On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:01:52AM -0700, Joshua Penix wrote: > Neil Schneider wrote: > >I spent about a half hour on the phone with Greg, the president of > >UCHUG. It seems there is a lot of animosity among their membership > >toward SDCS. They don't trust the board as now composed, they are > >reluctant to have SDCS hold membership information, like name, > >address, telephone, email and I'm not terribly optimistic that they > >are interested in rejoining SDCS. Greg said he would bring it up at > >the next board meeting a week from tommorrow. We'll be in touch and > >see if they can be "brought back into the fold". > > I'm afraid Jim Berger did huge amounts of damage inside UCHUG after the > "coup" with his endless rambling, ranting and conspiracy theories. I'd > imagine that's where the membership animosity comes from. Even back > then I didn't sense it from Greg nearly as much, just as you don't sense > it now. But it's probably damage done. I'm not sure SDCS would want > UCHUG's membership back if it's going to be like that. > > Interestingly, in the same set of board minutes that I quoted in my last > email, the SDCS board addresses the UCHUG issue. It seems that UCHUG > refused to sign the new SIG Guidelines, which are the very guidelines > which allow them to branch off into their own 503(c) and receive their > funds back. It seems that technically they're entitled to nothing, > since their last agreement was to the old guidelines and bylaws. > > I'd be curious to hear Greg's input on this. If SDCS board is > considering giving them their money back, we should keep an eye on the > process. Here is the relevant snippet: > > "UCHUG wrote a letter that they don't want to join the group as of > 11/19/04 (the extended deadline they were granted). Discussion about > what they would have to do to get their funds back. They already said > they don't want to sign the SIG guidelines that would grant them access > to their funds if they become a non-profit in a timely way. We agreed > that Claude and/or Sarah will get on their bank account and move the > funds, and then we will vote on our plan for their next steps, as they > have already violated the procedures for retaining their funds. (They > have to sign the guidelines to get their funds back after following the > procedures.)" > > Perhaps UCHUG finally signed, or perhaps the board voted to allow it > regardless. I wasn't there and don't have the minutes. Again, surely > Claude or Daly would be happy to provide them if we're interested. > > --j
Claude has remarked several times that even though the deadline for applying for funds has passed, the board as it's presently constituted would happily retur their money if they asked. I hadn't heard about their unwillingness to sign the SIG agreement, which would seem like a prerequisite for having their money returned under the bylaws. -- Lan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Guy, SCM Specialist 858-354-0616 -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
