September membership meeting

[emayer]

LOL!  I haven't heard anything in the news about an all out brawl as yet....

From Larry's post it sounds as though there is plenty of work to be done.  Leaving the political scene aside for a bit perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss any proposed changes to the bylaws.  It may just be a matter of explaining the intent of the language to us common folk....

Also, since were kicking the idea around of changing the discounts to the Exec and Instructors, is it appropriate to do this prior to adopting the proposed policy or should the whole matter be withheld until after the elections?  I'm willing to help any ad hoc committee if needed.

[Phokaioglaukos]

Eric, the bylaws on the web now have been adopted.

As to the policies, they have also been adopted. It's important to recognize that the discount policy, for the Board and instructors, has been in place for years. What we did differently this year is is to write it down and show it to the members.

[emayer]

Sorry for the confusion Chris, you're absolutely right.  I was inferring from Larry's post that some changes were proposed.  Best thing for all of us would be to wait and see what the meeting summary/ minutes entail.

[JoeP]

The Board should be commended for codifying Exec discounts.  It is a great step for the Club.  I also see why they felt that a Bylaw change was necessary to resolve a potential conflict that "Officers shall not receive any compensation for their service as Officers." 

However, this very first change to the Bylaws since ceding control to the Board shows exactly why it was such a bad idea:

1) Surprise - The first indication that the Bylaws were to be changed was when the operable document was posted on the website.  Even the minutes of the Board meeting approving the change have not been posted yet.  The only discussion provided to the Membership all year was one sentance in the August minutes, "Myles also noted that he has discussed with Graham Knight a proposed policy for Board member discounts and expense reimbursement."  How is this process supposed to be "transparent"?  

2) Process - When the vote was taken last year to cede the power to change Bylaws to the Board, the argument was that the Membership could always simply (a) object at a regular Membership meeting, (b) make a motion, © second that motion, and (d) vote out the offending changes.  Quick, clean, simple. 

     Last night, a member tried to take those very actions.  A motion was made.  It was seconded, and the member was man-handled until she accepted an ad hoc committee instead of a vote.  If we would have known this during last year's vote, it never would have passed.   

     You can post-invent all of the procedural crap you like.  This committee was a last minute ploy to block a vote.  It is not in the Bylaws.  Last night's display embarrassed us all.  Lizzy deserves a written apology from Riesentoter.

[Phokaioglaukos]

Joe, perhaps we are just having a dialog, or this is part of a campaign for office, but I wonder if anyone other than we two are paying attention. At least we agree that having a written policy and publishing it to the members is a Good Thing. It took more discussion to get there than I care to remember.

In any event, here are the answers. The change to avoid any conflict between the DE discounts to Board members was the second of what will probably be three amendments to the bylaws this year. Details in my previous post so I will not repeat them here.

Transparency. The matter arose at one Board meeting and was acted on at that meeting. Nothing wrong with that. It has been published to the members promptly, and that is good. No surprise and completely transparent, UNLIKE THE PRACTICE IN THE PAST FEW YEARS OF GRANTING THESE SAME DISCOUNTS TO THE BOARD IN SECRET. 

Member Action. I could not attend the meeting last night, but if someone proposed amending the bylaws at the meeting I hope it was not acted on. As you know, our members have the right to vote in person or by proxy and they are entitled to written notice of the action to be taken at a meeting. Did the proponent of the bylaw amendment either give that written notice to the members or ask the Board to do so? (Neither happened to my knowledge.) Did members not attending in person, such as myself, have the opportunity to vote by proxy? (I don't think so.)

Do you really think that members should be able to raise any point at any meeting with no advance notice and vote on it right then, disenfranchising the vast majority of the members who are not present in person? If so, I disagree. That's not democratic.

[larrybard]

Phokaioglaukos wrote:

I wonder if anyone other than we two are paying attention.

Yep.

[Phokaioglaukos]

Gee, thanks, Larry.

[Mike Andrews]

Phokaioglaukos wrote:

Joe, perhaps we are just having a dialog, or this is part of a campaign for office, but I wonder if anyone other than we two are paying attention. At least we agree that having a written policy and publishing it to the members is a Good Thing. It took more discussion to get there than I care to remember.

In any event, here are the answers. The change to avoid any conflict between the DE discounts to Board members was the second of what will probably be three amendments to the bylaws this year. Details in my previous post so I will not repeat them here.

Transparency. The matter arose at one Board meeting and was acted on at that meeting. Nothing wrong with that. It has been published to the members promptly, and that is good. No surprise and completely transparent, UNLIKE THE PRACTICE IN THE PAST FEW YEARS OF GRANTING THESE SAME DISCOUNTS TO THE BOARD IN SECRET.

Member Action. I could not attend the meeting last night, but if someone proposed amending the bylaws at the meeting I hope it was not acted on. As you know, our members have the right to vote in person or by proxy and they are entitled to written notice of the action to be taken at a meeting. Did the proponent of the bylaw amendment either give that written notice to the members or ask the Board to do so? (Neither happened to my knowledge.) Did members not attending in person, such as myself, have the opportunity to vote by proxy? (I don't think so.)

Do you really think that members should be able to raise any point at any meeting with no advance notice and vote on it right then, disenfranchising the vast majority of the members who are not present in person? If so, I disagree. That's not democratic.

Chris,



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....

[TwentySix]

Mike Andrews wrote:

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.

[larrybard]

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.