David, You are correct in the charge that was given to the BRC by Holly. It was fairly well spelled out by the committee to establish the purpose of the "real" committee. However, since the committee was appointed by Holly, it was the NC's committee. It was never sanctioned by the AB. Technically, that meant that it ended when Holly's term ended. The current NC, however, continued the BRC and we have no way of knowing what his charge to his BRC is. Phyllis

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > David, > > You are correct in the charge that was given to the BRC by Holly. It was > fairly well spelled out by the committee to establish the purpose of the > "real" committee. > > However, since the committee was appointed by Holly, it was the NC's > committee. It was never sanctioned by the AB. Technically, that meant that > it ended when Holly's term ended. > > The current NC, however, continued the BRC and we have no way of knowing > what his charge to his BRC is. > > Phyllis > Phyllis, you are the one that brought Sturgiss into this, saying it only takes a majority vote to change everything. No wonder people get confused. David 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/

David, I don't know why it is confusing. It only takes a majority vote of the general membership to adopt a revised set of bylaws. That is what I quoted from Sturgis. Someone else brought up what the charge to the BRC was. When the current BRC reports out, they will report to whoever the NC is. Then, it can go to the general membership for approval. Because there is no revision process established in the current set of bylaws, we have to refer to the accepted parliamentary authority. And, that is a simple majority vote can adopt a new set of bylaws. Not a simple majority of SCs, AB members, or BRC committee members. But a simple majority of the general membership, who bother to vote on the issue. And, I don't know why that should be confusing. Step One: The committee was appointed and charged by Holly. Step Two: The committee had some member changes. Step Three: The committee did not have its work done when Holly's term ended. Step Four: Richard continued the committee. It has had member changes. We know what charge Holly gave the committee. We do not know what Richard told it to do. Step Five: When its work is finished, the report will go to the then NC....unless a new NC comes in and disbands the committee before the report is issued. Step Six: IF the NC chooses to present it to the general membership for a vote, it will take a simple majority of those voting to put the revised set in effect. Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: David W. Morgan <damorgan@nyx.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 13 May, 2003 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision > On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > David, > > > > You are correct in the charge that was given to the BRC by Holly. It was > > fairly well spelled out by the committee to establish the purpose of the > > "real" committee. > > > > However, since the committee was appointed by Holly, it was the NC's > > committee. It was never sanctioned by the AB. Technically, that meant that > > it ended when Holly's term ended. > > > > The current NC, however, continued the BRC and we have no way of knowing > > what his charge to his BRC is. > > > > Phyllis > > > > Phyllis, you are the one that brought Sturgiss into this, saying it only > takes a majority vote to change everything. > > No wonder people get confused. > > David > > 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/ > > >

An amendment to the bylaws requires a 2/3rd vote. Yet a complete re-write only requires a majority. If there is a conflict between the bylaws and the RRoR, the bylaws prevail. If this is not true, then I am really confused. David On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > David, > > I don't know why it is confusing. It only takes a majority vote of the > general membership to adopt a revised set of bylaws. That is what I quoted > from Sturgis. > > Someone else brought up what the charge to the BRC was. When the current > BRC reports out, they will report to whoever the NC is. Then, it can go to > the general membership for approval. > > Because there is no revision process established in the current set of > bylaws, we have to refer to the accepted parliamentary authority. And, that > is a simple majority vote can adopt a new set of bylaws. > > Not a simple majority of SCs, AB members, or BRC committee members. But a > simple majority of the general membership, who bother to vote on the issue. > > And, I don't know why that should be confusing. > > Step One: The committee was appointed and charged by Holly. > > Step Two: The committee had some member changes. > > Step Three: The committee did not have its work done when Holly's term > ended. > > Step Four: Richard continued the committee. It has had member changes. We > know what charge Holly gave the committee. We do not know what Richard told > it to do. > > Step Five: When its work is finished, the report will go to the then > NC....unless a new NC comes in and disbands the committee before the report > is issued. > > Step Six: IF the NC chooses to present it to the general membership for a > vote, it will take a simple majority of those voting to put the revised set > in effect. > > Phyllis > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David W. Morgan <damorgan@nyx.net> > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: 13 May, 2003 4:56 PM > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision > > > > On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > You are correct in the charge that was given to the BRC by Holly. It > was > > > fairly well spelled out by the committee to establish the purpose of the > > > "real" committee. > > > > > > However, since the committee was appointed by Holly, it was the NC's > > > committee. It was never sanctioned by the AB. Technically, that meant > that > > > it ended when Holly's term ended. > > > > > > The current NC, however, continued the BRC and we have no way of knowing > > > what his charge to his BRC is. > > > > > > Phyllis > > > > > > > Phyllis, you are the one that brought Sturgiss into this, saying it only > > takes a majority vote to change everything. > > > > No wonder people get confused. > > > > David > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > 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/