RE: RE: requiring advance notice to BOD/membership before BOD votes

["Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

Again I say this is procedural and if the procedures are written properly
and the BoD adheres to them as they should there will be no problems. If the
BoD continues to ignore them then it will be the status quo.

I have asked the Board for a procedural change in the way rules changes are
made. It was made more than thirty days prior to the BoD but I am betting no
one will take it up. Here it is :

<<<I have requested that a motion be brought up at the Mid-year Board
meeting concerning Rule Changes. To wit, no rule change becomes effective
until thirty days after the rule has been presented to the membership in
hard copy form. We had rules changed at the mid-year BoD meeting last year,
more changes at the Annual Meeting last March and some done this summer and
the membership has yet to see them in printed form. This has caused
considerable confusion and dissent among AERC members, riders and Ride
managers.

Your direct attention to this matter would be appreciated.>>>

Any one willing to take bets?


Bob Morris

-----Original Message-----
From: guest@endurance.net [mailto:guest@endurance.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:50 PM
To: ridecamp@endurance.net
Subject: RC: RE: requiring advance notice to BOD/membership before BOD
votes


Teresa Van Hove tvanhove@uswest.net
Actually this brings up a good point.  Its certainly not always
a good idea to have the entire membership vote on something.  Anyone
voting without sufficient forethought and knowledge may blunder, its
easier to have the board educate themselves on something than to
educate the entire membership, so I think representational voting
by the BOD is probably good so long as interested membership
has an opportunity to know what the board is voting on so they can
communicate their thoughts to their board members before the BOD
votes.

BTW- I was displeased at the way all the questions were presented
to the membership for this particular election (you can find proof
in the archives) and the fact that the membership reversed itself
when the matter was presented in the opposite light and was the
only issue and thus got lots of 'press' in the EN ahead of time
proves the point about the importance of forethought and knowledge
for anyone voting.    Perhaps I should amend yesterdays question
about not allowing votes on items brought up at board meetings till
the next board meeting to not allowing a vote until 30 days after
the meeting if an issue was not presented 30 days before the meeting
and allowing internet/phone voting by the board for these "presented
at the meeting" issues.  Bob Morris had a valid point that sometimes
things shouldn't wait for 6 months; but there should never be anything
that affects the membership as a whole that has to be decided in
just one or two days.

Teresa



*******************************************************
< After about
 20 minutes of discussion, the board passed the motion.The motion was
 reversed by a membership vote and LD is now 25-35 miles. During the time
 span between the motion and the reversal, the Rules Committee had to
 rewrite all LD rules which were rewritten again upon reversal. >>

Sorry my dear you left out the fact that this was a Bylaws change that was
voted on by the membership and then changed...then A petition was circulated
and a new vote was called for and the previous vote was reversed.
***********************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=