but what about over 50? Is it the same? is it different?
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:21 PM, a l <[email protected]> wrote: > The procedure, as written, for removal of board members if the membership > is under 50 looks pretty well spelled out "... A majority of the > membership..." Which as Chris pointed out a while back is defaulted to > 51%. > > Regards, > Andrew L > On Apr 2, 2014 4:41 PM, "Omar Rassi" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From what I gathered since the very beginning of Synhak, the spirit of >> how Synhak is structured is such that the Membership decides how things >> should be. The board exists to help support what the members want to do and >> achieve. Its important to remember that the bylaws also allow for the >> membership to remove any or all board members without cause, (Chapter >> 6.3.3): >> >> >> *6.3.3. Removal of Directors * >> >> Any or all directors may be removed without cause if: >> >> * In a corporation with fewer than 50 members, the removal is approved by >> a majority of all members. >> >> * In a corporation with 50 or more members, the removal is approved by >> the members. >> >> >> So both Torrie and Justin are correct. A board meeting must be called to >> make adjustments to the schedule of membership dues but the membership must >> first reach consensus on what that new schedule should be. The board >> creates resolutions without the membership deciding if that's what they >> want might cause the membership to second-guess their board. >> >> Also, as a side note, the bylaws do need to be updated with the current >> address as it still lists 21 West North as the principal office and there >> isn't a clear difference between the less than/more than 50 members >> procedure for Removal of Directors. Time for me to write an email to >> Champions@ >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Torrie Fischer >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 15:42:45 Justin Herman wrote: >>> > Just a point of order... >>> > >>> > Per the Bylaws, Section 5.3, the membership does not decide the dues, >>> the >>> > board does. >>> >>> Right, but it would be a Very Bad Idea to not get consensus on what is >>> reasonable. >>> >>> > >>> > Each member must pay, within the time and on the conditions set by the >>> > board, the dues, fees, and >>> > assessments in amounts to be fixed from time to time by the board. >>> > >>> > So a champion needs to call a board meeting. >>> > >>> > (PS: I am in support of having a senior discount as suggested by >>> Philip and >>> > interested in talking about family discounts) >>> > >>> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Torrie Fischer >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> > > Last night's meeting seemed to go alright, though less good than last >>> > > week's: >>> > > >>> > > * It devolved into a series of back and forth Q&A sessions between >>> two >>> > > people >>> > > waaaay too often >>> > > * Nobody had anything they wanted to bring up after we talked about >>> the >>> > > wall >>> > > >>> > > I'd like to discuss two improvements to the meeting. >>> > > >>> > > First, a stack-watcher. >>> > > >>> > > The role of the stack watcher would be to catch who raises their hand >>> > > first >>> > > and ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak in the order that >>> they >>> > > want >>> > > during discussion. When listening to discussion, I'm trying to keep >>> an eye >>> > > on >>> > > the notes on the screen, watching for raised hands, making sure that >>> > > nobody >>> > > talks for too long, and trying to remember the stack of topics that >>> we're >>> > > discussing (i.e., start on the wall, move down into ventilation, >>> move down >>> > > into moving the furnace, move back up to ventilation, back up to the >>> wall, >>> > > down to ceiling height, etc). >>> > > >>> > > It'd be super cool if someone could play stack watcher next week. >>> Just >>> > > keep a >>> > > list of who is speaking when on a whiteboard. >>> > > >>> > > Second, a programmed agenda. >>> > > >>> > > Philip and I were talking about this, regarding the fact that >>> membership >>> > > dues >>> > > and senior rates haven't been brought up yet. This also ties in with >>> the >>> > > recent discussion about a proposal that had been brought up before >>> and was >>> > > still open for discussion, but nobody brought it to the meeting. >>> > > >>> > > I'd like to request that everyone adds topics that they want to see >>> > > discussed >>> > > or consensed upon to the next meeting's agenda before Saturday >>> night. That >>> > > provides a few immediate benefits: >>> > > >>> > > * Everyone knows what we'll be talking about in advance >>> > > * Nobody has to go check the proposals page to figure out what needs >>> to be >>> > > talked about >>> > > * The meeting can progress along a lot smoother >>> > > * We don't end up like last night where we talk briefly about the few >>> > > issues >>> > > that anyone remembers to bring up while other issues aren't >>> considered >>> > > * If what you want to talk about isn't on the agenda, you can be >>> free to >>> > > not >>> > > show up if you don't want to, safe in the knowledge that you won't >>> get >>> > > screwed >>> > > over because your voice wasn't heard >>> > > * Proxies can be stated more concretely than "Hey, if we talk about >>> this, >>> > > here's my opinion" >>> > > >>> > > To avoid any kind of competition, I'd like to have the list of topics >>> > > projected on the screen (since it'd already be in the meeting minute >>> > > template >>> > > that gets edited), and we collectively decide on what we want to >>> discuss. >>> > > >>> > > Also related to the crosspost from noisebridge-discuss@, I am >>> looking into >>> > > building various decision making plugins for Spiff which we can then >>> use >>> > > to >>> > > completely remove all this proposal discussion from the meeting and >>> put >>> > > everyone on a solid footing instead of giving such a *huge* >>> advantage to >>> > > those >>> > > who have the free time to show up on a Tuesday at 7PM. >>> > > >>> > > Thoughts, please! >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Discuss mailing list >>> > > [email protected] >>> > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
