|
Grex > Oldcoop > #40: Proposed bylaw amendment to close the quorum gap | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
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?
|
dpc
|
|
response 60 of 91:
|
Dec 16 22:00 UTC 2003 |
I oppose this bylaw change because I oppose all participation requirements
in elections. We were right to remove the requirement earlier.
|
carson
|
|
response 61 of 91:
|
Dec 17 14:01 UTC 2003 |
(there's a difference between requiring members to vote and requiring
matters before the body to be compelling enough to worth deciding. I
would not be surprised if there were people who oppose quorums because
it makes their vote more important and makes it possible for certain
"pet projects" to pass through inertia.)
(speaking of which, I don't recall getting any announcement about the
board election outside of the MOTD posting.)
|
gull
|
|
response 62 of 91:
|
Dec 17 14:12 UTC 2003 |
Where else would it be announced? It was in the MOTD (which, in theory,
everyone sees) and in Co-op. Were you hoping for a personal phone call? ;>
|
carson
|
|
response 63 of 91:
|
Dec 17 14:16 UTC 2003 |
(e-mail? letter? FWIW, the only reason I see the MOTD is because
I specifically set-up my account to re-display it after Grex redraws
my screen after login. should we limit voting on Grex to the technically
savvy?)
(...although I certainly wouldn't have frowned on a phone call, I
personally didn't need one.) ;)
|
glenda
|
|
response 64 of 91:
|
Dec 17 14:19 UTC 2003 |
It was in the announcement item in Agora, with several reminders.
|