[sac-forum] Re: This upcoming meeting and the amendment discussion.

Stan, although the MM is several months away I do have to select a date and published so clubs can put it on their calendar of events. The announcements also need to be made and published.

The announcements cannot be done, or even drafted, until the result of the vote is in. The announcement is published around December or January because we start getting requests around that time. It is posted on our site, the SEDS site at http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/marathon/results.html and in the SAC and EVAC newsletters. No telling how many other places the announcement appears.

Thanks and clear skies,
aj

Stan Gorodenski wrote:

Thank you AJ. No hard feelings.

To answer you question, I do not have a number of suggestions. Only one. We just have a basic difference in outlook on adopting amendments to a constitution. Rescheduling the vote to a special meeting, or, as Tom suggested, start the meeting next Friday at 18:30 so there is plenty of time to have a full discussion on all issues, if it becomes necessary, is all I am saying. I do not see why this is such a difficult thing to do. The Constitution even allows for special meetings to adopt amendments. If the main driver behind the waiver amendment was the MM, and if Paul is correct that if adopted it initially would only apply to the MM, then there is no great rush to get this passed because the MM is about 6 months in the future. If the meeting next Friday cannot start at 18:30 then there is plenty of time to schedule and hold a special meeting. Maybe you and all the other board members are completely burned out on this issue, primarily because you are board members and have been involved with it so long. However, this is not the situation with me, and probably other members also.
Stan

AJ Crayon wrote:

Stan, I am sorry and apologize for offending you. But I would ask what do you think can be achieved by following one, or all, of your suggestions.

Thanks and clear skies,
aj

Stan Gorodenski wrote:



AJ Crayon wrote:

them is followed we will never get to a vote. These seem, to me, as stalling tactics 





I deeply resent that. This is not at all in the least my intention.
Stan

to keep the vote from coming up. Some where along the line the discussion has to stop and a vote has to be taken otherwise we will talk and talk and talk and talk ad infinitum regurtatium.



















Other related posts: