|
Grex > Coop13 > #40: Proposed bylaw amendment to close the quorum gap | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 25 of 91:
| 
Dec 3 03:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:57 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
naftee
|
|
response 27 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:57 UTC 2003 |
There was lots of evidence compiled that proved David Irving was a holocaust
denier.
|
naftee
|
|
response 28 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:58 UTC 2003 |
SZLIPP!!
|
gull
|
|
response 29 of 91:
|
Dec 3 14:30 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 30 of 91:
|
Dec 3 14:45 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 31 of 91:
|
Dec 3 14:48 UTC 2003 |
Yes, you did bring it up, as an excuse for asking for the membership list.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 32 of 91:
|
Dec 3 15:14 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
other
|
|
response 33 of 91:
|
Dec 3 16:37 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 34 of 91:
|
Dec 4 01:53 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
carson
|
|
response 35 of 91:
|
Dec 11 20:29 UTC 2003 |
(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.)
|
davel
|
|
response 36 of 91:
|
Dec 12 13:38 UTC 2003 |
(what carson said)
|
gull
|
|
response 37 of 91:
|
Dec 12 15:04 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 91:
|
Dec 12 16:08 UTC 2003 |
(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.)
|
carson
|
|
response 39 of 91:
|
Dec 13 08:55 UTC 2003 |
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.)
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 91:
|
Dec 13 19:37 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 41 of 91:
|
Dec 13 23:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 42 of 91:
|
Dec 14 00:24 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 91:
|
Dec 14 00:42 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 44 of 91:
|
Dec 14 01:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 45 of 91:
|
Dec 14 02:01 UTC 2003 |
gull asked because you are continually bringing these matters up. Why? Why
not just let the sleeping dog lie?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 46 of 91:
|
Dec 14 02:50 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 47 of 91:
|
Dec 14 04:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 48 of 91:
|
Dec 14 04:32 UTC 2003 |
AHAHAHA< AND SAME REASON YOU"RE USING GREX ON A SATURDAY NIGHT
|
jp2
|
|
response 49 of 91:
|
Dec 14 05:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|