[wplug-plan] Proposals to be debated at WPLUG Business Meeting, 9/16/2006
Vance Kochenderfer
vkochend at nyx.net
Thu Sep 14 14:13:47 EDT 2006
"David Ostroske" <eksortso at gmail.com> wrote:
> This Saturday, September 16th, we will be taking up a set of changes
> to out current bylaws. The Board has come up with a list of change
I have created a document showing the changes in strikeout and
italics at <http://www.nyx.net/~vkochend/wplug-board-prop-2006.html>
for easy reference.
After reviewing the proposal, I am working on some amendments of
my own to it and will post those here for review as soon as I
can.
Before I get into that, I would like to point out some aspects of
the current Board proposal.
> * If you were a charter member, and if you didn't renew your
> membership before the vote, then you'd immediately drop out of
> membership. Reason enough to renew now, folks! If you joined WPLUG
> anytime on or before March 16th, you'll be able to renew at the
> meeting on Saturday.
Those members in arrears would not be dropped until the proposed
amendment actually takes effect. This would be at the election
meeting when/if the amendment is announced as being adopted. Up
until that time, membership status and voting rights are governed
by the current bylaws.
Note that if this amendment takes effect before the election
result is announced, votes from those individuals dropped from the
rolls may not be counted as part of the election.
If this change is sent to absentee ballot by Saturday's meeting,
I think it would be wise at that time to adopt a motion ordering
the Secretary to notify those Members who would be dropped if the
proposal is adopted so they have an opportunity to renew.
> * The Board election would proceed as usual, but instead of electing
> seven people, we'd only elect FIVE (5) people. (Not necessarily the
> same five people, just so you know. But that's another matter.)
Because the bylaws will not actually be changed on Saturday, the
election ballot must still list seven offices to be filled. To
avoid any ambiguity here, a proviso should be included with the
motion reducing the number of Directors indicating exactly how
the changeover will take place (e.g., if the motion passes, that
only the top five vote-getters may be declared elected to office).
It is always possible that this motion would be rejected, which
means that seven seats would need to be filled.
> since the Board would receive all new applications, we would retain a
> safeguard against "packing." At the same time, we dropped all of
The new language does not give the Board any leeway to reject
applications. Under the proposal, anyone who submits an
application and dues payment becomes a member. A brief delay
(not more than a few days) to allow for administrative processing
would be reasonable. However, it would be entirely improper for
an officer to sit on or refuse to process an application, or for
the Board to reject an application.
Vance Kochenderfer | "Get me out of these ropes and into a
vkochend at nyx.net | good belt of Scotch" -Nick Danger
More information about the wplug-plan
mailing list