Banner image

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

if i understand that correctly, it is your opinion that supporters shall be full members... or have full membership rights?

if thats the case then essentially you would be voting to just remove the supporter option and have the buy in option for TCMAS member.

The only reason we didnt give supporters voting rights was to still give people incentive to attend a meeting and contribute outside of the buy in feature, and i think the only reason we didnt call supporters members is because it would need to be voted on.

someone that uses more of their brain can correct me if im wrong.
 
Correct. Supporters don't have voting rights according to the current bilaws because they don't meet the attendance requirements in 1.5. This will make it so if a supporter takes the time to shows he/she can vote.
 
Last edited:
I think you are right on both counts.

The first count is a matter of opinion as to whether attendance should be a prereq to voting rights. I think that's the issue at hand. The second count is a matter of semantics and correct that under the current bylaws you can't buy your way into being a member so a different designation like supporter is correct. If there is weight behind the proposal and someone needs to draft language, I could do that if needed.
 
David Grigor said:
Correct. Supporters don't have voting rights according to the current bilaws because they don't meet the attendance requirements in 1.5. This will make it so if a supporter takes the time to shows up, he/she can vote.
Click to expand...

David,

If they show up then they are a member. So, if your intention is to still maintain a show up requirement for voting and then they get voting rights rights, I don't think your proposal is needed. The bylaws already provide for this.
 
I disagree. Doesn't say member OR attended. It says AND attended.

"A member has voting rights if they have been a member for a minimum of six months AND attended two TCMAS sponsored event within the last six months provided that at least two have been held."

Supporter may be a member but probably didn't attend 2 events. If they did they would not have been required to pay dues.

So either change the language or 1.5 or 2.5 but the intention is to allow supporters to vote if they show up.
 
Last edited:
i gotta agree with Matt

it was my understanding at our BOD meeting when we mapped all this out, that if a "supporter" attended a meeting, they would be upgraded to "member".

this is why we added the stipulation in that if you have paid to be a supporter, this payment is not refundable if you later attend a meeting.
 
David,

Your concern sounds more like you think a Supporter should be upgraded to have voting rights if they attend once. Is that correct?

If so, perhaps a better solution would be just to change the number frequency, for example 1/12 months instead of 2/6 months, if you think the current is too stringent.
 
David Grigor said:
I disagree. Doesn't say member OR attended. It says AND attended.

"A member has voting rights if they have been a member for a minimum of six months AND attended two TCMAS sponsored event within the last six months provided that at least two have been held."

Supporter may be a member but probably didn't attend 2 events. If they did they would not have been required to pay dues ( Or course supported and attended would be good too ).

So either change the language or 1.5 or 2.5 but the intention is to allow supporters to vote if they show up.
Click to expand...

i think i get what your saying...

so if someone becomes a supporter, and then attends -one- meeting, they get rights to vote without needing to attend a second?
 
hypertech said:
David,

Your concern sounds more like you think a Supporter should be upgraded to have voting rights if they attend once. Is that correct?

If so, perhaps a better solution would be just to change the number frequency, for example 1/12 months instead of 2/6 months, if you think the current is too stringent.
Click to expand...

hah you beat me to it
 
So if 1/12 meaning and the actual business meeting itself counts then the whole 1/12 would be redundant and all that could be stricken from 1.5.
 
Last edited:
That's easy to deal with. Just make it 1/12 other than the meeting at which the voting would take place or something like that. Another option is to define it as membership rights vest after the meeting, etc, etc.

The more important discussion is - what is it that we are trying to solve here adn the best way to solve it. We can draft appropriately once we understand what we are trying to accomplish.
 
hypertech said:
The more important discussion is - what is it that we are trying to solve here adn the best way to solve it. We can draft appropriately once we understand what we are trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

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 1.5 is currently worded not all members would be able to vote.

The way I see it both have a vested interest in how the club is run so you should be able to vote if you take the time to show up.
 
Last edited:
David Grigor said:
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 1.5 is currently worded not all members would be able to vote.

The way I see it both have a vested interest in how the club is run so you should be able to vote if you take the time to show up.
Click to expand...


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?

No - nuh - uh - no -way

The BOD came up with the sponsorship option for our members that are too far away or too busy to be able to attend meetings.



So the members that have stuck around non-stop, contributing, helping, hitting meetings, going out of their way and allowing strangers in the club into their home.....whats the difference then?

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


I feel that only members that actually contribute or at least try to make an effort (like attending a couple meetings) should have a voting right in what happens with our club.


Now all that being said - not sure what the bylaws state - but it does still come down to who actually shows at the business meeting


Nothing more I can say other than - I will be voting NO on that amendment as I understand it now
 
FWIW, I would also vote no. I tend to think that those who attend the meetings, run the events, etc. should be the ones voting.

John
 
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. While I agree that the whole reason most are paying is so you don't have to show up, but there could be a few that do actually show up and that action itself is making "An effort" as Angie says.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the BOD should take it under advisement, and see how many show up at the meeting. I bet, like most other things, no 'paying' members will be there and it is a moot point.
 
David proposed the change and I guarantee you he will be at the business meeting. I could be wrong but I thought that makes it an amendment that will now be on the ballot?

Guess I am clueless as to how items get on the ballot
 
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 must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top