And having seen at least one occasion where someone actively proposed that people not vote, thus preventing a quorum, I personally am in favor of removing the quorum requirement. I actually would prefer to see a "super majority" of those voting -- in our local elections, we usually see a requirement of 2/3 of the votes cast. There's a very good reason that most elections don't require a quorum (except in organizations where you can more effectively require people to vote!) -- because most people *don't* vote. Why should everything come to a standstill or be effectively held hostage by the apathetic majority? Should we be encouraging more members to vote? Well, of course we should. But I think we have to be realistic enough to take into consideration that the USGWP election is no different than any other election. Most people just want to be left alone and don't much care about the "politics" of the thing. Angie >-----Original Message----- >From: Joy Fisher [mailto:sdgenweb@yahoo.com] >Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:16 PM >To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] bylaws revision > > >It would take 51 votes against the SC to recall. > >It is not a majority of those voting, but a majority >of the CCs. > >--- "David W. Morgan" <damorgan@nyx.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Joy Fisher wrote: >> >> > David -- do the math >> > >> > 2/3 of 75% = 50% which is a majority >> >> And if 20 vote for the SC and 17 vote against the >> SC, and there are >> 100 CCs in the state, the minority throws out the >> SC. >> >> The 75% is not included in the revision. >> >> David >> >> >> > >> > >> > --- damorgan@nyx.net wrote: >> > > > >> > > > From: "Roger Swafford" >> <sagitta56@mchsi.com> >> > > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision -- >> News >> > > > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:12:05 -0500 >> > > >(**Please forward to all appropriate project >> > > lists**) >> > > > >> > > >The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has >> completed a >> > > first draft revision of >> > > >Section 7 of Article XI. State Projects. >> > > > >> > > >Section 7. State Coordinators and Assistant >> State >> > > Coordinators >> > > >are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote >> of >> > > the Advisory Board, or by >> > > >majority vote of the Local Coordinators within >> the >> > > state subsequent to a >> > > >recall petition submitted to and approved by >> the >> > > Advisory Board. >> > > > >> > > >All revision drafts may be viewed at >> > > http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ >> > > >> > > >> > > The current version of Article XII, Section 9 (I >> > > think), says that >> > > the SC can be removed with a 2/3rds vote of the >> > > state volunteers, with >> > > 75% voting. >> > > >> > > This is a radical change, going from 2/3rds to a >> > > majority vote. I guess >> > > since the recall failed in Georgia, it was >> decided >> > > to make it easier >> > > to remove an SC you are mad at. >> > > >> > > Look out, Tim! >> > > >> > > Let's get on with the voting on the bylaws. I >> have >> > > my NO vote ready. >> > > >> > > David >> > > TX >> > > >> > >> > >> > __________________________________ >> > Do you Yahoo!? >> > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product >> search >> > http://shopping.yahoo.com >> > >> >> David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu >> Hawaii >> SC - TXGenWeb >> http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ >> FM - >> http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm >> ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ >> > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search >http://shopping.yahoo.com > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003