Ellen-
I have read the other emails about the actual proposal and I am just wondering
if you would be willing to share your reasons or opinions why you would vote no. If
you would rather not, I understand. I am just looking for some input from others
so I can make a more informed decision myself.
Thanks-
Paula
Waupaca CC -
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:45:52 -0400
From: e.j.pack(a)speakeasy.net
To: wigen(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [WIGEN] By-Laws Proposal -
I think it is a well-written bad idea.
I would vote no.
Ellen
MAK - Transcriber wrote:
> I thought this was well written - I am forwarding this for discussion - is this
something that Wisconsin would like to Co-sponsor?
>
> Please respond with your thoughts on the subject.
>
> Thanks. R/S MAK
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
>
> To: usgenweb-ne(a)rootsweb.com
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:02:42 AM
> Subject: USGENWEB-NE Digest, Vol 3, Issue 41
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Bylaws Amendment Proposal (Jeff Scism)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:27:58 -0700
> From: Jeff Scism
> Subject: [USGENWEB-NE] Bylaws Amendment Proposal
>
> Hello, I am Jeff Scism, I am Co-CC for three Indiana Counties, Montgomery, Fountain
and Putnam.
>
> 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.
>
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WIGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
_________________________________________________________________
Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows®.