Thanks , Ed. I would like to change my vote to yes.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: edeye1(a)bellsouth.net
To: gagen <gagen(a)rootsweb.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:23:02 +0000
Subject: [GAGEN] FW: [USGW-SE] Fw: [USGENWEB-SW] Guest posting - RE: Bylaws proposal
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "AnnieG" <anniegms(a)telepak.net>
To: <usgenweb-se(a)rootsweb.com>
Subject: [USGW-SE] Fw: [USGENWEB-SW] Guest posting - RE: Bylaws proposal
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:36:49 +0000
Jeff Scism has given permission to cross post this to other lists.
Jeff is a CC in three counties in Indiana, Montgomery, Putnam, and Fountain.
In addition he is the current chair of the Indiana Genweb Grievance
Committee.
He is also a member of the INGenWeb Standards committee.
He is a Past Advisory Board Member, for the NE area.
Jeff chaired the USGenWeb Bylaws Committee, (the last one), and was a
member of the one before that one. He has written NINE bylaws revisions
for thie USGW project. (None have made it to ballot).
AnnieG
-------Original Message-------
From: Jeff Scism
Date: 08/20/08 17:48:07
To: USGenWeb-SW(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [USGENWEB-SW] Guest posting - RE: Bylaws proposal
Hello, I am Jeff Scism, former cc of Churchill County, Nv. I have been invited back to
answer any questions about the proposed USGenWeb Bylaws Amendment.
As an introduction, the bylaws amendment proposal has been co-sponsored by two states,
Indiana and Mississippi.
http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml
The ONLY change this proposal makes is to change the number (%) of voters casting votes
from a current 2/3rds majority to a simple (50%+1 vote) majority to pass future bylaws
amendments, this one is under the current rules and will require a 2/3rds majority to
carry.
A total of five states co-sponsoring is required to place the issue on
the ballot. If three more states do not sponsor it, it becomes a "dead" issue.
Why this amendment is proposed...
There are two "hoops" that have to be jumped through to allow the
membership to consider any Bylaws amendment.
The first "hoop" is the sponsoring by at least five states. This, by
our current bylaws, directs that the proposal be balloted during the
next annual voting period, July 1-31.
The second "hoop" is getting 66%+ of those voting to approve the amendment.
In the past there have been many well thought out and desirable
proposals which never got to the ballot, because five states could not agree to
co-sponsor.
The Basic bylaws document has has many built in flaws that have been known for years, and
so far three full revisions have failed to make it to the ballot.
Although we are always tempted to fix all of what is wrong, we must acknowledge that ONE
small change at a time is likely all we can convince people to adapt to, and get five
states to co-sponsor.
This means that getting tech errors and flaws corrected will take years, having only one
opportunity per year to submit to the process, and if that effort doesn't pass that is
a t least a year wasted.
This is the first step, not only will it allow easier amendments, it
will also give the membership more of a say in how things are done.
Currently with the 2/3rds requirement, 34% of the voters in the Project is a majority. It
only takes 34% of those voters to over ride the remaining voters support. With passage of
this amendment the power to make changes is placed back in the hands of the simple
majority, The CCs will be able to have a vote that counts, without having to convince MORE
than 66% of the voters.
In addition to this proposal, NEXT year others will follow, if this
passes, which will gradually work on the existing issues. ADD the
members' rights section, define a membership class, and a voting class, establish how
to join.
These are things which the current bylaws lack.
Other issues which may arise:
Establish a single Parliamentary authority, so all states operate under the same
processes and rights. This will allow the bylaws to be a lot LESS, as most issues and
processes are already covered in the Guide.
This will also install a fair procedure that isn't "made up as we go"
as past procedures have been.
Move the "Operating Procedures" out of the bylaws and into an attached
document, so that a Project wide vote isn't required (and at least a year wait) to
make changes that are specific to operations.
Install a separability clause, so if one portion of the Bylaws is deemed to be void, the
rest will be unaffected.
Establish a POLICY section where policies will be separate from Bylaws.
Remove sections that contradict Law.
Allow administrative amendments to correct errors in spelling, or
sentence structure. Make changes of things like links and addresses of websites that may
change. (An example is the current bylaws amendment procedure which references the
USGenWeb-all list, which is no longer used.)
If you have any questions about this or future proposals, feel free to write to me,
Jeff(a)ibssg.org, or ask on list.
The aim of this process is to put the vote of the members first.
Thank You.
--
Jeffery G. Scism, IBSSG
"In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory
of the constitution, essential constituent parts of the general
government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter
cannot exist without them."
-- Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)
Reference: Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 191.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
USGENWEB-SW-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message