Hi Deirdre,
I assume you meant to send this to the list. Somehow it got sent to
default@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Not sure what happened -- sorry if my
email addresses are confusing. If you wish to write only to me, please
use roryphoenix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. But in this case, since you are
responding to my list of bylaws suggestions that I sent to everybody, I
figured you wanted this sent to everyone.
I do have a few comments.
1. I thought you were just going to coalesce everybody's suggestions
into a single document. My understanding was that where there were no
conflicts, you would just edit the document. Where there were
conflicting suggestions, you would summarize them. Was that your
understanding?
2. You wrote "I don't see the harm in trying to get as many people in
our community involved, singing or non-singing". OK, from my point of
view, here is the "harm" -- there has to be some kind of qualifications
before we let someone vote to determine who serves on the Board of
Directors. My suggestion is that this qualification is either: a) the
person sings with us, or: b) they support us financially. If you
disagree, I respect that, and furthermore I will respect the feelilngs
of the majority as far as what goes into the bylaws. But I hope you are
not simply discarding bylaws suggestions from Board members. I didn't
think coalescing peoples' suggestions included just throwing away the
ones you don't agree with.
3. You apparently rejected: Change (b) “The Board of Directors may
designate” to “The Board of Directors shall elect”
Deirdre:The members elect the board. The board does not elect.
Since I'm referring to the bylaws section on selecting officers, which
the members have nothing to do with directly, why are you opposed to
using "elect". Are you saying the Board would NOT use some kind of
majority vote in selecting officers? I think "designate" is a very
imprecise word here.
4. It is true we have co-presidents. But so far Fernando has done very
little and in fact I've barely seen him since he said he would be
willing to be co-president. I know he's been very busy and this is no
knock against Fernando (Fernando I love you!) But we spent all of about
30 seconds deciding to have a co-presidency. That hardly means we are
locked into this concept going forward formally into the bylaws. I
strongly suggest we ask Fernando if he would be Vice-President instead
of co-president. I think the reference to "co president" needlessly
complicates the language in the bylaws and I think it is a mistake. I
don't think this is up to you to decide. Again, I have no problem
acceeding to the wishes of the majority on the board, but you said you
would coalesce the suggestions, not weed them out unilaterally.
5. How does your comment "Sometimes a 3-year term is the thing that
gets a board member to stay on the board one last year." relate to my
suggestion that term limits only apply to officers, NOT to board
members themselves? It seems to me the effect of term limits is the
OPPOSITE of what you have written. It would tend to kick people OFF the
board, NOT encourage them to stay. But if I am not understanding you
-- can you clarify? Now I'll admit when I first read the part about
term limits, I mistakenly thought the term was one year, not three. So
the three consecutive term limit means the limit is effectively nine
years, NOT three, as I miswrote. But I still don't understand the
purpose of having a term limit. And again, if the majority wants
term-limits, not just for officers but for Board Members, that
perfectly fine. I just want my say ;-)
6. Was I unclear about the quorum issue? In (k)(1) we define a quorum
as a majority. In (k)(4) we describe a situation where a quorum is
100%. I'm simply trying to prevent there being an internal
inconsistency in the document. Are you saying you don't think there is
an inconsistency as it now stands?
Sorry if ANY of this sounds harsh. In my opinion email sucks because it
requires extreme directness to prevent misinterpretation, and that
directness can easily come off as rudeness or criticism. I much prefer
face-to-face. So feel free to be as direct with me back ;-). But please
try to understand each of my points and please tell me if I am not
being absolutely clear.
Thank you.
Rory
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:35:34 -0400, roryphoenix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Deirdre -- I assume you meant to send this to everybody, so I forwarded
it to the list.
Hi Rory,
Here's what I didn't do from your changes:
Change “A sliding scale will be available for any singing or
non-singing member…” to “A sliding scale will be available
for any Singing Member…” [since the whole purpose of a
Supporting Member is to help us financially. I think if someone
just wants to be a “friend” and not sing or help financially,
fine. But then they aren’t a voting “member”. ]
Change “to make membership affordable to as many as possible”
to “to make membership affordable to as many singers as
possible”Deirdre: I left both as is. I don't see the harm in
trying to get as many people in our community involved, singing or
non-singing.
Deirdre:The members elect the board. The board does not elect.Change (b) “The Board of Directors may designate” to “The
Board of Directors shall elect”
Deirdre: Because that's what we have now - co presidents.Remove all references to “Co-President”. [That’s why we have
a vice-president. If down the road, we really really want to have
the Presidency split between two people, can’t we just do it
without messing up our by-laws by describing it?]
Deirdre: It's very common to have it done this way. Sometimes a 3-yearChange (f) “No Board of Directors member shall serve more than
three consecutive terms” to “No Officer shall serve more than
three consecutive terms”. [I think it’s a mistake to have a
total turn-over of the entire Board every 3 years. ]
Deirdre: I don't understand the need to add this text to that paragraph.Add to (k)(1): “, except as specified in (k)(4) below.” [this
is a reference to phone and email]
