Hello Joy et al,
Enjoyed reading your message of concern, and yes, while researching
the proposal, similar concerns were felt, but looked at with a
somewhat different solution. Instead of adding more CCs the thought
was of adding more RALs, 3 to replace the 3 SC reps. Why? To start us
on the road of doing away with positional representation and get us
to the ultimate goal of one member one vote. However, it was felt the
Project just wasn't ready to make that big a jump and it would be
years before it could even be brought to a vote.
In this proposal, timing was a consideration. It has been two years
since the Special Projects were reduced to equalize representation
and we knew then that further reductions were needed. To prevent
several more years from ticking off the calender it was decided to go
with what has been proposed.
After two years this isn't rushing into anything. If the proposal
is sufficiently sponsored and placed before the membership in July it
certainly isn't a done deal. It will be the collective wisdom of the
membership that will either accept or reject the proposal.
Joy, the difference between the vote of a 15 voting member board and
the proposed 11 voting member board appears to be four votes, but in
reality it is only 2 votes difference. A 2/3 majority of 15 members
is 10. A 2/3 majority of 11 members is 8. Not really a significant difference.
We have seen that even a full 16 member board has not prevented
groups from doing what they wished, so that really wasn't a
consideration. If a group of people are so inclined they will find a way.
The fundamental purpose in creating this proposal was not to prevent
questionable action by the board, that simply isn't possible.
The purpose of this proposal was to assure equality among the
membership by equal representation. That is possible. That was the
purpose in presenting it to the membership for review and hopefully
we won't be diverted into other inequalities or possibilities that we
may or may not be able to resolve.
Thanks for your comments, Joy. I hope I understood your concerns and
addressed them, if not please reply. If others care to comment, jump right in.
Don Tharp
At 02:52 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote:
Don and All:
I would like to amend this amendment to read:
"The Advisory Board membership shall consist of: the National
Coordinator and an at-large Representative, elected by the
membership of the project, one (1) State Coordinator representative,
elected by State Coordinators, twelve (12) Local Coordinator
Regional Representatives, elected by Local Coordinators, one (1)
Special Projects Representative elected by members of the Special
Projects. All shall have voting privileges except the National
Coordinator who shall vote only in the case of a tie. The regions
from which Local Coordinator Representatives are elected shall be
decided by the Advisory Board on an annual basis." END
The AB as originally constituted had 16 members. A decent number to
prevent a small group from taking control. Two were lopped off via
amendment, and now you are proposing lopping off 3 more.
I would much prefer seeing the AB restored to it's original
strength. My suggested amendment brings the total membership up to
15, but the method of increasing the number to 16 would require
either creating new regions or adding one more at-large berth.
When the By-Laws were first voted in, many raised objections to one
part or another, but we were told "Just vote it in and we'll fix it
later". Well, it is almost 10 years later and only one fix has been
applied. Let's not rush this through only to have to fix it later.
--
Joy Fisher
CC White Pine County, NV
CC Nye County, NV
---- Don Tharp <detict(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Hello to all Nevada members.
>
> My name is Don Tharp and I am the host of Humboldt county. While new
> to Nevada, I've been a member of USGenWeb for many years. A proposal
> has been submitted to amend our bylaws, a proposal concerning equal
> representation of the different categories of membership in USGenWeb.
>
> All states have been sent a message containing a request to
> sponsor/co-sponsor the USGenWeb bylaw amendment which is posted at URL
>
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/elk/2007amnd.html
>
> With the full knowledge and permission of our State Coordinator, I am
> advising you of the proposed amendment and asking the members of this
> state if they wish the state to participate in sponsoring.
>
> Sponsoring or co-sponsoring does not mean that every CC in NVGenWeb
> endorses the proposed amendment, it only means that the proposed
> amendment may be placed on the ballet for our 2007 election.
>
> If it is placed on the ballet, the entire membership will then
> exercise their voting rights and vote for or against the proposed
> amendment. A 2/3 majority voting would be required to pass it.
>
> Please read the proposed amendment and let the Nevada membership know
> if you would wish Nevada to participate in sponsorship. Your
> discussion on this list will be appreciated.
>
> Don Tharp
> detict(a)cox.net
> CC Chautauqua County, Kansas
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
NVGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message