At 6:47 PM -0700 9/2/99, jpowelljr wrote: >A different approach might be to create a set of Bylaw >defining policies, rather than amendments. Jim, If I understand you right, this is something I've suggested for a long time. As I'm sure you remember, since it was part of the "Radical Idea" (yours) and "Even More Radical Idea" (mine) threads that we started back in 1998 on USGENWEB-ALL-L and KYGEN-L, and which I included, with your permission, on my Candidate Statement page. That is, we've both written in the past that we need a posted "Policies and Procedures" document, which can be modified much more rapidly than the By-Laws can be amended, but still ONLY BY A GENERAL VOTE OF EVERYONE, and which goes into greater detail. I wouldn't, though, use the word "Bylaw" to refer to the rules it would contain. The By-Laws are like the Constitution. The "Policies and Procedures" would be like the regular laws and other business that gets done by a legislature. A By-Law amendment isn't needed for everything. Lots of rules and processes, even substantial ones, can be set up without being mentioned in the By-Laws. The Constitution, for example, says nothing about Social Security! Only if a proposed rule or procedure contradicts the existing By-Laws would an amendment be needed. We would need one, for example, to extend the candidate nomination period beyond two weeks. >We can start with some basics, allow the >volunteers to look at it and make suggestions. Then we >could firm it up and present it back to the Volunteers. I >would like to suggest that then we try one of "Fred's" >voting places to poll the Volunteers. Include Fred in a >Committee to set up the polling place. Sounds like a good idea to me. You did a GREAT job with the procedures for the run-off election. It was so easy to use. And I assume that it was easier than the previous procedure for collecting the results, too. But to allay the concerns of the significant block of volunteers who do not trust the security of software running on Rootsweb, you are wise to suggest that any official polls take place on another server. I can imagine something like a threaded message board, where each thread starts with a single proposed policy or procedure. Any eligible voter could start a thread. There might be two sub-threads, one for discussion of pros and cons, and one for "signing the petition." When the "petition" got to enough signatures, a voting form could be set up. (I know it's work to set up and manage a secure poll, so we wouldn't want to do it on everything.) Definitions of "enough signatures" TBD. Maybe the first procedure to be discussed could be refining this procedure itself. Bootstrap it. The basic model is a lot like the "Ballot Proposition" process here in California. We may get overwhelmed at times by the number of propositions to be voted on (and people who watch TV - I don't - get bombarded by too many political ads), but it has definitely done a lot to revive a feeling of citizen involvement in government. That sense of empowerment alone is worth all the poorly constructed propositions that sometimes get passed. >We could start >with the Funding issue. Nothing you have said contradicts >the bylaws. Well, I'm not sure. Whether that proposal contradicts the current By-Law or not depends on how you interpret the original. Certainly the amendment I proposed is significantly more restrictive than the current By-Law read literally. Especially the change from "home page" to "pages." It could be argued that institutionalizing an interpretation of a By-Law which is significantly stricter than the literal reading of that By-Law would amount to changing it. Some CC who was less willing to submit to the will of the majority than Jen Godwin was might argue that their activities were protected by the By-Laws. So an amendment would be the surest way to prevent future conflicts over interpretation. By no means do I consider this proposal "urgent", though. It's just an idea. // Teri