I seriously feel we are loosing control here. While statements like
"everyone has the opportunity," "give everyone the opportunity to speak
to vent their feelings," "call a special business meeting" and "many
issues that still need to be worked out to everyone's satisfaction" may
seem to be necessary I'll submit that if anyone of them is followed we
will never get to a vote. These seem, to me, as stalling tactics 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.
A lot of good discussion has taken place here and everyone has had a
chance to speak their minds. Making the opportunity to do the same at
the club meeting will only permit those that have spoken here to speak
the same thing all over again there. Sort of a rehash of what has been
said for the last month or several weeks.
To permit the statements above into the discussion will result in no action.
Please, let's get to the vote.
Thanks and thanks to all that have contributed to this discussion, aj
Stan Gorodenski wrote:
I am at odds with these rules. This is my only motivation on this issue. Only a 10 minute question and answer period? Only 10 minutes for the Pro side, 10 for the Con side? Only five speakers on each side allowed? No rebuttle to counter false or misleading information given by the other side? I would like SAC to be a club where everyone has the opportunity to make their voice heard, and not be cut off by rules of five members, two minutes, ten minutes, etc. because time has to be made for the evening's speaker.
As Thad said, this is a very important period in the club. The waiver issue appears to be one that could divide the club and cause members to drop out. Do we want that? In such a situation I think we need to give everyone the opportunity to speak out, to vent their feelings put another way. Otherwise, if a member feels they have been denied the opportunity to express their view, they may very well drop out. If a special business meeting has to be called for this, then it should. To say 'you' will not be able to make your point because only 5 are allowed and 5 have already been selected is completely contrary to what I view as the process for making changes to a constitution. Also, let's not overlook the fact that the waiver issue is not the only amendment scheduled to be voted on next Friday. There are many. Are the three 10 minute time slots really enough for everything? It doesn't seem like it. Steve's recent set of questions points out the many issues that still needs to be worked out to everyone's satisfaction regarding the waiver issue alone. It might well turn out that three 10 minute time slots are adequate, but if they aren't the solution will be to deny members the opportunity to make their voice heard.
I may ask to make a statement at the meeting next Friday. If I or anyone is denied this opportunity because of the five rule, then I think a motion would be in order for a special business meeting where everyone can be heard. As I said previously, I am undecided about the waiver issue, but from what Paul and others have said, it appears the major motivation for this amendment was to cover the Messier Marathon. Since the Messier Marathon was the main driving force behind the amendment maybe it could be rewritten to only apply to this event. This might be a reasonable solution to prevent fractures in the club (Paul just said the waiver is only for the Messier Marathon, but the amendment does not explicitly say this), but I do not think the 'rules' for the meeting next Friday would allow the proposed amendment to be changed at the meeting. You can only vote for or against.
Stan
Thad Robosson wrote:
Dear SAC Members,
The upcoming meeting will be a very important one in the history of SAC.
The vote to either accept or deny the inclusion of new constitutional amendments for the purpose of allowing waivers at SAC events will
take place at this meeting. The importance of this vote is not lost
on the board, and it is felt that further discussion needs to take place
prior to the vote. I have alloted time in this meeting to allow for this.
The format will be as follows.....
The wording of the amendments will be reviewed along with the intentions of such wordings. This should be brief.
A 10 minute Question and Answer period will be had. This is for the benefit of those who have not been following the recent threads online, and for those who may still not have made their decisions either way.
10 minutes of speakers FOR the waivers will be allowed.
10 minutes of speakers AGAINST the waivers will be allowed.
(I'll do a coin toss to who goes first if there is any disagreement to this...)
The vote.
On to regular meeting.
This format was chosen because it is felt that it will keep heated
discussion to a minumum, and avoid redundancy. I know that
some would have liked a much more in depth discussion, but that is impractical given the length of time that this has been in the
works. This topic needs to come to a conclusion and it is felt that this presents a fair opportunity for both sides
to bring forward their arguments, without dragging the topic out
longer than necessary.
Now, here are the rules. They are not subject to change.
Those of you who care to present your opinions need to contact me ASAP. I am allowing 2 minutes per person, up to 5 people. If there are not 5 people willing to talk, I will contact you so that you can lengthen your presentation. (You are more than welcome to team up with others of similar opinions so that you can utilize your time more effectively. You are also welcome to allow another to
take your time slot. THIS IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE.)
It might be a good idea to plan for a talk as short as 2 minutes (if we have 5 speakers), and as long as 5 or more. (If we only have a couple of speakers.)
Regardless of the number of speakers, each side will be given
10 minutes, and 10 minutes ONLY.
During the time that individuals will be allowed to talk, there will be NO debate allowed. Both sides will be allowed to present
their sides with NO interruptions. I will be keeping track of the
time, so the speakers WILL NOT be allowed to speak any
longer than their alloted time. Please be sure that your presentation
is of the proper length to avoid being cut off. The onus is on
the speaker to be certain of the time they will be talking.
I realize that this may appear to be a hard stance on the meeting,
but it is being done this way to ensure the fairness and continuity of the proceedings.
Again, please contact me if you care to speak on the topic.
Thad President, SAC
