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 <Jeff(a)ibssg.org>
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.
--
Jeffery G. Scism, IBSSG