|
Grex > Coop7 > #112: Nominations for Cyberspace Communications Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 190 responses total. |
ajax
|
|
response 75 of 190:
| 
Oct 19 00:39 UTC 1995 |
Re 73, that's chair*person*, though the current chair describes one of her
earlier summer job experiences as "elevator man," so she might not mind.
In item 2, Cyberspace Communicatons Bylaws, on line 45, the fifth paragraph,
starting at the bylaw's 159th word, in article 3, subpart c, it is stated:
c. The BOD shall make decisions related to system maintenance,
staff responsibilities and appointments, and issues related
to daily business.
However, no where does it say the BOD *exclusively* shall make decisions.
Specifically, it does not say "The Dharma Bum shall not make decisions
related to...business." Whythereforehencely, there is no need to have the
BOD resolve the priorly pre-aforementioned challenge, as you can hitherto
extemporaneously decide it for us. E pluribus unum, yadda yadda yadda....
|
kerouac
|
|
response 76 of 190:
|
Oct 19 00:46 UTC 1995 |
There are users on this system who have had to drop out of school or
are out of work and can barely afford rent and food. For these folks,
even $60 a year can be a hardship. And many of grex users are schoolage
kids who dont have any money to speak of. Yet their free speech rights
on grex are less than rcurls because he had the money to donate. I can
see limiting to members those who can actually run and serve on the board,
but limiting not only voting rights, but the rights to make motions or
nominations or any official requests or challenges is unfair and
highly elitist.
As for the youth board suggestion, the only bad scenario I could see
would be if there was a power struggle on the board and one side sued
to invalidate the other side's votes on the basis that one or two
voters were underage. But I mean this is grex, there is nothing of
value to make a power play over!
|
kerouac
|
|
response 77 of 190:
|
Oct 19 00:53 UTC 1995 |
re: #75...that is interesting. If you are correct, the board of
directors has no real power because it does not reserve the
exclusive right to make decisions. Therefore, anyone can challenge
the right of the board to make any decision and be correct. These
bylaws really were badly written!
|
chelsea
|
|
response 78 of 190:
|
Oct 19 02:16 UTC 1995 |
Why thanks a heap, there, kerouac. ;-)
|
chelsea
|
|
response 79 of 190:
|
Oct 19 02:26 UTC 1995 |
When those Bylaws were written the concept of allocating paying types all
kinds of perks and rights over non-paying types was so far from the model
we envisioned that we didn't write it to be bullet proof against such a
trend. We wanted members to be able to vote and hold office. That was it.
You were going to donate because you believed in what Grex was about
and it was about open access for all users.
Oh well.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 80 of 190:
|
Oct 19 03:00 UTC 1995 |
Could we take the "who can make nominations" discussion to another item?
Thanks.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 81 of 190:
|
Oct 19 03:01 UTC 1995 |
I nominate Audrey Bricker (headdoc) to run for the board.
|
steve
|
|
response 82 of 190:
|
Oct 19 03:24 UTC 1995 |
I think anyone can make a monination for a board position,
myself. Whether the person so nominated accepts is a differnt
issue entirely. But I sure hope that a non-members nomination
is ignored, just because they aren't a member.
The bylaws aren't badly written. They were written to be a
framework, not a complete structure on how to do everything.
There is a vast difference between the two. I for one will
argue all I can to stop an effort at "clarifying" them, becuase
it is a never-ending task, and leads to an ever increasing set
of bylways that becomes less readable over time, doesn't say
anything, but does lead people to get into fights over things.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 190:
|
Oct 19 05:08 UTC 1995 |
There is no need to clarify the bylaws if kerouac is correct, as his
premise is that no matter what the bylaws say can be done, *everything*
else it fails to say cannot be done, can also be done, and therefore the
bylaws govern nothing. That argument, when applied to the US Constitution,
has interesting consequences. For example, it says "The Congress shall
have power 1. To lay and collect taxes...", but it fails to say that *I*
do not have that power, and therefore I hereby declare a Tax on
nonsensical utterances (the Constitution elsewhere, by omission, gives me
the power to define those too). kerouac cannot object, as the Constitution
also does not forbid *me* to make laws forbidding free speech, so I forbid
kerouac's free speech. Anyone else need any new laws?
|
ajax
|
|
response 84 of 190:
|
Oct 19 05:18 UTC 1995 |
I "two" headdoc's nomination. (If you don't know where that's headed,
you were never a kid :-).
|
srw
|
|
response 85 of 190:
|
Oct 19 07:05 UTC 1995 |
I agree with Rane. Our bylaws do not grant the power to make nominations
to non-members. Therefore, non-members do not have that power.
I would support the idea of a "youth director" if it could be done
legally. I think it could, if there were restrictions on voting power.
We cannot ignore the law folks. Get a grip.
|
cicero
|
|
response 86 of 190:
|
Oct 19 08:45 UTC 1995 |
Gadzooks, sucked in again. That's what I get for actually reading this item.
The blood begins to churn the fingers begin to twitch and I start to feel
that I MUST respond. Fortunately Rane and others have actually made all
the points I would have, except one:
As far as the notion of a non-voting youth position on the board, well I
suppose we could do that but why? How is a non-voting seat different from
just showing up at the meetings, something that ANYONE from me to the King
of Belgium can do?
|
remmers
|
|
response 87 of 190:
|
Oct 19 09:29 UTC 1995 |
<remmers hopes that, this being the "board nominations" item,
potential nominees don't get turned off by all the drift,
conclude that board meetings are like this item, and decide
they don't want to run.>
|
gregc
|
|
response 88 of 190:
|
Oct 19 09:33 UTC 1995 |
<But John, the board meetings *are* like this item. And why are we talking
this way?>
|
davel
|
|
response 89 of 190:
|
Oct 19 10:26 UTC 1995 |
I suggest starting another item just to list those who have been nominated
and have accepted, and keeping it frozen when you're not actually adding
to it, John.
|
remmers
|
|
response 90 of 190:
|
Oct 19 10:30 UTC 1995 |
<remmers explains that it's "party noise" mode, and not unlike
characters' asides to the audience in Shakespearian drama.>
|
remmers
|
|
response 91 of 190:
|
Oct 19 10:31 UTC 1995 |
Davel slipped in.
|
kungsm
|
|
response 92 of 190:
|
Oct 19 11:48 UTC 1995 |
Neil Mcneight(radar) .
|
adbarr
|
|
response 93 of 190:
|
Oct 19 11:57 UTC 1995 |
<adbarr programs one (1) Whiffle Cruise Missile for remmers office at
EMU> <To echo gregc: Why are we talking like this> <secret?> I like
davel's suggestion. <Would kungsum please expand #92 -- ?)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 94 of 190:
|
Oct 19 13:46 UTC 1995 |
Re 92: Radar isn't currently a member of Grex, so he's not eligible to run.
Yo, folks. Could we take *all* the discussion of who can make nominations
to another item, and just nominate candidates (and maybe discuss their
eligibility to run) here? Thanks!
|
selena
|
|
response 95 of 190:
|
Oct 19 15:30 UTC 1995 |
Fine.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 96 of 190:
|
Oct 19 19:09 UTC 1995 |
If the current list of legitimate nominees is posted here now and then, I
don't see any reason not to have general relevant discussion in-between.
While waiting for another summary list, I will mention that I did a
superficial search of MCL, and found no mention of age, with respect to
non-profit organization and operation. It is a quite interesting question,
therefore, whether motions adopted by boards with underage directors would
stand up legally (if such were ever needed). For example, if the board
approved a contract, even if an of-age officer were named to sign the
contract. The same problem arises with respect to under-age members, for
actions (for example, amending the Articles) that require a majority vote
of members). I suspect that in this case, only of-age members would be
permitted to vote. This has no bearing upon voting by members on matters
of organization policy, however. I shall continue to explore....
|
remmers
|
|
response 97 of 190:
|
Oct 19 20:19 UTC 1995 |
Interesting. My impression of age restrictions is based on a
discussion of the issue that took place not long ago on M-Net
prior to a board election. The statement was made that minors
weren't allowed as board members under Michigan law, nobody
challenged it--including a couple of attorneys who were
following the discussion--and a couple of nominations were
disallowed because of it. So I've been assuming that the
issue was clear and unequivocal. If that's not the case, I'm
quite prepared to stand corrected.
|
davel
|
|
response 98 of 190:
|
Oct 19 20:47 UTC 1995 |
Yo, Arnold?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 99 of 190:
|
Oct 19 20:54 UTC 1995 |
Yeah. I took a look at the nonprofit statutes too. Not in there. This is
someting I am pretty sure is correct - but . . . will do some more checking
-- darn it, only on Grex (and m-net) would this come up. Can' t you just
follow orders blindly and forget it -- proof, ya gotta have proof! Ok
will see where (if) the statutory authority exists. I may be in
for profit section and incorporated in the nonprofit part -- Mich. does
that sometimes. A minor is under disabilty as far as contracting in most
civilized jurisdictions -- am sure of that. But Mich? Who knows? Assuming
that is true here, then it would be questionalble to me whether a minor
could exercise a valid vote? But stranger things have happened. Who asked
this dumb question anyway? scg? I should have known. :)
|