[bctv] Re: BCTV voting rights... household limitations

[Michael Billingsley <michaelb@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually Harald,  Mike Hebert asked that it be made clear that each  
subscriber household should have one vote only.

However, I'm very unhappy with the implications of such a  
limitation.    When people join, they join under their own personal  
name.   The membership form does not say "Kaye Household" it says  
"Ellen Kaye."    As a result, Bob also joins under his own name...  
(but actually their household doesn't subscribe to cable).    Since  
they've joined separately under the "Non-subscribers living in  
Windham County" provision, there is no limit to the number of their  
household who may join.    If we were charging a fee, they'd each  
individually (as non-subscribers) all pay the fee.

However, this creates a strange disadvantage against subscribing  
households.   One member only per household?... no, we have several  
members per household in certainly more than one instance.   And each  
member is a unique person, often with a different opinion about cable  
access and BCTV and each has his/her own kind of experience at the  
station... so we can't comfortably ask the "head of household" or the  
actively-producing son or daughter to represent everyone's opinion by  
voting for the entire household.

Just one voting member per household?   That seems hardly fair.

Perhaps the truly fair way to deal with this is to have one vote per  
member (that is someone who has signed up at/through the office)  
regardless of household... and if that household subscribes to  
Adelphia cable, then the first household member to join has no fee  
(household cable fees cover that) but second and subsequent household  
members pay a fee just like everyone else.    If we charge a fee...  
which at the moment we don't.

Things are getting a bit skewed, don't you agree?   People used to  
join BCTV in order to produce or sponsor free speech content for the  
cable access channel, not to be able to influence votes in the Annual  
Meeting.    That ought to be true for all sides of the ideological  
spectrum.  Let's hope the learning, production and program  
sponsorship aspects become top priority again soon.

I think we're going to try to address this in committee next week.

Michael B.


On Sep 2, 2005, at 7:36 PM, Harald Holm wrote:

> Hi Michael and Ian,
>
> That's the one I'm quoting from. I believe the intent is that each  
> cable subscription qualifies for one voting membership, but it's  
> not stated explicitly. Shouldn't it be, considering the current  
> climate, just to eliminate endless interpretation discussions? We  
> could end up with one household consisting of parents with four  
> kids over 18 claiming six votes. Certainly not the original intent?
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Harald
>
> Michael Billingsley wrote:
> > Hi Harald,
> > I'm back from Albany.    I think this is addressed in the Bylaws  
> > update.  Take a look at the revised set approved in April which we  
> > are putting (with new amendments) together for member approval  
> > before the next Annual Meeting.
> > Michael
> >
> > On Sep 1, 2005, at 2:46 AM, Harald Holm wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I was just looking at one part of the bylaws, and in one respect  
> > > they seem to be unclear. I quote:
> > >
> > > Section 1: Class of Membership
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.1  Members shall consist of subscribers to the Brattleboro- 
> > > based cable system who have filled out an annual membership form.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.2  Non-subscribers residing in Windham County who have filled  
> > > out an annual membership form and paid an annual fee.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Section 2: Voting Rights
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2.1  At every regular or special meeting of the membership, each  
> > > member authorized to vote shall be entitled to one (1) vote, in  
> > > person, on each matter submitted to a vote of the membership.
> > >
> > > 2.2 Only one voting membership may be held by any one individual  
> > > who qualifies according to Section 1.
> > >
> > > 2.3 Each member in good standing at least thirty (30) days prior  
> > > to an annual meeting or special meeting shall be entitled to one  
> > > vote at such meeting.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this is intended to mean that each cable subscriber is  
> > > entitles to one vote, in other words one vote per household, but  
> > > it isn't expressly stated that way. Do we need another amendment  
> > > to clarify this? The sticky part is Section 2.2, I think this  
> > > needs a clearer definition. What do you think?
> > >
> > > Harald

Other related posts:

[bctv] Re: BCTV voting rights... household limitations