[sac-forum] Re: The Walt Reynolds effect and SAC

All
Thanks, Steve, for the history lesson, and I know it is not aimed at me. I rarely pay attention to club business and procedure except when something grabs my sense of better judgment, as the ad hoc rules for next week's meeting has. In fact, my attitude is to not let rules get in the way of doing what is right. Ironically, based on my value system, it appears they are being used to do just that.

In the past I have heard of references to something like this "rule" (the 30 minute one alluded to) but I have never heard it expressed as a "rule", but more as an ideal or a bragging that "We are astronomers not meeting goers". I never knew it existed as a formally adopted rule. I have briefly looked in the Constitution and Bylaws but cannot find it. Is it there? There must be more to the story because while Mr. Reynolds may have been extreme in his approach, the reaction seems to have been equally extreme, and it appears to have been propagated for (possibly) decades in a rigid inflexible manner. I think it is time to change or drop this "rule" because it is not good for all situations. In this case it is being used to limit discussions on amendments (the plural emphasized) to the Constitution, a serious matter, to 30 minutes, and as a justification to prevent someone from expressing their view (if those wanting to state their case exceed the arbitrary 5 rule). While Mr. Reynolds may have wanted to load the club with "[a] lot of rules", this 30 minute rule has equally loaded the club with "[a] lot of rules" that are arbitrary and ad hoc for the meeting next week. And all this because of the refusal by the Board to hold a special meeting or begin the meeting an hour earlier.

I will not drop from the club if the waiver amendment passes, although in this case I think a 'no' vote is the best vote because it will throw it back to be reworked to just apply to the MM, the initial driver for the amendment. The latter could be done quickly if the urgency exists AJ alludes to (however, in a sense I feel my arm is being twisted to pass a larger amendment, in its effect, by using the urgency of the need for one for the MM). As you can see, my position on this issue has somewhat solitified since my previous statements earlier that I was undecided about it. If board members feel at risk in their jobs, I think incorporating is the best solution for that rather than a waiver. However, while I will not drop from the club if the waiver amendment passes, the way the club is conducting business in this instance, which tugs at my sense of better judgment, does bother me a lot. Maybe as time passes it will bother me less.

Hopefully, no one will feel they could not make their case and things will go well, but if there is low participation we will never know if the ad hoc rules for this meeting are creating a self fulfilling prophesy of low participation.
Stan

Steve Coe wrote:



Folks;

I would like to supply a short history lesson and I promise, it is not aimed
at anyone in particular.  If you think it is, check your paranoia alarm
system;-)

Long ago there was a SAC officer named Walt Reynolds and Walt was a nice
enough fellow, but he was a pushy guy who wanted to get what he wanted.  He
wanted to create SAC as the "Robert's Rules of Order" club with a massive
constitution and lots of rules.

After he lost a contentious vote, he stormed out of the meeting room, never
to return.  We put into place the "30 minute" rule which essentially means
that all SAC business will be conducted within 30 minutes of the opening
gavel.  And, we have held to that rule quite well.

I honestly think that the reason that this change in club constitution has
created this uproar is for three reasons:

1)           There are people on this Earth who just like to talk about this
kind of stuff.
2)           There are SAC members who see that this club is wonderful and
somewhat unique and don't wish it to change significantly.
3)           There are people who picture anything that they sign as "taking
away my rights" and you are not going to talk them out of it.

I don't doubt that all of these reasons may be in play for some folks.

So, people have stomped out of SAC meetings in the past, and they may do so
again next week. I will miss them. 

Back to the history lesson, SAC was formed by members of another club that
forget that it was an astronomy group.

SAC owns very little, a small library and maybe a loaner scope and a few
thousand dollars in a bank somewhere.  We kept it that way so that we could
concentrate on the astronomy.  Let's do that.

Let's get this issue behind us and if the vote goes in a way that you
believe is incorrect, then allow all this hoopla to die off and go away. 

Clear Skies to us all;
Steve Coe







Other related posts: