|
Grex > Coop13 > #40: Proposed bylaw amendment to close the quorum gap | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
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.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 50 of 91:
|
Dec 14 13:12 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 51 of 91:
|
Dec 14 16:05 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 52 of 91:
|
Dec 14 17:12 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 53 of 91:
|
Dec 14 17:33 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 54 of 91:
|
Dec 14 19:58 UTC 2003 |
A most understandable concern!
Oops, almost forgot: :)
|
jp2
|
|
response 55 of 91:
|
Dec 14 22:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 56 of 91:
|
Dec 14 23:22 UTC 2003 |
Was Don Koster involved with that commission at all?
|
flem
|
|
response 57 of 91:
|
Dec 15 18:04 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 58 of 91:
|
Dec 15 18:52 UTC 2003 |
No Don wasn't, but David was, I think, working in his office, or with him
politically, or something like that.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 59 of 91:
|
Dec 15 23:27 UTC 2003 |
I miss him. I wonder what he would have said about this?
|