Bylaw Amendment 10/8/2009

[Phokaioglaukos]

At last night's Board meeting the Bylaws were amended as stated below.

In a conversation I had with Mike Andrews in August I discovered an issue with the Bylaws. As in effect last year, the Bylaws contained a phrase tucked into an odd place to the effect that officers would hold office for a fiscal year. I came to understand that to mean is that although the officers are elected at the October member meeting they do not take office until January and then they serve until December 31. The Bylaws adopted in October 2008 were written without the reference to fiscal year so the better interpretation would be that the officers elected in October would take office then and serve until the next October election.

As Mike pointed out to me, that would mean that Robin would work all year on the annual banquet and perhaps not be in office when it was held. The committee of the Board that reviewed the Bylaws last year and I both missed this interpretation. I suggested that we change the language to remove any ambiguity. In addition, we will may not be able to announce the election results at the 2009 October member meeting, so I also suggested that we revise that provision. Last night the Board adoptd my suggestions by a unanimous vote, amending the Bylaws as follows: 

Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 had read as follows:
 

4.3.3.      Election Procedures.

4.3.3.1.  The Officers shall be elected by secret ballot of the active and family-active members at the October meeting of the Members.

4.3.3.2.  Active and family-active members may vote in person or by proxy.

4.3.3.3.  The candidate who receives the greatest number of votes cast for the office for which he or she is a candidate shall be declared elected.

4.3.4.      Notice of Election Results.  The names of the Officers shall be announced at the October meeting and written notice shall be given to the members.

They now read as follows:


4.3.3.      Election Procedures.

4.3.3.1.  The Officers shall be elected by the vote of the active and family-active members cast at the October meeting of the Members by proxy or by secret ballot in person.

4.3.3.2.  The candidate who receives the greatest number of votes cast for the office for which he or she is a candidate shall be declared elected. and shall serve for the next succeeding fiscal year.

4.3.4.      Notice of Election Results.  Written notice of the names of the Officers elected at the October meeting shall be given to the members promptly.

The amended Bylaws will be posted to the web site shortly. 

[Darren]

Why is it that the membership is not asked for opinions before the bylaws are amended?  Shouldn't there be a period for comments?  I understand and agree with the point that to open every bylaw amendment to a general vote would result in chaos, but I don't believe the general membership should be entirely excluded from the process.

4.3.4.      Notice of Election Results.  Written notice of the names of the Officers elected at the October meeting shall be given to the members promptly.

I think the general membership should be informed of the election results in their entirety and not just the list of elected officials.

[Phokaioglaukos]

Darren, do you have any issue with the substance of the three changes made to the Bylaws this year? Remember, they were to allow two member meetings on days other than the last Wednesday of the month, resolve the conflict between the DE discount policy and the no compensation provision, and restore the term of the Officers service to the calendar year. To my mind these are no brainer corrections of errors that were not caught last fall when the Bylaws were amended by the membership.

As to the members having their Bylaw power usurped by the Board, I find that a bit rich. In past years the Board just ignored the Bylaw provisions that were at odds with how they wanted to do things, and failed to inform the membership of their actions. I do not mean to suggest any bad faith--it's just that the Bylaws had remained static and the Board's practices had evolved to be out of compliance with the Bylaws. Now I think the Bylaws and practice are in synch, and are published to the membership.

Back to my first question, do you have a substantive concern with these changes? Would you like any of them to be changed back at the November Board meeting?

[JoeP]

Chris:  Within the documents that define RTR operation, is there a real distinction between the Bylaws and Policies?  Maybe, this is at the heart of our disagreement.

I think that Bylaws should govern the most important processes, like elections.  They should be very hard to change.  In my view, they should require a vote of the entire membership.  Policies should define the day-to-day operations on the Club, like expense reimbursement.  They should be changed by Board approval only, with prompt notification of the Membership at a minimum, and preferrably with prior discussion.  By the way, thank you for posting these changes immediately.

[Darren]

Not exactly my point Chris.  The fact that I don't have any specific issue with these amendments has nothing to do with my desire for a reasonable process.  Transparency without involvement isn't much different than a lack of transparency.

[dmano]

Is this a car club or a political forum. Politics suck, it should be left too the A/H on the hill, not in a club. I belong to a lot of other car clubs and none of them have this B/S. 

[Phokaioglaukos]

Darren wrote:

Not exactly my point Chris. The fact that I don't have any specific issue with these amendments has nothing to do with my desire for a reasonable process. Transparency without involvement isn't much different than a lack of transparency.

If you go to the thread entitled:
Riesentoter PCA Forum > Club Activities > Membership Meetings. > September membership meeting you will see that I posted on September 23rd that I planned to introduce the correction that we made last night.

Clearly I have hit on an emotionally charged issue that I completely do not understand. These Bylaw changes seem to me to be purely matters of Club operation. I think Joe has it exactly backwards (no offense meant, Joe). The Bylaws are the mechanics (go read them on the web site) and the Policies are matters with which the members should concern themselves. Should there be unapproved conflcits of interest? Now we have a policy against them. Should there be expenses reimbursed without receipts? Now we have a policy that requires receipts. Should the Speed Council grant discounts to whomever it chooses? Now we have a policy that specifies who gets what discount. These are the issues that I think the members should be concerned with, not whether the Board should be able to move a meeting date from one Wednesday to another with months of advance notice.

[Darren]

dmano wrote:

Is this a car club or a political forum. Politics suck, it should be left too the A/H on the hill, not in a club. I belong to a lot of other car clubs and none of them have this B/S.

You're right Dave...I think I'll just be racing next year.