Post Bylaw Revisions As Complete

[Stuart Johnson]

I would like to see the revised bylaw articles posted for discussion as the section or article is completed by the committee. I don't buy into any argument, if there is one, that they must be presented to the full membership at one time. The full membership can view the forum if they so choose. Below is part of an email I sent to Ron with a few typo changes.

-------------------------------------
Ron, I don't think I've stated exactly what I mean when I asked for posting of revisions for discussion. You are correct, you can't have a committee with 100 members all making changes. I'm not asking for that. What I would like to see is the revision along with the reason posted. Allow those of us that want to discuss (or cuss) it do just that. Your committee is still responsible for the final that will be presented but just maybe the discussions might lead you to make a change or show those opposed why no change is required. I don't think there should be a need for any of the committee to comment during the discussions unless they felt the need to really clarify something.

A prime example is your post about the BOD removing board members. Had there been no discussion and the revisions submitted leaving the ability as it stands with BOD there would have been a sharpening of pitchforks and a gathering of torches.

-------------------------------
How do others feel or am I in left field with this request?

 

[George Guadiane]

Your request is only reasonable IF we can all act with decency and specificity (don't talk about what is wrong with "it," explain how to make it better).
There tends to be a lot of rambling, story telling, comparisons between this and that which does nothing to hone in on the details. We need to avoid that stuff.
I'd like to see what they are doing, and I think that we might just be able to add substantively to the final product...
AND, knowing in advance would make it easier (for me at least) to accept changes that I don't necessarily like.

Two points:
The committee is doing this for free.
They are STILL doing the bulk of the work and should get all of the credit.

 

[Stuart Johnson]

George, did you bring a little something back from Hawaii besides Koa? You seem to be rather mellow. :cool2:

 

[George Guadiane]

George, did you bring a little something back from Hawaii besides Koa? You seem to be rather mellow. :cool2:

Whoa Dude, REALLY??? "Dave's not here..."
I'm not sure what other things you think I might have brought back with me, I didn't even go to Maui.:cool2:

 

[davidwalser]

I would like to see the revised bylaw articles posted for discussion as the section or article is completed by the committee. I don't buy into any argument, if there is one, that they must be presented to the full membership at one time. ...

Stuart,

This is something the committee debated. We want the process to be as open and transparent as possible. The argument that won the day was that, since the articles are interrelated, it's likely that we will need to revisit an article after we thought that article was "done". That's already happened a time or two. We were concerned that it would be an unnecessary additional burden on us to keep the most recent version of "done" articles posted on the website. We were also concerned that some members might justifiably become upset with us when we post the third version of article III to the internet within three days. We were also concerned that fielding comments from members as our work progressed would tend to bog things down. For these reasons, we decided against posting our work to the internet as we completed each section.

 

[Marvin Hasenak]

Instead of the revisions as they are written, how about for a start a list of which ones that are being worked on? With a description of what direction the committee is headed in on each one?

 

[Stuart Johnson]

Stuart,

This is something the committee debated. We want the process to be as open and transparent as possible. ......... We were also concerned that fielding comments from members as our work progressed would tend to bog things down. .

David, somehow I don't seem to be able to make myself understood. I stated I didn't see any need for anyone from the committee to make comments. I understand you feel rushed because of your work schedule after the first of the year but this impacts all of us and very possibly the AAW future.

This is the revision to article XXX as of dd/mm/yy. This revision is made because ......... This revision is subject to change, committee members will not answer questions or discuss the revision as they see fit.

This statement is about all the committee would need to say. The whole premise is the committee has a completed article that may or may not be revised if something comes up later. How else are you going to show the willingness to be open and transparent. I am afraid if there isn't a chance to openly discuss the revisions prior to a finished published set there is going to be another mess. This is also why I am asking for article by article vote not an up or down vote on the finished product.

 

[Owen Lowe]

I am afraid if there isn't a chance to openly discuss the revisions prior to a finished published set there is going to be another mess. This is also why I am asking for article by article vote not an up or down vote on the finished product.

Stuart:
How about letting the committee work through the entire document, make changes, etc. and only when they feel they've addressed and modified everything that should be modified, do they make it publicly available for comment? This way they get a handle on the entire package and have a good understanding of how a change here affects a change there.

Like the committee, I would hesitate to publish parts of the whole due to context and a work in progress. Stuart, you say that the committee need not reply to the discussion of sections, however, recall any time in the last 2+ months when concerns here on the forum went unanswered... charges of conspiracy, back-room deals, undue influence, etc. For all practical purposes, they would be forced to comment.

Let the bylaw revision play out - trust the process and those on the committee to do a job looking out for the AAW, its members and its future.

To the committee:
Please allow enough time for a public comment period of a week or two before finalizing your work.

 

[Stuart Johnson]

Stuart:

To the committee:
Please allow enough time for a public comment period of a week or two before finalizing your work.

Thanks Owen. This is a good compromise and gives time for discussion. What about the up or down vote. We do seem to get mixed messages depending on which member is responding. Will it be one yes or no vote or article by article? I do see where it some cases two related articles might need to be tied together.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Thanks Owen. This is a good compromise and gives time for discussion. What about the up or down vote. We do seem to get mixed messages depending on which member is responding. Will it be one yes or no vote or article by article? I do see where it some cases two related articles might need to be tied together.

And, Stu, when the information goes out to the members, included in there will have to be a cross referencing guide so that a member understands how a vote for or against one article effects others. Indeed, I think the case could be made for a single vote on the whole thing as a unitary document, but that will do two things. First it will tend to foster a take-it-or-leave-it attitude that is not conducive of a collegial atmosphere, and Second, it will not encourage the members to read and have some understanding about the provisions they are voting on.

 

[Ron Sardo]

What about the up or down vote. We do seem to get mixed messages depending on which member is responding. Will it be one yes or no vote or article by article?

As I said a few days ago, there is no definitive answer. There are committee members on both sides of the table on this subject.

Please understand, we are still discussing this subject. The bottom is is simple: we will not know the answer until we have completed the revisions.

Just because you continually demand an answer doesn't mean we are going to pull one out of the hat. You have no choice but to be patient.

PSSST, in case you haven't noticed, we are discussing the bylaws.

 

[Stuart Johnson]

Just because you continually demand an answer doesn't mean we are going to pull one out of the hat. You have no choice but to be patient.

Sorry Ron, I don't feel asking for answers, stating a position or questioning the procedures and answers is the same thing as demanding and answer.

 

[Ron Sardo]

You still have no choice but to be patient.

As I said above, there is no definitive answer. There are committee members on both sides of the table.

Understand, we are still discussing this, we will not know the answer until we have completed the revisions.

Sorry Ron, I don't feel asking for answers, stating a position or questioning the procedures and answers is the same thing as demanding and answer.

Normally I would agree.

You asked this question (and where answered) on this forum at least three times.
You sent me two emails (and where answered) on this same subject.
You posted this same question on mag.

To me, this is demanding.