FYI, more discussion on the bylaws. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 7:36 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Re: [TXGEN] Re: Proposed Bylaws Changes > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:10:45 -0500 > From: Trey <holt@txcyber.com> > Reply-To: TXGEN-L@rootsweb.com > To: TXGEN-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [TXGEN] Re: Proposed Bylaws Changes > Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:10:44 -0600 > Resent-From: TXGEN-L@rootsweb.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 > > > At 11:49 AM 4/29/2004, you 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. > > > >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 current parliamentary procedure (Sturgis) provides information for > >bylaw revision. > >See. http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/PA.htm > > > >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. > > > >Roger Swafford > >BRC- Chairman > >http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ > > > > > > > > > >==== TXGEN Mailing List ==== > >The TXGEN-L/TXGEN-D mailing list is for announcements and the > >discussion of issues concerning the volunteers of The TXGenWeb Project. > >This is NOT the proper list for posting genealogical research queries. > > > ==== TXGEN Mailing List ==== > The TXGW-NEWS-L mailing list is for announcements, roll calls, > etc, and is the required TXGenWeb list for the CCs, assistant > CCs and surfers