FYI. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 4:06 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Re: Proposed Bylaws Changes > (** may be forwarded to any appropriate project email list) > The revision is comprised of many different changes to the bylaws. Current > bylaws offer no method of presenting multiple amendments for membership > approval. Sturgis provides the process by which multiple amendments (a > revision) should be presented to the membership. > > There is no conflict with current bylaws, there is no process given for > multiple amendments. > > The revision of the article says "The USGenWeb Project shall be governed by > the current edition of "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure" in all > cases not provided for in the law, bylaws or adopted rules. " > > Another listmember correctly mentioned the only reason to require more than > a majority vote is to protect the rights of a minority. What minority is > protected by requiring more than a majority vote for amendment adoption? > The comments of the 26th included -- "The 2/3 clause in the case of The > USGenWeb Project was originally intended to prevent a minority group of > passing bad, frivolous amendments or attempting to destroy things that so > many people have worked to > build." A *minority* (<50%) cannot adopt anything under any circumstances. > The inference is that >50% but <66.66% approval is considered a minority > attempting to destroy things. > > I hope readers are not misunderstanding the vote requirement for adoption of > the bylaws revision. It will require 2/3 majority vote per the current > bylaws. In addition, it must be presented during an election cycle unless > the AB adopts a motion to present it by referendum at a different time. > > Roger > > > From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> > > From: Trey <holt@txcyber.com> > > The way I read this the response from the bylaws committee is still we > > don't like what the current bylaws clearly > > say and we have found a way through parliamentary procedure (ie. Sturgis) > > to do things the way we want to do them. > > > > A little fact that Roger left out is and I quote from article 15 of the > > current bylaws, "The USGenWeb Project shall be governed by accepted > > parliamentary procedure, except in those cases where such procedure > > conflicts with the existing bylaws of The USGenWeb Project. " > > > > He failed to mention the part except in those case where parliamentary > > procedure may conflict with the bylaws. And by the way if you read the > > proposed revisions this line is no longer in the bylaws. > > > > As for the arguments made regarding the 2/3's clause and minority/majority > > rule I stand by our comments in our message of Monday April 26th. > > > > I encourage everyone to contact their Advisory Board representative and > > tell them that you want the 2/3's clause retained and any amendments voted > > on properly as the current bylaws clearly call for. > > > > Thanks > > Trey Holt