|
Grex > Coop13 > #40: Proposed bylaw amendment to close the quorum gap | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 65 of 91:
|
Dec 17 15:05 UTC 2003 |
Re #61: On any given issue, wouldn't reduced participation increase
the importance of the votes both of those for and those against? Seems
to balance out.
|
davel
|
|
response 66 of 91:
|
Dec 17 15:14 UTC 2003 |
Um, no. Not if those supporting one side tend, on the whole, to be much less
apathetic than those supporting the other. Consider the conventional
statement that low turnouts (in US elections generally) tend to favor
Republicans.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 67 of 91:
|
Dec 17 15:17 UTC 2003 |
Re: #63: I think that at the time an election "opens", an e-mail should be
sent to grex members, as a reminder, since their vote is the one that counts.
|
aruba
|
|
response 68 of 91:
|
Dec 17 15:39 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, I kind of think that's a good idea too.
|
remmers
|
|
response 69 of 91:
|
Dec 17 18:15 UTC 2003 |
I agree, and will do that next time. Probably two emails, one at the
start of nominations, the second at the start of the election.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 70 of 91:
|
Dec 17 19:51 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps one at the start of the election and one on the final day
instead?
|
carson
|
|
response 71 of 91:
|
Dec 17 19:52 UTC 2003 |
(I also think an e-mail reminder is a good idea.)
re #46: (I want to make sure that I understand your point correctly:
the Sailing Club has a quorum, has more than twice the number
of members as Grex, AND has higher dues [which, by implication,
means a larger budget]? and the only downside is that, once a
year, about a dozen people who care about the Club have to wait
for the other dozen who only sort of care to show up?)
(that sounds to me like a strong data point in favor of having
some sort of quorum. what do you think?)
|
carson
|
|
response 72 of 91:
|
Dec 17 19:52 UTC 2003 |
<bhelliom slipped>
|
jp2
|
|
response 73 of 91:
|
Dec 17 19:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 74 of 91:
|
Dec 17 20:36 UTC 2003 |
Also, I'd like to see the emails sent in a way which conforms to the
current limits in order to reduce the impact on Grex, unless we
first implement a policy change excepting this specific (or like)
incidence(s) from the existing policy.
|