The adopted parliamentary authority....a.k.a. "Sturgis" states on page 209 that "a revised set of bylaws, which is in effect a new set of bylaws, is presented, considered, and voted on under the same procedures as those followed for the adoption of the original bylaws." It also states that a simple majority is all that is required to adopt the new set. On page 204 of Sturgis: "Good bylaws alone do not make an effective organization; they are an outline of the structure. However, suitable bylaws are necessary to enable an organization to function well. Bylaws should be concise and are best arranged in outline form. Many organizations keep their bylaws simple and brief by including only essential provisions and supplementing them with adopted procedures." Now, the purpose of having the structure of the organization set up in the bylaws and allowing for "rules and regulations" to be adopted within the structure, is because of the difficulty in changing bylaws. From what I've seen coming out of the BRC, every possible thought in regard of what might happen, has had a rule made by that committee. And, regulating what size the logo has to be, where it has to be, disclaimers required and what they must say, do not belong in the bylaws. Furthermore, the statement that some work of the Procedures Committee found its way into the bylaws before the committee could report it out, is true. The statement that this work shows approval of the AB is not true. The AB was never given the opportunity to approve or disapprove of it. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative

Oh, so it is only going to take a majority vote to entirely re-write the bylaws? I will definitely get my NO vote in on this, if it is not going to require a 2/3rds vote. I was under the impression that the bylaws committee was not to do a complete re-write of the bylaws. David On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > The adopted parliamentary authority....a.k.a. "Sturgis" states on page 209 > that "a revised set of bylaws, which is in effect a new set of bylaws, is > presented, considered, and voted on under the same procedures as those > followed for the adoption of the original bylaws." It also states that a > simple majority is all that is required to adopt the new set. > > On page 204 of Sturgis: "Good bylaws alone do not make an effective > organization; they are an outline of the structure. However, suitable > bylaws are necessary to enable an organization to function well. Bylaws > should be concise and are best arranged in outline form. Many organizations > keep their bylaws simple and brief by including only essential provisions > and supplementing them with adopted procedures." > > Now, the purpose of having the structure of the organization set up in the > bylaws and allowing for "rules and regulations" to be adopted within the > structure, is because of the difficulty in changing bylaws. From what I've > seen coming out of the BRC, every possible thought in regard of what might > happen, has had a rule made by that committee. And, regulating what size > the logo has to be, where it has to be, disclaimers required and what they > must say, do not belong in the bylaws. > > Furthermore, the statement that some work of the Procedures Committee found > its way into the bylaws before the committee could report it out, is true. > The statement that this work shows approval of the AB is not true. The AB > was never given the opportunity to approve or disapprove of it. > > Phyllis Rippee > SW/SC CC Representative > 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/

> > Oh, so it is only going to take a majority vote to entirely re-write > the bylaws? > > I will definitely get my NO vote in on this, if it is not going to > require a 2/3rds vote. > > I was under the impression that the bylaws committee was not to do a > complete re-write of the bylaws. > > David David, As best I remember, this committee was first started during Holly's term as NC. I believe her charge at the time was to do a completely new set of Bylaws based on the current ones, or start with new ones - which according to some at that time is allowable under Sturgis or some authority. By doing so - the current Bylaws rule of change would be negated. I believe this committee is that same committee, albeit with new members. > ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net