BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2005-01 > 1104922164


From: LGFlesher <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] BRC Request
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 04:49:24 -0600
References: <PCEDIGLJFHKFCNAGDACIOEOJLLAA.srh@tyaskin.com>
In-Reply-To: <PCEDIGLJFHKFCNAGDACIOEOJLLAA.srh@tyaskin.com>


My fear is that voters will vote 'no' on the entire package because they
do not like a single aspect of the proposed changes.

Larry Flesher
SW/SC SC Rep

Shari Handley wrote:

>The following request was received from the Bylaws Revision Committee on
>Dec. 6, 2004:
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To: USGenWeb Advisory Board
>From: Bylaws Revision Committee
>Subj: Rescind Motion 04-13D
>
>The Bylaws Revision Committee requests the Advisory Board rescind motion
>04-13D.
>
>Adopted by vote of 12-0 .....that the proposed revisions be reworked in
>such
>a way that they can be presented to the general membership as separate
>amendments, in order that the general membership may vote to accept, or
>reject, each individual amendment.
>
>Numerous times during the revision process the committee chair has
>posted
>(to numerous lists) the excerpt below from the adopted parliamentary
>authority indicating the bylaws revision vote should be presented as the
>current (original bylaws) .... a single yes/no vote to adopt or reject.
>
>>From Sturgis pg 209-
>"A revision proposes, in effect, a new set of bylaws, and the revision
>is
>presented, considered, and voted upon under the same procedures as those
>followed for the adoption of the original bylaws."
>
>The BRC is very concerned with the end result if the membership votes on
>each article as individual amendments. The revision is intended to
>"replace"
>existing bylaws. More than two years work has consistently supported a
>single vote on a revision as defined at
>http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/PA.htm . The process has eliminated one
>current article combining its content into another article and partial
>text
>from other articles has been combined into other appropriate
>articles/sections.
>
>The desire that members have maximum voice regarding each article by
>vote
>puts the right of the organization to function effectively from a
>cohesive
>"set of bylaws" in jeopardy. The adoption of 04-13, although legal, is
>contrary to the parliamentary authority.
>
>Approved by;
>Roger Swafford
>Ron Henson
>Paulette Carpenter
>Don Kelly
>Sharon Tabor
>Bob Sweeney
>Denise Wells
>Vicki Shaffer
>Gloria B. Mayfield
>Dennis Muncrief
>
>Opposed by;
>
>Not voting;
>Shari Handley (NC ex-officio)
>Bettie Wood
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Is there any discussion regarding this request?
>
>Shari
>
>
>
>==== BOARD Mailing List ====
>"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
>Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)
>
>
>
>
>


This thread: