FYI, Some views of the SC and past SC of TXGenWeb. Food for thought. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:41 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] [TXGEN] Proposed Bylaws Changes > > The USGenWeb Advisory Board, Bylaws Committee, State Coordinators, > USGenWeb Project Members, > > This message concerns two important changes that are being proposed to the > bylaws and > continues a dialog that has been occurring on The TXGenWeb Project Mailing > list as well > as the Bylaws Committee List we believe. We believe it is time to expand > the dialog. > > The first is the proposed change from a 2/3 vote to a simple majority vote > to approve amendments > and the second is the process that is to be used to vote on these "revisions". > > The thinking by some on the committee that the 2/3 rule allows a minority > group to prevent > amendments from passing is backwards thinking as far as this organization > is concerned. > It may be the best approach for some or most organizations but this is not > most organizations > and as we think you would agree a very unique one. We all know, or maybe we > don't all know, that in the history of this project that it is stability > and the status quo that > makes the membership feel at ease and that things are running smoothly. 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. > > The next VERY important thing that we are just finding out for the first > time and we > don't think we have ever seen this anywhere else before is how these > amendments, I'm sorry now we are calling them revisions, are going to be > voted on. The bylaws clearly spell out the procedures for presenting and > voting on bylaw amendments. It seems that they have decided that if they > call them revisions and can't find any provisions in the bylaws that talk > about revisions that they can just make up their own rules. We knew that > something about this whole bylaws committee was strange. This is a VERY > dangerous precedent to start because once you start reading things into the > bylaws and making stuff up that isn't in there you open the door for future > Advisory Boards to do the same. I don't know if it was the Advisory Board > or the Bylaws committee that decided how to vote on these but if this is > allowed to happen it will be detrimental to the future of the project. > > "Revisions" are not provided for in the bylaws and the omission of the term > in the bylaws should not be interpreted by anyone as permission to make up > rules. Amendments are expressly provided for and the proposed changes need > to be written as individual amendments probably broken down by section and > voted on separately. If the "committee doesn't want to do it that way then > perhaps they need to get a state to propose an amendment that would allow > for revisions to the bylaws and then we could vote on the "revisions" next > year properly. > > In our opinion both of these topics are deal breakers and we will have to > vote no in their current form. > > Thanks > Trey Holt > Brazos Co TXGenWeb > Past State Coordinator, The TXGenWeb Project > > David W. Morgan > State Coordinator, The TXGenWeb Project