John H. Robinson, IV said: > Neil Schneider wrote: >> >> [A bunch of stuff about the separation of SDMUG from SDCS that I >> snipped.] > > The basic questions are: > 1) Has SDMUG been officially separated? > 2) If yes, are SDMUG members still SDCS members?
I expect this will take place at the Board Meeting on May 25. > If SDMUG has not been officially separated, then all of this is moot. > I contend that SDMUG is still a SIG of SDCS. Up to the point that they request, and the board accepts their resignation from SDCS. That's what I'm expecting to happen. > Since I cannot cut/n/paste from http://www.sdcs.org/SIG-Guidelines.pdf > please forgive any typos from transcription. > > Under Separation of a SIG > from SDCS it says: > 2) The SIG's authorized representative shall notify the SDCS Board > in > writing at a regularly scheduled SDCS Board meeting of the SIG's > intention to sever its relationship with SDCS. > > The next regularly scheduled SDCS Board meeting is late May. The vote > was taken early May. SDMUG is still a SIG, and all SIG members are > still > SDCS members. SDMUG is still the largest SIG, and the location of the > SDCS Board elections. All true. > The SIG Guidelines are ambiguous as to when the separation is > official. > However, it cannot be before that written notice is given. Also note > that it says regularly scheduled board meeting. This means that a > special SDCS Board meeting cannot be called for this purpose. Also true. > There is in paragraph 3) stipulations that the SIG must turn over all > assets to the SDCS within 30 days. It does not say that that is when > the SIG is officially severed from SDCS, though I would tend to read > it that way. I tend to think the seperation takes place, when it is requested and affirmed by the board. Since nothing says otherwise, I believe the seperation is complete then. The 30 day requirement for the turn over of assets is a requirement to comply with law. It has nothing whatsover to do with when seperation is complete. > Since SDMUG is still part of SDCS, the rest of any argument is moot. > The > only thing we can do is press for the overdue elections to be held. I > wonder of the Nominating Committee was formed back in January? Did we > have anyone on the board back then? http://www.sdcs.org/Officers.html > only lists eight out of 13 board members. None of those names are > familiar. I believe nearly ever single one represented on that list is and SDMUG list. Lan Barnes and Carl Lowenstein were elected at the SDMUG meeting before last. > Now, if elections are postponed until after the SDMUG separation, then > things get interesting. As Neil pointed out, board members must remain > members of a SDCS. There are a few ways to be an SDCS member. One is > regular membership, the other is via membership via a SIG. I would > tend > to read that everyone is a member via a SIG, unless dues were paid > directly to the SDCS. There are also lifetime, honourary, and > corporate > members. These I do not think apply to the current set of SDCS Board > members. The rules were changed. There is only one way to be an SDCS member, that is through an affiliate SIG. There are no longer "regular members", lifetime members, honourary or corporate members AFAIK. > That said, as soon as SDMUG goes away, all members of the Board that > were in SDMUG and only SDMUG are no longer eligible to hold Board > seats. > That could leave a very empty Board. Now you understand what I'm talking about. That is my primary concern. > It would also make some very angry ex-board members for them to be > told > this when SDMUG turns over their assets. If I were being mean and > evil, > I would verify (through the monthly SIG reports to the Board) that > their > membership is limited to only SDMUG. I would ask if SDMUG was > officially > separated from SDCS, and upon hearing yes, I would then inform them > that > their tenure as SDCS members and members of the SDCS Board was then > nullified. That would be quite the fireworks. Again, it doesn't say in the SIG Guidelines that SDCS has to wait until they turn over their assets for them to become non-members or to complete the seperation from SDCS. This is a legal constraint upon a 501c(3) non-profit corporation. I expect that will happen at the next board meeting, May 25. There is a reason why in the annoncement that Claude requested that everyone have a copy of the bylaws and SIG guidelines downloaded from the site. > To be really evil, I'd verify this with a lawyer, and have said lawyer > present. Anyone know any bored lawyers that feel like doing some pro- > bono work? What would be really evil, I will not say. -- 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
