Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade said: > On Monday 09 May 2005 04:34 pm, Lan Barnes wrote: >> Now I'm just trying to make sure I'm on the same page here, but our >> goal >> is to make it possible for them to leave with as little friction as >> possible, right? I mean, they're gonna go, and there will be a new >> SDCS >> no matter what, so we should all just try to get through the >> birthing >> process (making sure it's all legal and kosher), right? > > Well, I thought that was the point. I mean, at the last SDCS board > meeting, > all the SDMUG people present were bitching about how they really > weren't so > keen on pulling double-duty for both the SDMUG board and the SDCS > board. I > don't see why they'd have a problem with other SDCS members stepping > up and > offering to replace them in the next SDCS general elections (from > which, I > firmly believe, SDMUG should be excluded.*)
I agree, they have voted to secede, how can they then expect to vote on the people to run the organization that you just decided to divorce? >> I hope hope hope everyone says yes. > > Me too. I don't have a problem with them leaving. What I do have a problem with, is them continuing to sit on the Board, since they no longer have any loyalty to SDCS (assuming they ever did have). >From the bylaws: <quote> ARTICLE V, Section B. Requirements 2. Officers must be voting members of SDCS for at least 6 months at the time of their election and maintain voting membership status throughout their term. </quote> Are they now members, since the voted to separate from SDCS? The current Board has over stayed their election: <quote> ARTICLE V, Section C. Election of Officers. 1. The President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and four Directors at Large shall be elected at each annual meeting of members. They shall take office at the end of the meeting, and shall serve until their successors take office, or until removed by resignation, death or two-thirds action of the Board. 2. The President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer shall hold office and serve for one year. </quote> The current board of directors was elected in either May or June of 2004. They should all have to run for re-election. And the election is overdue! <quote> ARTICLE VI, Section A. Annual Meeting The annual meeting of the members of the SDCS shall be held at the regularly scheduled meeting of the largest affiliated SIG. This is typically during the May regular business meeting of each year. Notice of said meeting shall conform to the standard defined for SDCS Board elections, with notice of the meeting's time and place sent by email to the current SDCS membership. </quote> Since SDMUG has voted to secede, they no longer qualify as the largest affiliate SIG, in my opinion. Which leaves either KPLUG or SDPCUG. While SDPCUG has a larger membership, according to my conversation with Lance Dohe, they couldn't get a quorom at a meeting, to hold an election. While they have about 100 members, only about 12 show up for their meetings on any given month. I CC'ed Lance this message, so he can correct me if I'm wrong. </quote> ARTICLE VI, Section E. Quorum A quorum at a meeting of members is the lesser of twenty percent of the members entitled to vote or 100 members. </quote> I don't know what the current membership is, but here are some estimates. San Diego PC User Group ~ 100 members Kernel-Panic Linux User Group ~ 36 Members San Diego OS/2 User Group ~ 10 members That is all there is to SDCS these days, without counting SDMUG. According to those numbers a quorom requires about 30 members, assuming we don't count SDMUG. (146 * 20% = 29.2) > * Why? Well, the SDMUG SIG has essentially given KPLUG the ol' > heave-ho by > voting to succeed from SDCS and form their own corporation as SDMUG. > Having decided they no longer wish to have any part in SDCS, I feel > they no > longer have the right to decide in SDCS matters (excluding standing > board > members, since, well, they're board members.) > Hence, my opinion that the > non-SDCS board members of SDMUG should not be allowed to vote in any > forthcoming SDCS elections. By the same token, SDCS board members > _should_ be allowed to vote in SDCS board elections, as they are still > interested parties in SDCS until such time as they are relieved of or > resigned from their SDCS duties. I downloaded from SDCS website. http://www.sdcs.org/bylaws/ the Bylaws quoted above. I agree for all the reasons I stated above. They are no longer legal officers, because they failed to hold an election according to the Bylaws. Since SDMUG has stated their intention to leave SDCS, they no longer have a right, in my opinion, to make decsision regarding SDCS. > Did that make sense? I think it did, and I think it's time for the rest of SDCS to "take the bull by the horns" and retake our organization. The current board has shown their loyalties are with SDMUG, which is fine. However I question their loyalty to SDCS, based upon the reports from their last meeting I received. They need either to resign, or be removed from the Board. My $.02 P.S. I received a response from the UCHUG president and I'll try to phone him tommorrow. Perhaps once the dust settles, we can get UCHUG back into SDCS. I'm not overly optimistic though. -- Neil Schneider pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net http://www.paccomp.com Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B 8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. -- George Orwell -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
