Posted 4/15/2005 7:03 AM (#7312) Subject: Two requests for next board meeting
Location: Middleburg, Pa
These were brought up last night and requested of John Kennedy to be put on the next agenda for a vote.
1) Move RACEDIS back here to sidecar.com.with it being set up for board members only but also so all USCA members can see the discussions but not be able to post in that section of the site. yes( ) No ( )
2) Should the SSP representative that is on the board be allowed to vote?
yes ( ) no ( )
Posted 4/16/2005 4:02 PM (#7332 - in reply to #7312) Subject: RE: Two requests for next board meeting
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
The second question would require a change to the Constitution. The Board can't just do that by a vote.
You know that some of us favor a gradual change to the Constitution with member input. So, the first thing that needs to be done is to use the current process to change the method by which the Constitution can be modified. Then if you want to change the make up of the Board you could do that.
Posted 4/18/2005 3:24 AM (#7348 - in reply to #7332) Subject: RE: Two requests for next board meeting
Location: Middleburg, Pa
Can someone post chapter and verse of what the constitution says on the SSP board member? Does it actually say he or she is to be on the board and ,if so , does it say he or she will have a vote.
Again, HOW CAN IT BE THAT A NON ELECTED MEMBER HAS A VOTE ON THE BOARD REGARDING ISSUES THAT WILL AFFECT THE MEMBERS OVERALL. He is not elected so how can he be allowed to represent the membership?
Also, I am a little surprized that you, Al, are now referring to the constitution on this topic.
Here is the post by Bruce Stephens for reference:
>>Al, & Claude,
I have gone to my volume 26, No. 1, January 1, 2002 to February 28, 2002 issue of The Sidecarist, and tried to find this mentioned 'obscure rule' in the Constitution. I can not find it. Would either of you please refer to the page and paragraph where I can read this 'obscure rule' for myself.
I am also under the understanding that the SSP organization has their own Bylaws & Constitution. Is this 'obscure rule' that you are referring to, in it by any chance? Thanks.
Please post the portion of the constitution that explains this.If it is not clear then it should be voted on in the best interests of the membership. If it is clear and we are stuck with it then it should be deleted from the constitution as soon as possible. Voting board members should be voting in the interests of the members who elacted them. Board members who are on placed on the board by any other method other than being voted onto the board should NOT be allowed to vote. That is a joke ,to put it mildly, that simply is not funny and anyone who supports such an action should have their own motives questioned!
Posted 4/18/2005 3:48 PM (#7355 - in reply to #7348) Subject: RE: Two requests for next board meeting
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
I answered that in post number 7330, the only one I've seen that actually addressed Bruce's question.
All I'm saying is that IF John and Colby are going to stick it to the majority of the Board by using the Constitution as a weapon then they're going to have to swallow real hard when the same Constitution goes against them. Look for a provision that says that we can elect a Secretary, and then create a phoney position so that he can be paid for doing the work that was part of his elected position. If John is going to hold up the Board using the Constitution then he has to recognize it ALL THE TIME, NOT JUST WHEN IT'S GOOD FOR HIS AGENDA.
I've said before that until we can get a Constitution that is framed with member input and is both cohesive and complete, we should be running the club by common sense and accepted practice. That practice INCLUDES THE RIGHT OF THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY. John and Colby have already proved that they can't frame a Constitution on their own and still John hasn't accepted the idea that the membership should be allowed to do it by voting on provisions over a reasonable period of time. The current mechanism for change places all of the power in the Board and makes it all but impossible for the membership to act. It takes an immediate response on an individual basis by 30% (or 33%, I'd have to look) to stop anything that the Board proposes. How is that "giving the club back to the membership"?
On a personal basis, I can't give you a good reason why the Director of the SSP should have a seat on the Board. Maybe when it was done, there was a good reason. We've talked off line about the idea that if the two organizations were indeed working together that an interlocking directorate would make a good deal of sense.
But, since some in the club have chosen to make a huge issue over one passage in the Yellow Book, it seems that close cooperatin is not in the foreseeable future. Frankly, I don't read it the same way you do but then I'm not too worried about it either. I believe that the overall good that has been done by the availability of the Yellow Book far outweighs the issue.
But, this is about the Constitution and you know what Colby says about the Constitution, "We're either going to do this my way or by the Constitution". Well, I'm not willing to do this his way, it looks like that Board is not willing to do it his way, so for the time being, I'm for going by the Constitution and I hope they do as well.
Look at the election process. Before John came along, we found a reasonable way to nominate and elect officers. If we followed the Constitution religiously, we'd still be stuck without elections. But then, neither John nor I would have been in office and things might just be better but most likely the club would have gone under three years ago.
If some good sense middle ground is found, I'm for it.