September membership meeting

[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....