[sac-forum] Re: Waiver-amendment debate.....

  • From: Stan Gorodenski <stan_gorodenski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:47:36 -0800

That is good we agree that amendments should not be voted on in the same meeting they are proposed. However, the wording of the change is:
This Constitution shall be amended only by consent of a majority of the voting membership at a regular or special business meeting called for that purpose_ or the regular meeting following submission_. Any amendment so passed shall take effect immediately.


If I understand Thad's original message correctly, the underlined are the proposed changes. The thing that is confusing is that the constitution seems to be already is pretty stiff on when an amendment can be voted on, i.e., "at a special business meeting called for that purpose", and so when the phrase_ "or the regular meeting following submission"_ is added, it makes one wonder what this really means, and therefore the possibility for a number of differenet interpretations. If amendments can now be voted on in the same meeting they are submitted without the membership knowing what the proposed amendment is before the meeting, then maybe this has been a violation of the constitution the way I read it. If not, then instead of the phrase _"or the regular meeting following submission"_ maybe a phrase could directly say a proposed amendment cannot be voted on in the same meeting is it sumitted.
Stan


Paul Dickson wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:54:25 -0800, Stan Gorodenski wrote:



You made my point about being vague. I had assumed at least a month would pass before being considered at a meeting. From what you said, it appears an issue could be brought up for vote without members having been aware prior to the meeting that something like an amendment to the bylaws would be voted on. If I am wrong about my preception of what you just said, than it is because the proposed amendment is vague, the point I am making. Further, my main concern is that the change will curtail the current timeframe and procedure whereby members can become well aware that something of importance will be considered at an upcoming meeting.



Currently, amendments can be voted on at the same meeting they are submitted. That's why I'm changing it.

        -Paul








Other related posts: