Can anyone translate this for me?
05-17-2007, 02:26 PM
#11
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 7,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of curiosity, I downloaded the ACNA By-laws...
First, I think the 9-year limit makes no sense. Section 5.2 already imposes a "not more than 3 consecutive 2-year terms" on directors.
Second, there's enough ambiguity in the amended Section 5.2 such that the Board/Executive Committee had the option of allowing Craig and Mike to serve out their terms until "his or her successor has been elected" instead of option B: booting the directors in question and appointing replacements. Who did the appointing, I wonder? Was it the full board, or was it just the executive committee? The by-laws specify the former.
The actual language of 5.2 supports option A. It says "A director *shall* hold office..." and the amendment says "Members *may* not serve on the Board of Directors..." (emphasis added).
Shall > may. Someone should have spent more time writing these amendments (and thinking them through) before messing around with the by-laws.
Personally, I think option B is a very shabby way to treat two men who have served the club so well for so long.
Second, there's enough ambiguity in the amended Section 5.2 such that the Board/Executive Committee had the option of allowing Craig and Mike to serve out their terms until "his or her successor has been elected" instead of option B: booting the directors in question and appointing replacements. Who did the appointing, I wonder? Was it the full board, or was it just the executive committee? The by-laws specify the former.
The actual language of 5.2 supports option A. It says "A director *shall* hold office..." and the amendment says "Members *may* not serve on the Board of Directors..." (emphasis added).
Shall > may. Someone should have spent more time writing these amendments (and thinking them through) before messing around with the by-laws.
Personally, I think option B is a very shabby way to treat two men who have served the club so well for so long.
05-17-2007, 04:14 PM
#15
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that's the short, polite version.
The club's bylaws didn't need "fixing". The circumstances around the whole national election and bylaws amendment last year were highly suspect at best. Perhaps you recall Mike S's posts on the subject. I've known Mike S. for years and we don't always agree (particularly when it comes to politics), but as I recall, he was completely correct about the handling of the club's elections.
There are those that feel the need to destroy others in their quest for power. It reminds me of the old Q & A: Q. Why are University politics so cutthroat? A. Precisely because the stakes are so small.
Unfortunately, in this case the needs of the membership gets completely overlooked. Ego is a horrible thing to be allowed to drive your life.
And yes, there is a lot more than that to it. It's a damn shame. All I can say is I am thankful that we have a strong chapter and that our day-to-day operations will likely be unchanged by this sad state of affairs.
Mike Fisher and Craig Leichty represent the very core of what the best of this club has to offer. That they are cast aside like last week's newspaper is profoundly disturbing.
There are those that feel the need to destroy others in their quest for power. It reminds me of the old Q & A: Q. Why are University politics so cutthroat? A. Precisely because the stakes are so small.
Unfortunately, in this case the needs of the membership gets completely overlooked. Ego is a horrible thing to be allowed to drive your life.
And yes, there is a lot more than that to it. It's a damn shame. All I can say is I am thankful that we have a strong chapter and that our day-to-day operations will likely be unchanged by this sad state of affairs.
Mike Fisher and Craig Leichty represent the very core of what the best of this club has to offer. That they are cast aside like last week's newspaper is profoundly disturbing.
