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

[Patrick Wagstrom]

On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 12:10 -0600, Vance Kochenderfer wrote:
> "David Ostroske" <eksortso at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.

I'm not convinced that's why we had it.  Which makes most of this rather
irrelevant.  More details later.

> 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).

It's basically there so we don't have to worry about making people
members during the brief time before meetings.  Doing so not only can
pack a vote, but it makes things very hectic.  The ambiguity is somewhat
intentional.  Not every little thing needs to be outlined in the bylaws.
This was just there so the board could say "enough!" when stuff gets
really hectic and deal with receiving new members later.  I believe
we're using definition 3 or receive at [1].  Basically in receiving a
new member, we add them to the mailing lists, enter them in the database
etc.  If we had to do this before a meeting, heck would break loose,
especially if we had no net connection for some reason.

> > 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?

I dunno either.  That's not what we discussed.

> > 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.)

Again, I have no idea what Dave is talking about here.  It's NOT what we
discussed.  Members vote, non-members don't.  Period.  End of story.  If
you've been received by the board, you're a member.  If your dues lapse
or haven't yet been processed, you can't.

> > 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.

Moot based on previous comments.

> > 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.

The intent is NOT to act as a gatekeeper.  It's to keep some sanity for
the board.  Allowing people to sign up and vote right away could cause
SERIOUS headaches before a meeting.  What?  Our quorum just went up
because of new people...How many votes do we need to pass?  etc.  This
is informally what I've been doing by saying that I don't accept money
before meetings anyway.

Hope this helps.

--Patrick

[1] http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/receive