+- Riesentöter Forums (https://rtr-pca.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Club Activities (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+--- Forum: Membership Meetings (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=54)
+--- Thread: September membership meeting (/showthread.php?tid=1876)
- JoeP - 09-24-2009
[size=2]Chris:[/b] I am not commenting as a candidate, but as a Riesentöter member. Otherwise, I would be much less restrained because I would not care who I pissed off.[/size]
I appreciate your hard work toward making our bylaws and procedures thorough and logical. Many of the current disagreements have been with us for a while. They were dormant because practices were not set down in black-and-white and not broadcast to all Members. Such a gap is understandable with such a busy group, but I am happy that it will not continue. It is great that you care enough to work through these issues with us.
Overall, I am more worried about Bylaw Changes than Executive Compensation. It is a more fundamental issue than an operational one, so I will focus my comments on the Bylaws:
1) Please add your expert opinion, but it seems that only our Bylaws and PNCL are legally binding. So, if Bylaws do not specifically incorporate Rogers, parliamentary, or national PCA procedures, they do not apply. We are left with the language as it stands.
2) I absolutely support Membership votes from the floor unless our Bylaws define another process. Most members and Execs are not legal experts. All applicable procedures should be laid out for us so that we know what to expect before the meeting. Even if law or legal precedent defines how to proceed, our Bylaws should define procedures for members. It is unfair to expect members to search different sets of rules to understand how to behave in a monthly meeting. I have attached the “Amendment of Bylaws�? provision from the national PCA. If our parent organization can define rigorous procedures for 100,000+ members, it should be much easier for us. Without Bylaws to the contrary, the speaker’s actions last night were completely appropriate.
3) With regard to Bylaw changes, I object to any notification requirements for Membership that are not required for the Board. To change Bylaws, we only state that,
"The members entitled to vote shall have the power to adopt, amend and repeal the Club’s bylaws. Subject to the PNCL, the bylaws may be adopted, amended and repealed by an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the entire Executive Board."
If it is OK for the Board to change the provision for Exec Compensation without Membership notice beforehand, then it should be OK for Membership to push back without formal notice.
Again, our Bylaws should go beyond what is legal. I realize that you have a full plate and cannot address everything at once, but more structure in this one important area might allow our meetings to look more like a Minuet and less like Animal House.
- Brian Minkin - 09-24-2009
larrybard wrote:
Quote:At the meeting Tom stated that the letter he read would be disseminated in some fashion. Will it be posted on the website? Frankly, I think it touched on a few points that beg for clarification/elaboration, but I certainly don't want to ask any questions based on my recollection of what was read.
The letter has been posted in the forum.
http://rtr.mywowbb.com/forum42/1940.html
- larrybard - 09-24-2009
Thanks very much, Brian. I look forward to the response(s) to the comments I have just posted there about the letter.
- Phokaioglaukos - 09-24-2009
Mike Andrews wrote:
Quote:Chris,Mike, the fact is that I was a five-year member of this Club before I heard about a DE discount for Board members, and that was only AFTER I was elected to the Board. When Brian Minkin proposed to maintain the discount at the last Board meeting he said words to the effect that it had helped him recruit qualified candidates to the Board. Unless the discount is well known it will only help recruit candidates that somone on the Board chooses to recruit. It doesn't attract from the general membership of interested members. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call that a theme in our Club's management.
You've been very objective in the past..... but at no point in time was any of this a secret. Not documented (nothing is) but certainly not secret.
Can we agree to keep statements to the facts....
Note also that I was responding to your candidate's message directly to me: "You can post-invent all of the procedural crap you like." to which I take offense. I'll terminate that discussion in another post.
- Phokaioglaukos - 09-24-2009
JoeP wrote:
Quote:[size=2]Chris:[/b] I am not commenting as a candidate, but as a Riesentöter member. [/size]
...
Quote:1) Please add your expert opinion, but it seems that only our Bylaws and PNCL are legally binding. So, if Bylaws do not specifically incorporate Rogers, parliamentary, or national PCA procedures, they do not apply. ...
Quote:
2) I absolutely support Membership votes from the floor unless our Bylaws define another process. ... I have attached the “Amendment of Bylaws�? provision from the national PCA. ...
3) With regard to Bylaw changes, I object to any notification requirements for Membership that are not required for the Board. ...
Joe, you are both a candidate and a member, and I note that this discussion started only after you became a candidate. I view several of your statements on this forum to be intemperate and inflammatory. Nevertheless I will reply to your three points extracted above (the full text of your message remains in your post, of course).
1. I could not get back for the meeting on the 23d, but from the accounts I have heard it was not a completely polite and productive meeting. I think our President was very surprised at some of what transpired. The solution is not to re-adopt Roberts Rules of Order, however. I'm guessing that neither you nor many others reading this have actually participated in a meeting under those rules (I'll guarantee you that ARCO did not run its shareholder meetings that way). I have used Roberts Rules of Order, in a student congress national competition. It was great fun to tie up that body with all sorts of motions, some taking precedence over others, but it is not a way to get anything accomplished. Were our Club to have those rules again either of two things would occur, we'd ignore them (as we did in the past) or a minority of members could tie the meeting up in knots. The PA statute has a more common sense approach: the president shall preside at member meetings, shall determine the order of business and shall have the authority to establish rules for the conduct of the meeting that are fair to the members. Pretty simple and it's right in the statute. Could we repeat that in the bylaws? Sure, but we don't need to. Might our members think some other rules do or should apply? I suppose, but what could be better than that rule?
2. The PCA national bylaws you attach have fooled you. They say "[size=3]The Executive Council, Board of Directors, or active and/or family active members in good standing constituting at least 3% of the then membership, of which not more than one-third shall be members of any one Region, may propose amendments to these Bylaws." [size=2]You tell me we have more than 100,000 members. What do you think the cost would be to collect 3,000 signatures, no more than 1,000 of them from any one region? Do you seriously think that provision is the same as one person standing up in the meeting last Wednesday and proposing to amend the bylaws? Do you seriously think only the members who happened to attend that meeting should have a say and the 1,200+ members who were not there would find out about it after the fact?[/size][/size]
[size=3][size=2]3. I'm not really sure what you suggest in your third point. It may be that this is just a campaign position, or it may be that you really are serious about denying the Board the power to amend the operating rules of the Club. That could be a good discussion and I will be happy to have it, after October 25th, regardless of who wins. If the Board amends the bylaws to clarify that the new board takes office on January 1st, I'll be happy to work with you and the newly elected board as Secretary from October 26 to December 31 to plan revisions to the bylaws and Club policies whether or not you are elected. If the Board does not amend the bylaws to make that clarification I'll be happy to work with you and the new Board either as continuing Secretary or as a Club member only.[/size][/size]
[size=3][size=2]My expectation is that these "issues" have arisen largely because we have a contested election. We have monthly member meetings all across the Club's geographic area and only now, 11 months after we gave the Board the power to amend the bylaws and months after it did so the first time do we have some excitement.
[/size][/size]
- Mike Andrews - 09-25-2009
TwentySix wrote:
Quote:Mike Andrews wrote:Quote:but at no point in time was any of this a secret. Not documented (nothing is) but certainly not secret.Hey Mike,
I keep forgetting to ask what perks were extended and to whom within the DE organizers in previous years, such as hotel rooms... would you expand on that please?
Thanks.
It's not so much perks as it is expenses.
When someone comes to work an event, be it a DE or a Club Race, the club picks up that persons hotel room. The key is these are people there working and not participating.
- JoeP - 09-25-2009
Chris: I believe that our Club should have a well defined and transparent procedure that outlines how members can submit, discuss, and vote upon proposed changes to the Bylaws if they disagree with the Board. Nothing more. I am not advocating any particular set of rules. We simply need rules of some sort.
Of course, National's bylaws are silly in our case. I copied them only to make the point that if Papa Bear has a well defined procedure in its Bylaws, then Baby Bear can too. I understand that a real attorney might be reticent to add language to the Bylaws since RTR might be legally covered by PNCL or something. However, laymen like the rest of us need a scripted set of instructions. Otherwise, when things happen, it appears that they come out of the blue even though I can tell that you are very scrupulous in these matters and take your responsibility very seriously.
For now, I would be happy with a simple posting in this forum or on RTR's website. You can make it as simple as you like. Please - I really, truly do not know how it should be done.
- Phokaioglaukos - 09-25-2009
JoeP wrote:
Quote:Of course, National's bylaws are silly in our case. I copied them only to make the point that if Papa Bear has a well defined procedure in its Bylaws, then Baby Bear can too.You missed my point, Joe. National's procedures are silly for National! That is, it says that members can amend bylaws but through an unworkably burdensome procedure. Can you imagine trying to get 3,000 signatures of PCA members, no more than 1,000 from any one region? I cannot. It means that only the National Board can effectively amend National's bylaws--and I suspect that is exactly what the National Board intended.
I'll be happy to work up a "how to" sheet for members to amend the RTR bylaws. I will do it with you and any other interested members. But I do not want to start that process until we get this election behind us. Amendments can be made at any member meeting, not just the October meeting. Doing this after the election will make it easier for us to reach a reasonable agreement I believe. And I'll do it, or help do it, whether or not I'm re-elected as Secretary. Were the positions reversed and Terry Minkin were in office now and I were running against her I'm sure she'd do the same.
- JoeP - 09-25-2009
Perfect. I owe you a shot and beer at our next event.
- ADCooperS - 09-25-2009
JoeP wrote:
Quote:Perfect. I owe you a shot and beer at our next event.
Easy for you to say when you know you won't actually have to buy him a shot and a beer!! He's in the UK until the end of January.
Although I have to admit, a shot AND a beer is pretty generous. Chris - I'll buy you a beer as well at the voting meeting in October.