[muglo] Re: Constitution

  • From: Doug Bale <dougbale@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 07:17:02 -0800 (PST)

--- On Fri, 3/6/09, Susan N. Dunbar <sndunbar@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why fool around with the constitution as it is marked?:
> as stated in the constitution a quorum of the membership
> is the full membership.
> Checking to see if all who are registered are still
> interested in being members might be prudent but not 
> necessary in my opinion.

Under what you suggest, Susan, no vote could be held unless all 105 registered 
'members' were aware that a vote was to be held. No motion could be carried 
unless moe than half of them supported it. However, we have no ready way of 
knowing how many of the 105 still read the list and would therefore getting 
notice of any vote was to be held. We know if they actively unsubscribe, but we 
have no way of knowing if they simply die, move away, change their ISPs and 
e-mail addresses, or just lose interest and divert MUGLO mail to their spam 
folders. Thus we could be dependent on a quorum requirement impossible to meet.

MUGLO information at <http://www.freewebs.com/muglo>
Manage your account options at <http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi>

Other related posts: