Ridecamp: Re: [RC] New Bylaws & subsequent Amendment(s)

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:50:16 -0600, Randy H Eiland
<renegade12@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

...
>1) The Family Membership has been discussed by the BOD, but it was
>pointed out that Family Membership is no guaranty of an economic savings.
> The BOD determines and sets our dues structure, and in the last ten
>years I have personally seen many motions to the BOD to raise Family Dues
>to make them equal to single membership dues (for the adult family
>members).  The BOD has always voted against that proposed policy.  There
>is no reason to believe the BOD would now change their mind.  The New
>Bylaws actually allow a family group to be better and stronger by giving
>each adult Family Member a vote - the Old Bylaws disenfranchised adult
>family members after the first two.  Having a large family (I have
>personally had as many as 6 members), I understand the concern, but
>Family Membership is only a name - not a guaranty.  The concern boils
>down to "economics" and economics is not guaranteed by the title, Family
>Membership.  The BOD recognizes that a large segment of our Membership is
>made up of people who are living together as a family and fully intends
>to continue the Dues Policy of giving a financial break to those of you
>who reside as a Family.  There is no planned change in the financial
>status of what was the Family Membership.

That's all well and good, but if as you say the purpose of removing
Family membership from the list of membership types was to allow all
adults sharing a family membership to have a vote, that can be done by
simply amending the definition of a Family Membership.  There is no
need to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."  AERC defines several
kinds of memberships, why eliminate one that is so important and
widely used?

As to it being "only a name," it is more than that.  True, nothing
would stop the BoD from raising family dues to whatever they want --
but, like you, I trust them to do it right.  IMO it is still much
better to keep this important membership structure in the Bylaws.

>2) Non Citizen voting rights.  I think the current discussion on this
>subject has been very good.  I can't think of a good reason that a
>"resident non citizen" should not have the same voting rights as other
>AERC Members.  There is a need (unless further debate proves otherwise)
>to modify or amend this clause.  There is not much else to discuss on
>this subject.

Agreed.  Although, I don't even see a need for restricting it to
residents.  If someone living in, say, Egypt wants to join AERC, pay
dues, and vote, why not?  Does anyone really fear that some foreign
voting bloc will "take over?"  I think you all know that I believe we
should roll out the welcome mat, not put up "keep out" signs.

>3) AMENDMENT.   If you recall, in 1998 the BOD agreed that LIMITED
>DISTANCE should be changed to reflect any distance between "0 to 49
>Miles".  This proposal produced much emotional debate and there were very
>strong feelings evoked by this Amendment.  There was discussion and
>debate, and the AERC Membership (all of us) voted on this Amendment, 
>with the majority passing "0 to 49 Miles".  It was quickly pointed out,
>in retrospect, this was not a good policy - followed by even more
>emotional debate -  and the BOD agreed to put a new Amendment to the
>membership reversing "0 to 49" back to "25 to 35 miles".  That new
>Amendment vote had the largest voter turnout in the history of AERC and
>the membership was almost unanimous in their vote to go back to "25 to
>35".   I firmly believe there will be an Amendment to modify one or more
>sections of the New Bylaws, once they are passed.  I see no reason we
>can't or should not do so.

You are probably right that they will be amended, and I hope you are
right, as I think most voters aren't aware of these problems and the
new Bylaws are likely to pass.  However, I disagree that this is the
best approach.  The "hue and cry" that got the LD matter reversed was
due to it affecting nearly all of our members, and not coming to broad
attention until after the initial change had passed.  With the
difficulty and expense of Bylaws votes, I am less confident than you
that there will actually be a follow-up vote on these two issues.
But, I am fully confident that if this proposal is defeated, a revised
one will be offered in the near future.  That is the safer course.
After all, what's the rush?

>I will go on record stating I believe the BOD is receptive to Amending
>those items that, as shown by the current discussion, need to be
>modified, tweaked, or outright changed.  Remember, your Directors are
>here to represent YOUR BEST INTERESTS, not theirs, in the operation of
>OUR AERC.   If it is obvious that something in the New Bylaws needs to be
>changed to better represent what the AERC Membership wants, the BOD is
>going to make sure you have the opportunity to make that happen by
>Amendment Vote.   I urge you to vote YES on the New Bylaws because they
>really are better for AERC than the Old Bylaws.  If changes need to be
>made, then lets do it by Amendment -  that can be done quickly and more
>cost effective than rejection of the New Bylaws over two items that can
>be easily corrected. 

I urge a "no" vote so that the problems can be corrected *BEFORE* they
go into effect.  As they will, if the "no" vote prevails.




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

 If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the upcoming By-Laws 
 Election!!!! (it takes 2/3rds to tango!!)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=