|
Grex > Coop9 > #14: Non-member Board participation | |
|
| Author |
Message |
kerouac
|
|
Non-member Board participation
| 
Nov 26 17:59 UTC 1996 |
Just to continue the item on non-member participation. The bylaws
are vague on several fronts:
The bylaws define requirements for eligibility to vote, but do not
elaborate on eligibilty to serve on the board. All they say is that a
board membermustbe a member? Does he/she have tobe a current member?
Ts was a member in the past, so perhaps he is not disqualified from
serving? Does a member have to have paid three months dues to serve on
the board? That requirement is stipulated only for the eligiblity to
vote, not for the eligibility to serve?
So if Ts buys a one month membership, can he serve? Can he, or any member
continue to serve if their membership lapses during their term? that is
not stipulated either.
Anyway, maybe the idea is that an amendment should be added to the effect:
"Any user of Grex may run for the Board, but the requirements for
eligibility to serve on the Board are understood to be the same as those
cited in Article (??) for eligiblity to vote in elections. If a
non-member of Cyberspace Communications Inc. is elected to the Board,
he/she must become a member of the organization and meet the established
criteria within sixty days or the second post-election board
meeting, whichever comes first. A non-member elected to theBoard may not
participate in Board votes until his/her membership has been established.
Failure to do so in the prescribed time period will result in the board
seat in question being declared vacant. IN such an event, the Board will
appoint another member to fill the seat until such time as an election
canbe held"
|
| 28 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 28:
|
Nov 26 19:21 UTC 1996 |
Boy, if you had written the US Constitution, it would have been a two-inch
thick book.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 2 of 28:
|
Nov 26 19:42 UTC 1996 |
better that than a two inch thick book of amendments to it that
shouldnt have been necessary in the first place. It boggles the
mind that when thebylaws were drafted, requirements for eligibility
to vote were included and not a word was said about who can serve on
the board or run for the board (other that service requires membership
but even that is not defined very well)
\.
|
scott
|
|
response 3 of 28:
|
Nov 26 19:56 UTC 1996 |
Well, if a college athelete gets bad grades and loses his/her eligibility,
then he/she is off the team. So Grex works the same way.
|
janc
|
|
response 4 of 28:
|
Nov 26 22:25 UTC 1996 |
Richard, welcome to Grex. We simply aren't interested in the micro
manipulation of rules and regulations.
The bylaws can be ammended by calling for a vote on them. If someone wants
to propose this ammendment, or a similar one, then any member is welcome to
do so.
|
robh
|
|
response 5 of 28:
|
Nov 26 22:33 UTC 1996 |
Re 3 - And presumably if a President/Senator/Congressman were to lose
their US citizenship for whatever reason, they would be forced to
step down. So I don't see what the problem is with our by-laws.
|
nestene
|
|
response 6 of 28:
|
Nov 27 13:50 UTC 1996 |
Type "forget" at the prompt and you'll never see this item again, folks!
|
bjorn
|
|
response 7 of 28:
|
Nov 27 18:36 UTC 1996 |
Unless you want too, that is. If you decided later that you do, type
"remember"
|
kerouac
|
|
response 8 of 28:
|
Nov 27 19:01 UTC 1996 |
But isnt this proposed amendment reasonable?
|
robh
|
|
response 9 of 28:
|
Nov 27 20:03 UTC 1996 |
Reasonable, yes, but not something I'd vote for.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 10 of 28:
|
Nov 27 20:38 UTC 1996 |
allowing non-members to run sends a positive message to users of grex that
their participation is wanted and needed. Who could possibly object
to allowing non-members to run if they are required to join as members
if they are elected and before they can serve.
why wouldnt you vote for this rob?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 28:
|
Nov 27 22:47 UTC 1996 |
The amendments to the US Constitution take 3.5 pages in my World Almanac.
The proposed policy (amendment) is not reasonable, as the defintion of
member is already clear, and since only a member can serve on the board,
there is always either a board member or a vacancy in a board position.
In addition, CCI is a membership based corporation in law, and non-members
only have rights to participate as defined by the corporation. If rights
are not defined, they do not exist.
|
robh
|
|
response 12 of 28:
|
Nov 28 01:58 UTC 1996 |
Re 10 - I think I've made clear elsewhere that I want the bylaws
to explicitly state that only folks who are already members may
be candidates. I'm not saying there's anything inherently evil in
your proposal, I just happen to disagree with it.
|
tsty
|
|
response 13 of 28:
|
Nov 29 06:01 UTC 1996 |
otoh, if the *real* bill clinton just happened to login as a guest, robh
and a whole bunch of others just might reverse course ... onthe premise
that the real bill clinton would agree to become and stay a member for
teh duration of the term(s) elected.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 14 of 28:
|
Nov 30 07:17 UTC 1996 |
In the case that "scott" mentions, an athlete may resume play with the team
when his grades are back up to snuff. So it's not a permanent thing. Would
there have to be an immediate vacancy for the grex board if a serving member
let his membership lapse? Or would he be able to resume his "boarding" :-)
for the remainder of his term once he anted up? You may find this kind of
"what if" stuff annoying, but it should be so easy to plug the dyke...
|
kerouac
|
|
response 15 of 28:
|
Nov 30 20:45 UTC 1996 |
#12...rcurl, rights exsist until laws define them as not-exsisting. You
need laws to make rules, and you cant restrict a right without a rule.
Therefore if a right is not defined as non-exsisting, it exsists. The
board has agreed now that since the bylaws dont say a non-member cannot
run for office, they cannot pretend that rule exsists.
This is not a matter of state law and the bylaws dont define themselves as
having any relationship to state law or RRO. They exsist wholly and
separately and I'm sure that even state law allows for an organization to
have a certain amount of discretion in how they run their affairs. If an
organization decides not to specifically exclude non-members from running,
that is up to that organization.
I'm sure the state laws are more guidelines than commandments in this
case.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 16 of 28:
|
Dec 1 04:50 UTC 1996 |
This is not the government. This is a corporation. Rights don't mean the
same thing in reference to corporations as they do in government. Where I
work there is no document drawn up about our organization that says that
customers are not allowed in the shop area, but they certainly do not have
the right to wander back there just because we don't have a written rule to
the contrary. Govt.!=Inc.
|
scg
|
|
response 17 of 28:
|
Dec 1 05:01 UTC 1996 |
Richard, the bylaws don't need to "define themselves as having any
relationship to state law." State law defines itself as overriding the bylaws
any time they disagree.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 18 of 28:
|
Dec 2 16:02 UTC 1996 |
#16..yes they do, you cant imply laws and you cant expect people to
be mind readers. If you do not have a sign or rule saying customers
cant go back to the shop area, you cannot prosecute them for doing so.
|
steve
|
|
response 19 of 28:
|
Dec 2 17:59 UTC 1996 |
Richard, several people have stated it well already, but I'll
add a little more. Your idea isn't "bad", but it isn't needed,
either.
Given that Grex has a bunch of people that value the function
of Grex over the form, soemthing like this simply isn't going to
fly.
We've updated the bylaws once, becuase we actually did need to.
I do not think that we need to in this case, and I think that
most people here agree on that.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 20 of 28:
|
Dec 7 02:52 UTC 1996 |
There is a difference between someone having 'a right' to do something, and
them being prosecuted for doing it. If someone leaves there home with the
front door wide open. No one would argue that this gives me the 'right' to
walk in there just because they left the door open without a do no enter sign.
There is no law that says I will get in trouble if I smash the pumpkin on your
front porch, but I certainly don't have the right to do that. People have
very few rights.
|
scg
|
|
response 21 of 28:
|
Dec 7 03:00 UTC 1996 |
Actually, there are laws covering both those situations. vandalism and
trespassing...
|
arthurp
|
|
response 22 of 28:
|
Dec 7 03:07 UTC 1996 |
True. I hope y'all can still see my point, though.
|
dang
|
|
response 23 of 28:
|
Dec 7 20:56 UTC 1996 |
And the same tresspassing laws cover the shop question too. Whether or not
there are signs saying someone can't enter an area, the whole place is private
property, and so people are only allowed where they are invited.
|
scg
|
|
response 24 of 28:
|
Dec 7 21:09 UTC 1996 |
I think that the way the tresspassing laws work with things like shop areas
in stores, if there aren't any "employees only" signs or something like that,
is that somebody begins trespassing not merely by being there, but by being
there and refusing to leave when asked. That makes sense, since if somebody
leaves when they are asked to leave, there's not much sense trying to
prosecute them for it.
|