The proposed By-Law states a majority of the CCs, not a majority of those
voting.
If there are 100 CCs in a state, it would take 51 votes for a re-call,
regardless of how many voted. This prevents the minority from winning by
simply not voting.
If only 10 CCs voted, there would be no recall, even if all 10 voted in
favor of recalling the SC.
The thing that bothers me is the change in wording regarding the AB's
actions. The way it stands now, both the CCs *AND* the AB have to vote on
the issue. The proposed By-Law states that the SC can be removed by a vote
of the CCs *OR* the AB. Since 9 constitutes a quorum, the SC could be
removed simply by ticking off 5 or 6 AB members.
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Pershing County GenWeb wrote:
>Notice that 2/3 of 75% is 50% (or a majority). Same idea,
different words.
Not really; by removing the 75%-must-vote requirement, you could
conceivably have only 10% voting, but if half of them agree, then the
person's out. That's not really a problem for Nevada, which has few
counties to begin with, but look at a place like Texas, which is huge
and has, I believe, around 300 counties. That could get ugly! If for
some reason only 10 people voted in a recall and 6 agreed, that would
be a vote of only 2 percent of all CCs (6/300) but 60% of everyone
who voted.
Specifying how many people have to have voted for the vote to be
effective is a smart thing to do in a matter of such importance. It
ensures that the majority will is being carried out, as opposed to
the process being railroaded by a few malcontents.
>
>On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 legacy(a)comnett.net wrote:
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [STATE-COORD] bylaws revision
> > From: damorgan(a)nyx.net
> > To: STATE-COORD-L(a)rootsweb.com
> >
> > >
> > > From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56(a)mchsi.com>
> > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision -- News
> > > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:12:05 -0500
> > >(**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**)
> > >
> > >The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a first draft revision
> > >of Section 7 of Article XI. State Projects.
> > >
> > >Section 7. State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators
> > >are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote of the Advisory Board,
> > >or by majority vote of the Local Coordinators within the state
> > >subsequent to a recall petition submitted to and approved by the
> > >Advisory Board.
> > >
> > >All revision drafts may be viewed at
http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/
> >
> >
> > The current version of Article XII, Section 9 (I think), says that the SC
> > can be removed with a 2/3rds vote of the state volunteers, with 75%
> > voting.
> >
> > This is a radical change, going from 2/3rds to a majority vote. I guess
> > since the recall failed in Georgia, it was decided to make it easier to
> > remove an SC you are mad at.
> >
> > Look out, Tim!
> >
> > Let's get on with the voting on the bylaws. I have my NO vote ready.
> >
> > David
> > TX
> >
> >
> >
> > ==== NVGEN Mailing List ====
> > Nevada started out to be Washoe, Sierra Nevada, Esmeralda,
>Bullion, Oro Plata! We ended up with Nevada "Snowy"! Go figure!
> >
> >
>
>
>==== NVGEN Mailing List ====
>Battle Born is appropriate for Nevada. The Union needed our ores and
>the south hoped for support. Union won!
Joann Betschart | mailto:pershinggenweb@surfmodesto.com
Pershing County, Nevada, US GenWeb Project coordinator
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nvpershi
==== NVGEN Mailing List ====
Have you read how Nevada became a state? See the USGenWeb Nevada State page!