Lan Barnes said:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:05:21PM -0700, Neil Schneider wrote:
>>
>> I talked to Gus on the phone tonight, shortly after Lan's post. The
>> impression I got was similar to Lan's report.
>>
>> Now for a question. What has happened to the election of officers
>> that
>> should take place in May? I'm speaking of all the seats on the Board
>> of Directors, president, vp, secretary and treasurer. Was the
>> election
>> in April supposed to include those positions?
>>
>> I personally think there needs to be an audit of the books for both
>> SDCS and SDMUG, before any money is returned. The SIG guidelines
>> require that when SDMUG secedes from SDCS they must turn over their
>> treasury to SDCS. This would be the opportune time, before the money
>> is "donated" back to then newly formed 501(c)3 non-profit
>> corporation
>> that was set up by the SDCS board with "their own money".
>>
>> Is there a strategy we can employ to force this to happen? Is it
>> worthwhile? I get the distinct impression that there has been a case
>> of the "fox guarding the hen house" with the interlocking boards of
>> SDMUG and SDCS. Am I being paranoid, or is there really a
>> conspiracy?
>>
>
> Depends ;-)
>
> If by conspiracy we mean a union of a group with a secret agenda to
> manipulate events to seize power and get their way, sure -- but that
> definition includes all political parties and many Boy Scout troops.
> If
> conspiracy means something illegal has taken place, I donno.
Point well taken.
> Here's what I think (at first blush, and I'm open to discussion) about
> the audits. They are necessary but they really don't have to be more
> rigorous than any SIG accounting. If we can see that SDMUG didn't loot
> SDCS, then we should give 'em their cash and let 'em go with our
> blessings. Sure, they've been a little sleazy, but it's just not worth
> a
> fight.
> OTOH, the remaining board members have legal fiduciary
> responsibilities,
> and I ain't rubber stamping anything. They have to show how much they
> put in. It has to be prorated for the services they got. They have to
> show that SDCS didn't do SDMUG any special favors while they were
> officers, and if so, that has to be deducted. And they have to show
> that
> their non-profit corp is legit.
I agree that it's not worth a fight. However, there may be questions
about the use of the SDCS treasury, by the current board, to
facilitate the secession of SDMUG. It is incumbant upon them to show
that they didn't violate their fiduciary duties to SDCS during their
tenure on the board. This needs to be done before the secession is
completed. I'm afraid afterwards is too late. I personally think this
needs to be done by an third party, to provide transparency.
> If there are elections in May, we need to get the other SIGs to send,
> at
> the least, one observer from each. I would hope that we could have a
> special election to fill the board's vacancies with new members from
> all
> the SIGs.
Given the apathy of the SIGs I'm not optimistic. However, I agree that
the other SIGs need to participate in the process.
Who has a contact list for the leadership of the other SIGs? That is
the first step toward getting on with SDCS business.
--
Neil Schneider pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B 8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who
are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
