Joshua Penix said:
> On May 10, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Neil Schneider wrote:
>
>
>> SDMUG. Then SDMUG stopped publishing their magazine, because the
>> member who was producing it quit. Suddenly SDMUG's treasury
>> ballooned,
>> since they were no longer spending large sums to produce a slick
>> covered MAC magazine. By rights, they should have started paying
>> SDCS
>> dues of $30/year like all the other SIG members did.
>>
>
> Yeah but no other SIG members were paying $30/year. How many SDCS
> members were there actually within the ranks of KPLUG? Six? Wasn't
> it one of the other SIGs that had exactly ZERO SDCS members, yet they
> were covered by insurance and were using room reservations?
>
> And SDCS did the exact same thing as SDMUG - they stopped producing
> their monthly newsletter, and suddenly SDCS membership renewals
> dropped off a cliff.
Do you have a point? I was only trying to argue that SDMUG needed no
special dispensation. They've been in charge, they made the rules, if
they disociate themselves from SDCS and don't get the full value of
their $6 it's not our doing.
>> Instead they staged a coup, took over SDCS. All legal, I personally
>> certified the election. Then they changed the rules to allow
>> themselves to seperate from SDCS and take the treasury, which by law
>> belongs to SDCS, with them.
>>
>
> Sure. But it wasn't just for SDMUG, it was for all SIGs. The
> changes they succeeded in making to the SIG guidelines were changes
> that everyone had been wanting for years. Those changes needed to be
> done, since the purpose of SDCS changed and the bylaws and board
> efforts didn't change with it.
Some of the changes were asked for years ago. The changes that
benefited SDMUG's ability to secede without giving up their treasury,
were not asked for AFAIK. Bylaw changes are required to be voted upon,
by the members of SDCS and must be announced in advance. Because the
bylaws are a part of the organizational rules of SDCS there have to be
rules for changing them.
> Granted, it was a somewhat self-serving effort, but if they really
> had no intent other than to make it easy for them to leave, why
> didn't they pick up and leave last September after the new bylaws
> were ratified?
When were the bylaws ratified? I don't remember and Gus seems unable
to find the announcement in his extensive archives. The SIG Guidelines
can be changed by the board, but not the bylaws. I suspect the reason
they didn't just leave last September is that it takes some time to
get 501c(3) status from the IRS. I just spoke to Greg Skalka on the
phone, and UCHUG is going through the process. They are still waiting
for the IRS ruling.
> Let them go now. They want to go, let's make it easy for them and
> easy on us. This transition can be smooth, or it can be rocky.
>
> Let's see what we can do to make it smooth. I assume the first step
> is the meeting at Gus' house? Can someone please confirm that it's
> happening and exactly where/when?
If it's rocky it's because they have made it so. What really concerns
me is that non-members of SDCS will be running the board. They have
proven to me they have only their own interests in mind, and have
contempt for the other SIGs. I don't want people with that mind-set
running SDCS. I no longer trust them.
--
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
