Osiyo Folks,
FYI only; ANY reply should be addressed to me.
"Rarely, if ever," do I post either political or controversial items to
these lists. And, I make this /_exception_/, NOT to bring forth debate,
but rather to bring forth thinking. The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board
is discussing the By-Laws and the possible altering of them by process'
established and not established. It is my feeling that the rank and
file should at least know that it is happening, no matter their
feelings. This does and will affect and effect us all. [This forwarded
post shows both some logic and knowledge; forwarded with permission.]
Wado,
Bill Oliver
-=-
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-NE] Bylaws revision Proposal
Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:58:43 -0700
Resent-From: USGenWeb-NE-L(a)rootsweb.com
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 02:58:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott R. C. Anderson <srca(a)mindspring.com>
Reply-To: Scott R. C. Anderson <srca(a)mindspring.com>
To: USGenWeb-NE-L(a)rootsweb.com
Well, this is convenient nonsense. How about if the board passes
a resolution that defines a procedure called "appending the
bylaws" to mean "adding an article to the bylaws", and it's
defined so that it can be done with a board vote alone, not
requiring a vote by the membership. Then it becomes part of
the board's accepted parliamentary procedure, and it addresses
something that's not covered by the bylaws. And "appending"
isn't amending the bylaws, because it doesn't touch the
existing bylaws, it only adds to them.
What this comes down to is, whether you call it revising or
replacing or "amending away" the bylaws, it's a process that
hasn't been approved by the members or forced on them by an
external charter or law. IMHO, this can only be changed in
two ways: either pass an amendment to the existing bylaws
that defines this "revision" process, or pass an amendment
to the existing bylaws that defines Sturgis as a supplement
to the bylaws. It's not up to the board to make that choice
for the membership.
Or, we could take the proposed revision and let the members
approve it by a 2/3 vote, which clearly wouldn't conflict
with the bylaws. In fact, that seems to be what the Bylaws
Revision Committee intended in the original motion that led
to the one you referenced:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARD/2004-05/1084644932
Subject: BRC Final Report (Motion 04-13)
"The BRC moves this report be filed and the Bylaws Revision
posted at
http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/bylaws_revision.htm
be posted to the national website for presentation to the
membership for vote during the upcoming election cycle.
A 2/3 majority of those voting on the Revision is required
to adopt."
Another very curious observation: the only thing addressed
in the message you quote is whether the bylaws revision
needs to be sent to the states first, not the voting
requirement of the members. And yet, you seem to be reversing
that by trying to get state sponsorship but denying that a
2/3 vote of the membership will be required. Your stated
rationale is that "Although the revision doesn't require
cosponsorship to be voted on, the Project has no other way
to ADD bylaws issues to a ballot, by act of the membership"
(since "The USGenWeb Board has failed to allow consideration
of bylaws revisions or amendments").
May I also point out that the bylaws only address adding
AMENDMENTS to the ballot, not "revisions"? Ergo, if you
go the state sponsorship route, they clearly must be treated
as amendments and require a 2/3 vote. You can't have it both ways.
Scott
Guernsey Cownty, OH
On Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:09 PM MST, Jeff
<scismgenie(a)adelphia.net> wrote:
The Bylaws outrank the Sturgis book ONLY on items covered
by
the >bylaws.
A Bylaws revision is NOT covered by the Bylaws themselves,
only Amending themselves.
A revision doesn't call the existing bylaws (also by sturgis)
but is a replacement in whole.
Since our Bylaws do not address REVISIONS the Sturgis process
applies, as ratified by the previous Bylaws revision motions
approved by the previous two boards.
The Boards voted that a revision under Sturgis was appropriate
when they decided to not amend, but revise. Amendments and
revisions are different in the way they are done, especially
if the process for one is set in the bylaws, and the other
is unmentioned.
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARD/2004-06/1086458472
From: Isaiah Harrison < IsaiahH(a)cox.net <mailto:IsaiahH@cox.net>>
Subject: RESULTS MOTION 04-13B
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:01:12 -0700
With 9 members voting NO, 3 members voting YES and 2 members
not voting, the motion fails.
The AB, by passing Motion 04-13, has agreed that the proposed
bylaws revisions should be returned to committee, and by
failing to pass Motion >04-13B, has recognized that a complete
revision of the bylaws not requiring co-sponsorship by the
states is a legitimate option for the committee to consider.
The proposed bylaws amendment addresses and corrects this
omission. It is a known issue with the current bylaws.
(it says:
XII. AMENDING BYLAWS
These Bylaws are subject to change, amendment and/or
revision by a majority vote of the membership of the USGenWeb
Project. The Project's Bylaws committee procedures attachment
shall be the required process for submitting and initiating
changes to these Bylaws. Attached documents to these bylaws
may be changed by a majority vote of the full board
membership quorum. Changes take affect immediately
unless the change specifies another time.)
It is implementing the past board's decision. There are
many "motions" passed by boards which should have been
implemented AND the bylaws amended to reflect those votes.
NOT having the ability to initiate a bylaws amendment
directly - means that the votes by the board are a job
half done. The Board - if they make such decisions - should
be empowered to make the changes required in the bylaws to
implement them, and to refer them to members for a vote.
Right now they cannot.
Jeff
==== USGenWeb-NE Mailing List ====