From: edeye1(a)bellsouth.net> To: 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