[wplug-plan] Proposals to be debated at WPLUG Business Meeting, 9/16/2006

[David Ostroske]

On 9/14/06, Vance Kochenderfer <vkochend at nyx.net> wrote:
> "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.

Nice job, Vance. I'm looking forward to seeing your proposals.

> Before I get into that, I would like to point out some aspects of
> the current Board proposal.
[...]
> 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.

I'm already aware of that. (Dude, I'm the secretary!) The Board's
discussed this; we'll be sending notice to all of the charter members,
as well as to everyone whose membership is lapsing on or before
October 21st, to send their dues, or otherwise bring their dues with
them, when they vote. We won't count lapsing members' votes, for the
bylaws amendment or for the Board election, unless they've paid up
beforehand.

> > * 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.

Good idea, the proviso. Feel free to bring it up on Saturday. If you
don't, then I'll do it.

However we all decide to handle it, I'll be including a description of
the effect of the bylaws amendment adoption on the election when I
create the ballots for the amendment vote and the Board election. The
wording will absolutely mention that the vote will be for seven
Directors, and the rest of the wording will state what will happen if
the bylaws amendments (with proviso, if any) passes.

> > 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.

You're absolutely right. In fact, we included the need for reception
not to prevent memberships, but to provide a way to block packing and
other malfeasance. In practice, the Board would discuss the new
membership amongst itself, process the membership, and then report on
it at the next Board meeting.

Also, we'd likely make it a policy that two months before an election,
new membership applications wouldn't be received until after the
election takes place. The Board would have the power to do that. The
new members would, informally, have the right to vote on motions at
meetings, but we'd prevent them from voting for the Board, since they
signed up and paid dues so close to the election.

And even then, the Board may decide that that delay's not necessary.
I'll just say that nobody's conspired against WPLUG yet. If anyone
did, the Board would institute safeguards, but I know I'd at least
admire the conspirators' initiative. :)

-- 
David Ostroske <eksortso at gmail.com>