FYI--responses to Roger. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <damorgan@nyx.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Re: [TXGEN] Re: Proposed Bylaws Changes > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Roger Swafford wrote: > > > Some members have expressed concern with the following points regarding the > > Bylaws Revision. > > > > 1. A change from 2/3 majority vote to a majority vote for approval of future > > bylaws amendments if the revision is adopted. > > 2. The process to be used in presenting the revision to the membership for a > > vote. > > > > Re: 1 > > The ultimate authority of an organization is vested in the majority vote of > > its members. When considering vote requirements for various actions to be > > valid the rights of the following > > must be considered - the majority, the minority, individual members and > > absentees. Majority rule is the most basic principle of democracy. To permit > > fewer than a majority to decide for the whole organization is to subject the > > many to the rule of the few. > > > > Consider the following from Sturgis pg. 131 - > > "Some members mistakenly assume that the higher the vote required to take an > > action, the greater the protection of members. Instead, the opposite is > > true. Whenever a vote of more than a majority is required to take an > > action, control is taken from the majority and given to a minority. For > > example, when a two-thirds vote is required, the minority need be only > > one-third plus one member to defeat the proposal. Thus, a minority is > > permitted to overrule the will, not only of the majority, but of almost > > two-thirds of the members. If a two-thirds vote is required to pass a > > proposal and 65 members vote for the proposal and 35 members vote against > > it, the 35 members have won; the 65 have been defeated. This is minority, > > not majority rule." > > > > Retaining the 2/3 requirement subjects the many to the rule of the few. A > > majority is half (50% + 1 ). The example above clearly shows the existing > > minority rule environment within our project. > > The bylaws were meant to be hard to change. If it were easy to change > the rules, then the rules would be changed with each bend in the wind. > > For example, the Constitution is over 200 years old. It has what, > 27 amendments? And 10 of those were passed within two years of the > constitution being ratified. And two amendments cancel each other > out, prohibition and then the repeal of prohibition. > > > > > > Re: 2 > > An implication has been made that "they" are making up rules. The "they" in > > this case appears to refer to the BRC. The facts of the situation are; > > - more then a few amendments are needed to accomplish an update to the > > bylaws > > - to subject the membership to endless rounds of amendment votes, rewrites > > followed by more votes is neither practical nor desired > > - the bylaws provide for use of parliamentary procedure in cases not covered > > in the bylaws > > > The bylaws RULE. To amend the bylaws require one state passing an > amendment, and 4 states sponsoring. Then it is put on the ballot for > a vote by all the members. > > > > The original bylaws were presented for a single vote to adopt or reject. > > There is no valid reason the revision should not be presented in the same > > manner. > > > Yes there is. The bylaws were passed in 1998. That is what we have > to go by. > > David > > David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii > SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ > ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ And with all due respect, I would point to an article in a document that is near and dear to the hearts of many of us. The document is the Constitution of the United States. The article is Article V. It reads: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." In short, 2/3 of both houses of Congress (or 2/3 of the several satates) must propose an amendment with must then be ratified by the legislatures or constitutional conventions of 3/4 of the states. If this is good enough for the United States of America, I certainly believe it is good enough for the USGenWeb project. In requiring a super-majority, you are not taking power from the majority and giving it to the minority. You are simply requiring that more than a simple majority of those affected by a proposed amendment consent to be so affected, whether we are discussing the Constitution of the USGWP By-laws, the point remains the same. It also prevents a 50-50 vote from being stolen and prevents the likelihood of voting phantoms. Richard Pettys ---- -The purpose of requiring "super majorities", like 2/3rds, is the protection of minority rights from hasty decisions by a small majority. Whether this is appropriate for a project like USGenWeb is questionable. Are there minority rights to be protected? Freddie S. Freddie Spradlin (by way of Isaiah Harrison <IsaiahH@cox.net>) <fspradlin@earthlink.net> ASC - GAGenWeb > proposal and 65 members vote for the proposal and 35 members vote against > it, the 35 members have won; the 65 have been defeated. This is minority, > not majority rule." >--