[muglo] Re: Constitution

  • From: Doug Bale <dougbale@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:56:00 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 3/16/09, Bob McDaniel <rmcdaniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just a minor item pertaining to Doug B's constitutional
> reform pdf:
> Just as in Article 5.1 we have neither "full" nor "in good 
> standing" members (no categories of membership), so, for 
> consistency, in the amendment to Article 4.0 we, presumably, 
> have no "active" members.

Point taken, Bob. Providing Theresa agrees, I would reword the motion to delete 
the word ”active.”
> I conclude that Article 5.1 will now be: Only members of
> MUGLO are eligible to serve as officers. I now wonder whether
> "Only" should also be deleted. 

We think we should keep the "only." I've belonged to organizations in the past 
that in one exigency or another called in specialists - a lawyer in one case, 
an accountant in another - and added them arbitrarily to their executives, 
supposedly as temporary measures, even though neither would have qualified for 
membership in the ordinary course of things. One of them stayed on for years, 
slowly graduating from nuisance to obstruction before an insurrection turfed 
him out. 
MUGLO information at <http://www.freewebs.com/muglo>
Manage your account options at <http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi>

Other related posts: