-Meeting- TCMAS Elections & Business Meeting 2013 (1 Viewer)

[MAXreefer]

If you read the first post, it says you have to post here if you want it discussed etc at the meeting. Earlier, David said that if any 'supporter' showed up, he would propose a change in line with what he is talking about here. All David is doing, so far as I can tell, is putting it on the agenda so it can be discussed/motioned/seconded/voted on at the meeting as it needs to be posted here prior to 7 days before the meeting.

I think it is on the agenda, that is all that has been accomplished. If no supporters show up, it is uncertain to me whether David will try to push it forward.

You said it.
I will discuss the exact wording he wants to be posted and I will update the first post with the agenda items

 

[data_loss]

I'm not sure if it is appropriate to discuss at all in this thread but I'd be interested in knowing how many members are eligible to vote under the current bylaws and how many more would be eligible to vote with the proposed changes.

I know I wasn't eligible to vote at the last business meeting because I had only been to one meeting in the last 6 months. Under this proposed change it sounds like I would be eligible if that was ever the situation again.

 

[LowersMyBP]

absentee votes can only be made for BOD elections/positions, not changes to the by laws. You have to be present for those votes...as per my reading of section 2.4, 2.5 and 5.2. So it is a moot point.

 

[acharpenter]

absentee votes can only be made for BOD elections/positions, not changes to the by laws. You have to be present for those votes...as per my reading of section 2.4, 2.5 and 5.2. So it is a moot point.

UGH - I have just been informed of that. Sorry - I thought any proposed amendments went on the ballot as well

Grigor knew that - which explains why he threw in the "if a paying sponsor attends the meeting" note


Sorry!!!

Still learning as usual :facepalm:

 

[MAXreefer]

I'm not sure if it is appropriate to discuss at all in this thread but I'd be interested in knowing how many members are eligible to vote under the current bylaws and how many more would be eligible to vote with the proposed changes.

I know I wasn't eligible to vote at the last business meeting because I had only been to one meeting in the last 6 months. Under this proposed change it sounds like I would be eligible if that was ever the situation again.

I will get back to you with those answers.
The software doesn't provide options to do searches like this but I can run a couple SQL queries on the Database to find out

 

[MAXreefer]

Here are some numbers you requested.

Please note those numbers are calculated as if the Meeting was today. Those numbers can change by April of course

Under the current Bylaws/Rules

Members with voting rights:
Lifetime Members: 152
Members who attended 2 Meetings in the past 6 months: 5

Members with no voting rights:
Members: 150
TCMAS Supporters: 19

 

[hypertech]

If there are indeed only 5 members with voting rights excluding lifetime members I think a change to the criteria may be needed. If not Davids proposal then perhaps loosening to 1 in 12 months. If you change to 1 in 12 months, how many people could vote then? Would it make a difference?

 

[MAXreefer]

If there are indeed only 5 members with voting rights excluding lifetime members I think a change to the criteria may be needed. If not Davids proposal then perhaps loosening to 1 in 12 months. If you change to 1 in 12 months, how many people could vote then? Would it make a difference?

Well if you would change it to 1 meeting in 12 months just add the 150 members who have no voting rights at this point (they attended 1 meeting in the last 12 months)

 

[data_loss]

Thank you for taking the time to put the numbers together.

 

[hypertech]

Well if you would change it to 1 meeting in 12 months just add the 150 members who have no voting rights at this point (they attended 1 meeting in the last 12 months)

I propose you put this on the agenda. Fundamentally, if people bother to show up I think they should get to vote. I like the precaution that you have to a member before that meeting (ie the meeting itself doesn't create voting rights at that meeting) but otherwise it should be made easy to have a voice and contribute to encourage participation.

 

[kieffer_5]

A decent middle ground for voting rights could be 2 meetings in 12 months or one meeting in 12 months plus the $30 supporter fee.
This way participation in the club as well as supporting it is encouraged and also there will be more people able to vote

 

[zoolan70]

I think if any event should count toward voting rights, it should be a business meeting. After all, it shows an interest in the internal workings of the club beyond a social meeting setting.

That being said, voting rights should be based on your meeting count BEFORE the business meeting. So, if your first event attendance is the business meeting, you don't get to vote, but would get to vote at the NEXT one, assuming we drop to the '1 in 12' rule, without attending any other meeting.

I hope that makes sense...

 

[Jager]

So your saying that the members that choose to sponsor by submitting $30.00 per year means they have vested interest and that should allow them to vote?

You can just pay $30.00 and get what everyone else has - even though everyone else has made an effort to forward the club in some way? No - I vehemently disagree with that

not entirely accurate from my understanding, i tihnk he is saying by paying the dues and becoming a supporter you essentially get credit for 1 meeting. you would still need to attend a second (or actual) meeting to obtain voting rights.

 

[zoolan70]

not entirely accurate from my understanding, i tihnk he is saying by paying the dues and becoming a supporter you essentially get credit for 1 meeting. you would still need to attend a second (or actual) meeting to obtain voting rights.

That's assuming the rule continues to be "2 in 6" to vote. If it were instead "1 in 12", then a paying member would be able to vote at the SECOND business meeting they attend, as the first one would satisfy the rule, but only for future votes.

I'm totally confused as to the status of that rule, however, so it could be as you suggest...

 

[Jager]

if we switch the required meeting count to 1, imo a supporter should still need to attend a meeting to obtain voting rights tho, the supporter buy in would no longer count towards 1 of the 2 in that situation. (buy in counting towards a meeting is Davids proposal as i understand it)

essentially, if a supporter attends a meeting they are upgraded to full member status, and with a change to 1/12 full member status is accompanied by voting rights without a second meeting requirment.

 

[MAXreefer]

There are several interpretations, suggestions and opinions on this matter.

I just can't keep track anymore what each of you want and it gets confusing.

If you just would PM me what change you would like to have on the agenda I will post it and it will be up for discussion at the Business Meeting

 

[Jager]

Tim proposed that the business meeting does not count to provide voting rights at the same business meeting, but counts as a meeting attendance for the year going forward. Voting rights need to be established prior to the business meeting itself.

Matt proposed that we change the bylaws for voting requirements from 2 meetings in 6 months to 1 meeting in 12 months.

David proposed that (assuming we still require 2 meetings) the buy in for becoming a supporter shall count as 1 of your 2 meeting requirements to vote. If you are a sponsor you are only required to attend 1 meeting to obtain voting rights.

i believe thats it, the rest has been just trying to understand peoples perspectives and wording.

 

[Jager]

i add in that if we are to vote in favor of davids proposal, this only is effective if there is a requirement for 2 meetings. if at any point the requirment moves to 1 in any given time period, the buy in no longer provides credit towards voting rights and a meeting must be attended in the specified time period.

 

[data_loss]

David proposed that (assuming we still require 2 meetings) the buy in for becoming a supporter shall count as 1 of your 2 meeting requirements to vote. If you are a sponsor you are only required to attend 1 meeting to obtain voting rights.

i add in that if we are to vote in favor of davids proposal, this only is effective if there is a requirement for 2 meetings. if at any point the requirment moves to 1 in any given time period, the buy in no longer provides credit towards voting rights and a meeting must be attended in the specified time period.

Did you clarify this with David behind the scenes? It doesn't sound anything like what I understood he was originally asking for earlier in this thread.

Agenda Item #1:

I plan to make a motion to Amend Bi-Laws Section 2.4.

Those that are current on the TCMAS supporter dues at the time of the business meeting shall also have voting rights.

Okay This is what I want to accomplish :

If you are a member ( either by paying dues or by attending past meetings doesn't matter ) and you show up to the business meeting then you can vote.

The way I see, if you paid AND you take the time to show up at the business meeting then they should be able to vote.

 

[hypertech]

Tim proposed that the business meeting does not count to provide voting rights at the same business meeting, but counts as a meeting attendance for the year going forward. Voting rights need to be established prior to the business meeting itself.

Matt proposed that we change the bylaws for voting requirements from 2 meetings in 6 months to 1 meeting in 12 months.

David proposed that (assuming we still require 2 meetings) the buy in for becoming a supporter shall count as 1 of your 2 meeting requirements to vote. If you are a sponsor you are only required to attend 1 meeting to obtain voting rights.

i believe thats it, the rest has been just trying to understand peoples perspectives and wording.

My proposal also includes Tim's.