|
Grex > Coop9 > #26: Proposed Bylaw Amendment: Clarify who can be a board candidate and who can make nominations | |
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
Proposed Bylaw Amendment: Clarify who can be a board candidate and who can make nominations
| 
Dec 18 07:01 UTC 1996 |
Grex's bylaws say that any member of Grex can change the bylaws by entering
an item in co-op. This item is to propose a bylaw amendment. Here is the
text of the sections of the bylaws that explain the procedure we are following
in this item:
>
> ARTICLE 5: VOTING PROCEDURES
>
> a. Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
> text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
> designated for this purpose. The item is then used for
> discussion of the motion. All Grex users may participate in
> the discussion. No action on the motion is taken for two
> weeks. At the end of two weeks, the author may then submit a
> final version for a vote by the membership. The vote is
> conducted on-line over a period of ten days.
>
>
> ARTICLE 7: AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS
>
> Amendments to these bylaws may be proposed and voted upon at any
> time according to the procedures of Article 5a. In order for a
> proposed amendment to take effect, a 3/4 majority voting in favor
> of the change is required.
>
Here is the bylaw section I would like to change:
> ARTICLE 4: ELECTIONS AND TERMS OF OFFICE
>
> d. Nominations will be submitted by November 15th and elections
> held between the 1st and 15th of December for terms to
> commence January 1st. The nominees receiving the most
> votes will be appointed to the BOD.
>
Here is the revised wording. No text is deleted. Added text has carets
shown underneath it, on the line below. The carets are added for emphasis
and are not part of the wording of the revised bylaw. (doh) :)
> ARTICLE 4: ELECTIONS AND TERMS OF OFFICE
>
> d. Nominations will be submitted by November 15th and elections
> held between the 1st and 15th of December for terms to
> commence January 1st. To be candidates for the board, nominees
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> must be members of Grex. Any person may nominate any Grex member
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> for election to the board. The nominees receiving the most
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> votes will be appointed to the BOD.
>
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify voting procedures. Right now the
bylaws do not spell out whether or not a board candidate must be a member,
nor whether board candidates can be nominated by non-members.
Rane will say this should be worded as a motion. :) So here's a first cut
at official wording:
Motion: To change the wording of Section 4d of the bylaws to read as follows:
> d. Nominations will be submitted by November 15th and elections
> held between the 1st and 15th of December for terms to
> commence January 1st. To be candidates for the board, nominees
> must be members of Grex. Any person may nominate any Grex member
> for election to the board. The nominees receiving the most
> votes will be appointed to the BOD.
>
|
| 120 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 120:
|
Dec 18 07:09 UTC 1996 |
I don't think you need the phrase "To be candidates for the board", unless
you mean that the candidates are a subset of the nominees.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 2 of 120:
|
Dec 18 07:44 UTC 1996 |
Good point. Thanks!
|
davel
|
|
response 3 of 120:
|
Dec 18 11:28 UTC 1996 |
Agreed with Rane. I'd also favor wording requiring acceptance of nomination,
TBH (& would word that sentence something like this, perhaps: "Nominations
may be made by any Grex user, and the nominee must accept nomination to be
a candidate." (Not real happy with that wording, but ...)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 4 of 120:
|
Dec 18 15:15 UTC 1996 |
What does TBH mean?
|
scg
|
|
response 5 of 120:
|
Dec 18 17:02 UTC 1996 |
Should we say "members of Cyberspace. Communications, Inc., instead of
"members of Grex?"
|
kerouac
|
|
response 6 of 120:
|
Dec 18 17:14 UTC 1996 |
This amendment isnt necessary, since anyone elected to theboard has
to join before taking office. The only possible rationale for this
bylaw would be if that wasnt the case and non-members could actually serve.
Let's not amend the bylaws where it is not necessary.
I challenge popcorn to prove that this amendment is necessary, tha tit
would really change anything.
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 120:
|
Dec 18 17:24 UTC 1996 |
It would require demonstration of a level of support for Grex
independent of the election outcome. i.e. a person couldn't say
"I'll become a member of Grex, but only if you elect me to the
board." A really yucky attitude, in my opinion.
I support the proposed amendment.
|
scott
|
|
response 8 of 120:
|
Dec 18 17:25 UTC 1996 |
C'mon, kerouac, you call for all sorts of amendments, and I recall you arguing
that we should clean up the wording in just that part of the bylaws.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 9 of 120:
|
Dec 18 17:32 UTC 1996 |
willingness to run for theboard and willlingness to subject oneself to the
questionsand .etc and willingness to express the commitment to servefor a
year, is itself a valid demonstrationof support for grex.
And remember, a non-member elected to theboard wouldhave to pay not one
but three months of dues to serve.
Amendments are only worthwhile if they actually *change* things or
*clarifies* things to a great degree. This does nothing. It changes
nothing for pracitcal purposes. It may as well be an amendment to requore
a 100,000 line limit on conf responses/. Sure, you could have such an
amendment, but who is going to post a response with 100,000 lines? The
chances of any non-member getting elected are extremely remote and even if
by some miracle they did, they will still have to join. soit doesnt
matter. this amendment is useless.
|
robh
|
|
response 10 of 120:
|
Dec 18 17:38 UTC 1996 |
I vehemently disagree with kerouac. (Ooh, there's a shock!)
I feel that only those who are already members of Grex should
be allowed to be nominated, and that the current phrasing of
the by-laws doesn't support this. (I think I discussed this
already in the item about last month's Board meeting.) So
there is definitely a need for this amendment, and I support it.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 11 of 120:
|
Dec 18 17:39 UTC 1996 |
And in cases of votes to change the bylaws, quorum criteria applies
does it not? I wouldnt think anyone would regard it as prudent to
say an amendment can be changed unless a quorum percentage of the
total membership has voted on the issue. The changes to quorum
criteria rules only applied to board elections and non-amendment
votes right?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 120:
|
Dec 18 18:21 UTC 1996 |
Read the bylaws, Richard.
This amendment is significant, as it determines the makeup of the
slate in elections.
It is not necessary to have language about acceptance of nominations
as that is an ordinary part of standard rules of order (that nonone can
be forced to accept a nomination). Grex does appear to follow a mishmash
of standard rules of order....(though naming RRO would settle all of
these tendencies to build them into the bylaws one by one).
|
kerouac
|
|
response 13 of 120:
|
Dec 18 18:32 UTC 1996 |
#12...rcurl, so insteadof amending thebylaws to say non-members can't
run, you areproposing that the bylaws be amended to name RRO as the
standard rules of order for grex?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 120:
|
Dec 18 18:43 UTC 1996 |
No. RRO does not say that non-members cannot be candidates. It suggests that
the bylaws specify the qualifications for nominees. The idea of adopting
RRO as the parliamentary authority for Grex only takes care of suggestions
like the one to write into the bylaw a statement that nominations must be
accepted. [I would make a motion at another time to amend the bylaws to adopt
RRO as the parliamentary authority, if I felt that it had any chance of being
adopted.]
|
steve
|
|
response 15 of 120:
|
Dec 18 18:45 UTC 1996 |
I support this; the wording that Rane suggested sounds good. But
the concept is quite reasonable.
I really had not thought anyone would have been crass enough to
want to run for board, saying they would join only after acceptance
to it, but it happened.
There aren't many reasons I'm willing to open the by-laws up for,
but this is one of them.
|
steve
|
|
response 16 of 120:
|
Dec 18 18:46 UTC 1996 |
(Re #14, last thought: When Pigs Fly. ;-) )
|
ajax
|
|
response 17 of 120:
|
Dec 19 19:59 UTC 1996 |
Re scg's #5, changing "member of Grex" to "member of Cyberspace
Communications." I think clarifying ambiguity is a good idea, but
"member of Grex" is used in two other places in the bylaws, and
just "the membership" is referred to several times. It's pretty
clear what the terms mean, but I think to formalize it would best
be handled by a separate amendment. It would either have to change
several sections of the bylaws, or else define "member," "the
membership," and "member of Grex" explicitly. I'd vote for such an
amendment, but am reluctant to propose it, just because it's so
trivial. At any rate, I don't think it's important to change the
wording in #0, since it's consistent with wording elsewhere in the
bylaws. (Though specifying "Grex" in "member of Grex" and "Grex
member" is unneeded, since only one type of member is talked about
in the bylaws).
|
popcorn
|
|
response 18 of 120:
|
Dec 19 20:58 UTC 1996 |
<valerie wonders if she could get *everybody* to run the twit filter on
kerouac> Richard, this bylaw change is specifically to address concerns
that YOU raised.
Re 11: The answer to your question is in #0 of this item, too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 120:
|
Dec 19 21:21 UTC 1996 |
The bylaws are full of inconsistencies, like different designations
for members. I would recommend at another time, when no one has
anything pressing to work on, that the bylaws be revised for consistency.
This would help the amending process in the future, so that any time an
amendment is proposed, others don't point out the existing inconsistencies.
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 120:
|
Dec 19 22:52 UTC 1996 |
Franklin Delano Roosevelt wasn't elected, why amend the Constitution?
To clarify for the sarcasm impaired:
TSTY *lost*. The current system works. Don't fix it, it ain't broke.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 21 of 120:
|
Dec 19 23:04 UTC 1996 |
valerie the concerns I raised were settled by theboard admitting
the bylaws dont prohibit non-users from running. Brighn is right,
the amendment you propose does nothing, non-members arent going to
get elected anyway. Just because you think it is tacky or something
for a non-member to want to run for the board doesnt justify an
amendment.
BTW, nobody answered my quorum question. I assume that in cases
of amending the bylaws, it has to be 3/4 vote of a majority of the
members. A bylaw shouldnt be amended of only 10 people vote and 8
vote for it. That isnt a valid representation of the total
membership. Not sure what RR says but guessing that an amendment
shouldnt be considered passed unless 2/3 of the total membership
has voted on the issue, and 3/4 of them have voted for the amendment.
Because in this case, a non-vote would be considered a vote against, a
higher standard for amendment votes than for regular votes.
|
robh
|
|
response 22 of 120:
|
Dec 19 23:13 UTC 1996 |
Why shouldn't a by-law be amended if eight of the only ten people
who bother to vote are in favor of it? As long as the election is done
in public and enough time is given for voting, I don't see a problem.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 23 of 120:
|
Dec 19 23:17 UTC 1996 |
Because if only ten people voted, it should be assumed that those who
didnt vote, are apathetic about the amendment. For an amendment to
a group's bylaws to take effect, it should have to be clear that a majority
of the
membership *wants* the amendment. An amendment shouldnt be put in place
simpliy because no one cares about it.
|
robh
|
|
response 24 of 120:
|
Dec 20 00:54 UTC 1996 |
Then I guess we have to disagree there. If most people don't
care, but most of those who do support it, I think it should
pass.
|