|
Grex > Coop8 > #81: Minutes of the June 26, 1996 Board Meeting | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 11 new of 35 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 25 of 35:
| 
Jul 2 21:09 UTC 1996 |
Er, how are we to come up with motions before the meeting? Most of what comes
to a vote, comes to a vote because of discussion *during* the meeting. We
might as well pre-meeting decide to vote on striped vs. spotted armadillos.
(gee, this issue is strangely familiar... didn't we do this to death a few
months ago?)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 35:
|
Jul 2 21:44 UTC 1996 |
It's not *quite* the same discussion...but close. Motions must be open to
amendments until the final vote,which is why it is hard to do everything
in advance. In some *organized* organizations, however, specific motions
appear on the agenda, with discussion and amendments at the meeting. Doing
this does help focus the discussion, and saves lots of time (over not
having the motion in the agenda), if saving time is of any interest (which
it isn't in disorganized organizations).... ;->
|
brighn
|
|
response 27 of 35:
|
Jul 2 21:46 UTC 1996 |
What's the precise problem? The abstentions count as non-votes.
There are normally 7 votes. @ stentions mean there are now 5
votes. (er, "2 abstentions") There were three "yes" votes.
The majority of the votes were yes, so it passed. Whether the
two non-votes were absents or nos, the result is the same.
*Where* are you confused, Richard?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 28 of 35:
|
Jul 2 21:47 UTC 1996 |
As has been explained, board meetings must be done in real time with live
board members in attendance. The only relaxing to this might be if the
board allowed members to dial-in (voice)/conference call (and the board in
live attendance could be satisfied that the person speaking *was* the
actual remote board member and not a changling :-), or if a video
conference were set up, *or* maybe using some of the internet technology
to allow a remote user voice and/or video connectivity to the board meeting.
Doable, but not very convenient or practical (yet). Boards must meet in
person...
|
scott
|
|
response 29 of 35:
|
Jul 2 23:33 UTC 1996 |
The bit about online meetings is the one we've done to death.
|
ajax
|
|
response 30 of 35:
|
Jul 3 00:09 UTC 1996 |
Co-op sometimes seems like a field of dead horses.
"Hey! Here's one we haven't beaten for a while!"
|
adbarr
|
|
response 31 of 35:
|
Jul 3 22:03 UTC 1996 |
Rob, in reality, the dead horses in the field are quickly "processed" into
something more elemental. Unless you are in the Arctic/Ant-Arctic, you
wont find the same old horse when you come back later - bugs maybe.
|
srw
|
|
response 32 of 35:
|
Jul 5 05:44 UTC 1996 |
Grex is not interested in having directors be absent very often.
There is a rule (bylaw) that specifies the removal of a director if he/she
fails to attend a sufficient number of meetings.
If a director must be absent, as occasionally happens, there are two
protections. (1) A quorrum is required to do business, and (2) if the matter
is known to be important to the absentee director, then the rest of the baord
has always respected that (although it is not required to) and tabled the
motion. In fact we did table one motion at the last meeting specifically
because it was known to bve of great interest to Valerie, and she was absent.
I am not interested in participating yet again in a flogging of the issue of
on-line meetings. I agree with Rane that if motions could be worded in advance
it would save time. When I was president i found this difficult to manage,
though. I don't think it should be a requirement for Grex.
If a majority of the voting members vote aye, then the motion passes.
The vote was 3-0. I'm not concerned about this.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 33 of 35:
|
Jul 6 06:10 UTC 1996 |
(Actually, Valerie specifically asked to have that item on the agenda even
though she knew she wouldn't be at the meeting. O well. I do appreciate the
courtesy anyway.)
|
srw
|
|
response 34 of 35:
|
Jul 6 21:36 UTC 1996 |
No one at the meeting remembered that, for if we had, I'm sure there would
have been discussion. Sorry.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 35 of 35:
|
Jul 7 20:06 UTC 1996 |
Not a problem. Hopefully we'll get to it this month.
|