[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

[Keith Hoard]

Careful now, you may find yourself in charge I the whole shebang.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 3, 2012, at 8:55, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

SInce the bylaw change ballots have now been sent out, in accordance with
the current bylaws, and since the NSRCA board has failed to provide any
rationale for the changes (if they are going to propose changes, you'd
think they'd own up to why they want to change them), I thought I'd review
the proposed changes here and provide comments.  Jim Quinn said that we
could either vote for or against the entire package, or for individual
items within the package.  I will review the changes item by item, and
provide what I think is the rationale for the change.  As you will see
below, I am recommending voting NO on several of the changes. I have not
seen the official ballot yet and won't until at least Wednesday since I am
out of town, so I am commenting on what was provided in the July 22nd NSRCA
Board minutes. Note that there were several typos in those minutes, and
that I have attempted to correct them where possible.

Article II, Section I:  This would change the business address from the
Secretary to the Treasurer of the club.  This is probably ok, since bills
to the club are sent to the business address, and this could prevent delays
in payment.

Article III, Section I:  This is part of the object and purpose of the
Society.  It would delete "...in all of its phases." from the second
sentence so it would now read:  "To aid, insofar as possible, the Academny
of Model Aeronautics and other AMA activites, to further the advancement of
model aircraft aerobatics."  This change appears to be a clarification
change, and should be ok.

Article V, Section II(b):  This appears to clarify the dues payment, and
makes clear that dues should be made payable to NSRCA and not the
treasurer.  Appears to be ok.

Article V, Section III:  This would change termination of membership from
one month to three months dues delinquency.  I see no reason for this
change, and would commit the club to keep mailing K-Factors to delinquent
members for two more months.  At a time when there is a lot of debate on
the board about the expense of the K-Factor, this makes no sense.
Recommend voting NO on this item.

Article VIII, Section II (c): This change would remove the requirement to
mail out ballots, and changes the wording to allow whatever method the
board deems appropriate for voting, without specifying any method at all
for votes to be taken.  This change would also allow votes to be accepted
until 10 days after Dec 31st, IF they were mailed out to members.  This
change appears to be why the abortive attempt was made for an electronic
vote for officers this year, which disenfranchised many members who were
not aware a vote was being taken.  We do NOT require web access to be a
member of NSRCA, and until we do, we MUST allow for ALL members to vote on
officers of NSRCA.  Strongly recomment voting NO on this change.

Article VIII, Section III (e):  This would change voting for District VPs
in the same manner as the method in Article VIII, Section II (c) above.
Strongly recommend voting NO.

Article VIII, Section III (f): This change was listed as Article VII,
Section III (f) in the Board meeting minutes, which I believe was a typo.
This is a continuation of the change above to Article VIII, Section III(e)
on voting deadlines.  Strongly recommend voting NO.

Article IX, Section I:  This removes some unnecessary wording from the
first paragraph of the Communications and Promotions portion of the
by-laws.  It appears to be a mistake made when this portion of the bylaws
was writen.  Appears to be ok.

Article IX, Section II:  This would remove the requirement for the K-Factor
to be mailed to members.  It would have to be "made available to
all members", but doesn't say how.  SInce the proposed wording is unclear,
recommend voting NO on this change.

Article IX, Section III (a):  This removes the requirement for a
Communications and Promotions manager appointed by the BOD, and changes
that responsibility to the BOD itself.  However, it does not assign that
responsibility to anyone on the board.  But it retains the provision for
the board to appoint someone to be that manager. As a result the paragraph
appears to contradict itself.  Recommend voting NO on this change since the
resulting language is ambiguous.

Article IX, Section III (b):  This change changes says that the Board
"...shall appoint a Judging Program Manager."  It currently says "...should
appoint..."  This change appears to be ok.

In summary, I believe that there are several problems with the proposed
changes, and recommend that you read them carefully and understand each of
the changes.  I'd recommend either voting NO to the whole package, or
voting against the specific changes I've outlined above.

Thanks for reading.

Jon Lowe




 Jon

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121203/bb4910a1/attachment.html>