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

[Vance Kochenderfer]

"David Ostroske" <eksortso at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/14/06, Vance Kochenderfer <vkochend at nyx.net> wrote:
> > 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.

I'm not convinced the proposed language says that.  It's a bit
ambiguous, but I believe that as written, a prospective member
sends in an application and payment.  It would then be the
function of the Treasurer to deposit the dues and the Secretary
to add the new member to the rolls.  These are mechanical,
administrative functions, and offer no opportunity for judging
whether an applicant may have malicious intentions.

The ambiguity surrounds the phrase "reception by the WPLUG
Board".  One interpretation (which I have no idea whether it's
correct or not) of this could be that an application must be
presented at a Board meeting before a new member can be admitted.
Even then, at that point the applicant becomes a member - there
is absolutely no provision for the Board to reject someone or to
deliberately delay adding them to the rolls (as I noted before,
a couple days' delay to deposit checks, etc. would be fine, but
foot-dragging would not).

> 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.

By what authority would they have that power?

> 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.

Informally have the right to vote?  RONR is clear - members have
the right to vote, nonmembers do not.  The rules cannot be
suspended to give a nonmember the right to vote, nor can members
be prohibited from voting on a particular question.  Any deviation
from this can *only* occur by action of the bylaws.  (Or through
disciplinary action, but that doesn't apply here.)

> And even then, the Board may decide that that delay's not necessary.

Again, by what authority would the Board be able to delay admitting
a member?  Under the proposed language, IMO, refusing to or
deliberately delaying processing an application would be a
dereliction of duty.

> I'll just say that nobody's conspired against WPLUG yet. If anyone

Agreed, and I'm not expecting them to, either.  At the same time,
WPLUG does have assets worth protecting, so it's reasonable to
have some screening process.

Sorry for the length of the above, but in short: if the intent is
for the Board to act as a gatekeeper for new members, I strongly
feel that the proposed language does not fulfil that intent.
Maybe someone can explain what role you expect the Board, the
Secretary, and the Treasurer to play, and I can try drafting up
language to accomplish that.

Vance Kochenderfer        |  "Get me out of these ropes and into a
vkochend at nyx.net          |   good belt of Scotch"    -Nick Danger