Jamie was only answering gull's question. I think it's unfair to pounce on Jamie everytime he says something people construe as controversial without taking into consideration the context in which it was said.
Pretty much every club I've been in has had problems maintaining quorum at the meetings, even if it's otherwise a club people are active in and enthusiastic about.
I was opposed to repealing the election participation requirements at the time the issue was being voted on, but I've since come around to the opposite point of view. People buy memberships for various reasons and may not be at all interested in participating in the governance of the organization. They might want the few perks we offer, or they might just want to help support what they see as a worthwhile effort and leave the governance to others. Not have vote quotas means that policy decisions are in the hands of those who are interested in participating. The current system is not broken, and I wouldn't favor changing it.
At one time in the 60s, the Ann Arbor Civil Rights Commission, which had, IIRC, 7 members was having difficulty getting a quorum for its meetings. David Cahill and I managed to have the quorum requirement changed through a vote of the commission. The new quorum was 2 people. We never again had a problem getting more than 4 people to a meeting. No one was willing to risk what David and I might do if left on our own.
A most understandable concern! Oops, almost forgot: :)
This response has been erased.
Was Don Koster involved with that commission at all?
I agree with remmers on this one. I don't think that raising the bar for membership by *requiring* active participation in governance is something that is really in Grex's best interests. We're trying to get more members here, not drive away the ones we have.
No Don wasn't, but David was, I think, working in his office, or with him politically, or something like that.
I miss him. I wonder what he would have said about this?
I oppose this bylaw change because I oppose all participation requirements in elections. We were right to remove the requirement earlier.
(there's a difference between requiring members to vote and requiring matters before the body to be compelling enough to worth deciding. I would not be surprised if there were people who oppose quorums because it makes their vote more important and makes it possible for certain "pet projects" to pass through inertia.) (speaking of which, I don't recall getting any announcement about the board election outside of the MOTD posting.)
Where else would it be announced? It was in the MOTD (which, in theory, everyone sees) and in Co-op. Were you hoping for a personal phone call? ;>
(e-mail? letter? FWIW, the only reason I see the MOTD is because I specifically set-up my account to re-display it after Grex redraws my screen after login. should we limit voting on Grex to the technically savvy?) (...although I certainly wouldn't have frowned on a phone call, I personally didn't need one.) ;)
It was in the announcement item in Agora, with several reminders.
Re #61: On any given issue, wouldn't reduced participation increase the importance of the votes both of those for and those against? Seems to balance out.
Um, no. Not if those supporting one side tend, on the whole, to be much less apathetic than those supporting the other. Consider the conventional statement that low turnouts (in US elections generally) tend to favor Republicans.
Re: #63: I think that at the time an election "opens", an e-mail should be sent to grex members, as a reminder, since their vote is the one that counts.
Yeah, I kind of think that's a good idea too.
I agree, and will do that next time. Probably two emails, one at the start of nominations, the second at the start of the election.
Perhaps one at the start of the election and one on the final day instead?
(I also think an e-mail reminder is a good idea.)
re #46: (I want to make sure that I understand your point correctly:
the Sailing Club has a quorum, has more than twice the number
of members as Grex, AND has higher dues [which, by implication,
means a larger budget]? and the only downside is that, once a
year, about a dozen people who care about the Club have to wait
for the other dozen who only sort of care to show up?)
(that sounds to me like a strong data point in favor of having
some sort of quorum. what do you think?)
<bhelliom slipped>
This response has been erased.
Also, I'd like to see the emails sent in a way which conforms to the current limits in order to reduce the impact on Grex, unless we first implement a policy change excepting this specific (or like) incidence(s) from the existing policy.
carson, my point was that despite a much higher investment in the Sailing Club, very, very few members are interested in its governance. The quorum is 10 + (N-20)/7 where N is the number of voting members.
IS THERE ANY ESCAPE FROM MAAATThc.
This response has been erased.
re #75: (I dunno. it seems to me that there's a higher proportion of
interested Sailing Club members than there are Grex members.
and I have to keep reminding myself that this discussion was
over seven years ago and that I'm flagellating a terminated
equine.)
Actually, there is a higher proportion of interested Grex members: Grex regularly gets twenty to thirty voters, the Sailing Club has had trouble getting 12.
I've always thought it's reasonable to assume that if people don't vote, they don't care and would be happy with either option.
(the Sailing Club only has 34 voting members? Joe, check your math again.)
(gull slipped in. David, I wouldn't disagree with your first conclusion.)
If the Sailing Club has 100 members, the quorum is 21; half that (to elect officers) is 11. Grex has fewer than 100 members, but always has at least 20 people vote. This time, the voting proportion was more than half. The last time I can remember the Sailing Club having any where near half its members show up is 1995, when we were deciding on the boats for a new fleet: 470s or JY15s. Usually, the Sailing Club is doing good to get a fifth of its members to vote.
It's only fair to say that the sailing club probably doesn't offer its members a week in which they may show up & vote at their convenience & without their having to leave home. That might or might not actually make much difference.
carson's original point was that not many people vote in grex elections, which he considers terrible. My counterpoint was that this lack of participation is not unique to grex. Subsequently, it's been shown that the participation rate is a bit better than we thought.
This response has been erased.
I thought I just read that 46 members voted in this election
This response has been erased.
Possibly a larger-than-usual number wanted to vote against you?
8-{)]
This response has been erased.
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: