We should sell government offices, like 18th c. Britain. The treasurer will then get to control his or her own money -- and will therefore be appropriately thrifty -- but will be obligated to use it for UMLUG purposes. (And I'm only half-joking. :) )
When I was generalissimo/presidente, somehow we never had this problem. I guess my hypnotic charisma and willingness to fund UMLUG out of my own pocket made it a moot point. Oh wait -- that might have partially included Rahul's tenure as treasurer, which means embezzlement schemes and moneymaking rackets might have made the position too hush-hush to ever be a public issue. :) (Abandon all ethics ye who enter here) -- Brian C. Merrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Ben Stern wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:57:52PM -0400, David Zakar wrote: > > Easiest way of handling it would be to amend the Constitution using the > > rules in article VII so that the president can appoint a non-officer to > > a position using a 2/3 vote at a meeting (or similar). > > We made an officer win a prize under these circumstances when it happened > during my terms. UMLUG has had quite a number of deficient treasurers. > > > When I was in charge, I just used my amazing autocratic powers to do > > whatever I wanted in this sort of situation. Thankfully, there were no > > impeachment calls. History, however, will not treat me kindly... > > I shudder to think how it will treat me. > > Ben > proud member of the vast UMLUG conspiracy >
