T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
Michigander wrote:
Michigander wrote:
Would you mind elaborating a little bit more?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
MOC, Inc. Board of Directors Appoints New Vice President
- Thread starter JeffSayers
- Start date
zigziggityzoo
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Michigander wrote:
Michigander wrote:
I have no problem with the board doing everyday business autonomously, but I would like a say in who the board is.
wardog6d
Banned
imported post
No where within the bi-laws does it state MOC will be operated as a democracy. MOC.INC is in fact regarded by its officers as a company. The bi-laws for the members are just that, Bi-laws. You the members have paid for your membership to be governed by a company. For those of you that are not satisfied with recent decisions by the governing body in which you basicly hired, may be should have read the bi-laws before paying for this service. The governing body was elected by you even though some of the officershave left positions recently. These by-laws are in fact governing the governers. Which is exactly what they are supposed to do. If you have issue's with this after the fact. Read the bi-laws as in the end you the members do indeed control the entire board.
No where within the bi-laws does it state MOC will be operated as a democracy. MOC.INC is in fact regarded by its officers as a company. The bi-laws for the members are just that, Bi-laws. You the members have paid for your membership to be governed by a company. For those of you that are not satisfied with recent decisions by the governing body in which you basicly hired, may be should have read the bi-laws before paying for this service. The governing body was elected by you even though some of the officershave left positions recently. These by-laws are in fact governing the governers. Which is exactly what they are supposed to do. If you have issue's with this after the fact. Read the bi-laws as in the end you the members do indeed control the entire board.
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
zigziggityzoo wrote:
zigziggityzoo wrote:
That's exactly what I meant to say. People are appointed positions to handle certain business, but I'd like a say in who is appointed, JMO.
zigziggityzoo
Campaign Veteran
imported post
wardog6d wrote:
FWIW, the bylaws were not published (were they even created?), nor was there a MOC website, when I first joined as a charter member.
I don't currently see a violation of the bylaws, but I'm saying that the future of this "business" had better change, or else my membership is gone. I can be a civil rights activist without paying $50/yr to MOC.
wardog6d wrote:
FWIW, the bylaws were not published (were they even created?), nor was there a MOC website, when I first joined as a charter member.
I don't currently see a violation of the bylaws, but I'm saying that the future of this "business" had better change, or else my membership is gone. I can be a civil rights activist without paying $50/yr to MOC.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
zigziggityzoo wrote:
Therefore, it should be abundantly obvious to you that if any officer/board member deviates from the by-laws in the performance of their duties, they subject themselves to civil action, removal, and other sanctions.
A membership vote is simply not an option.
zigziggityzoo wrote:
Zig you are always one that is in the forefront of explaining the law and often it's intent. And it appears that you have some knowledge of lawful things.
Therefore, it should be abundantly obvious to you that if any officer/board member deviates from the by-laws in the performance of their duties, they subject themselves to civil action, removal, and other sanctions.
A membership vote is simply not an option.
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
zigziggityzoo wrote:
zigziggityzoo wrote:
Just so you know, the $50 charted membership was to get things going, and give people an insentive to join. When/if you renew it will be the cost of a regular membership, $20.
zigziggityzoo
Campaign Veteran
imported post
CV67PAT wrote:
I believe that we'll be calling a meeting soon.
CV67PAT wrote:
I can tell you what IS an option: A removal vote, which the members can do at ANY time, for ANY reason.
I believe that we'll be calling a meeting soon.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
T Vance wrote:
That is how "shareholders" do it in a corporation.
T Vance wrote:
Communicate with the officers that you have elected.
That is how "shareholders" do it in a corporation.
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
That's why I posted it on here.
That's why I posted it on here.
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
T Vance wrote:
Every hard core democracy is destined to fall flat on its face in time. Particularly when you have a diverse group. It is more or less a law of physics, proven through out the ages in just about every example you can dig up.
If we had started out democratically, we would have been put out of business OCing by other folks who carry guns, but don't approve of openly carrying. Many who are involved now never would have been involved at the beginning, and some of these folks wouldn't have approved, either, until we showed that OCing is safe and legal. I call these folks "bandwagon jumpers". Nothing against the bandwagon jumpers, just trying to show one small example of the way democracy can and will fail.
As we grow bigger, and more diverse, it is still no less critical to keep democracy out of the picture. We exist to educate people about rights and how to use them safely, to promote and perhaps expand rights. We must not go democratically telling people what to do as a group, as long as they are safely following the law. Individuals need to express opinions, but we MUST NOT try to use mob rule to control the behavior of our members. I say that as a MOC member, as well as a member of OCDO.
T Vance wrote:
Sure, no problem.
Every hard core democracy is destined to fall flat on its face in time. Particularly when you have a diverse group. It is more or less a law of physics, proven through out the ages in just about every example you can dig up.
If we had started out democratically, we would have been put out of business OCing by other folks who carry guns, but don't approve of openly carrying. Many who are involved now never would have been involved at the beginning, and some of these folks wouldn't have approved, either, until we showed that OCing is safe and legal. I call these folks "bandwagon jumpers". Nothing against the bandwagon jumpers, just trying to show one small example of the way democracy can and will fail.
As we grow bigger, and more diverse, it is still no less critical to keep democracy out of the picture. We exist to educate people about rights and how to use them safely, to promote and perhaps expand rights. We must not go democratically telling people what to do as a group, as long as they are safely following the law. Individuals need to express opinions, but we MUST NOT try to use mob rule to control the behavior of our members. I say that as a MOC member, as well as a member of OCDO.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
zigziggityzoo wrote:
The corporation was registered with the stat prior to acceptance of any memberships.
Its a legal thing zig. You of all people should know that. You are one of the most proficient in the subject of law on this forum. (NOT SARCASM!!!)
zigziggityzoo wrote:
The by-laws of any corporation are established by a temporary board prior to filing its corporate papers with the state.
The corporation was registered with the stat prior to acceptance of any memberships.
Its a legal thing zig. You of all people should know that. You are one of the most proficient in the subject of law on this forum. (NOT SARCASM!!!)
viperar15
Regular Member
imported post
zigziggityzoo wrote:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=27023&forum_id=30&highlight=viperar15
zig... the site was up and bylaws posted on the site before this was posted and membership applications were allowed.
zigziggityzoo wrote:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=27023&forum_id=30&highlight=viperar15
zig... the site was up and bylaws posted on the site before this was posted and membership applications were allowed.
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
Michigander wrote:
Michigander wrote:
Thanks for the clarification! I agree, I just might like to see voting for members appointed to various positions within MOC. Again, not saying that the people that have been recently appointed are not going to do a great job, just wondering where the paying members stand when it comes to voting people into those positions.
zigziggityzoo
Campaign Veteran
imported post
CV67PAT wrote:
I understand how it works. What I'm saying is this:
This needs to change. It can be done the easy way (board agrees to submit those previously open positions before the membership for a special election) or it can be done the hard way (I call a special meeting for the recall of the previously open positions, we then, by threat of pulling the remaining board members, too, humbly request that a vote take place).
Somewhere in the intermix, we need to amend the bylaws so that this doesn't happen again. Since when does it make sense to have a OLIGARCHY for an organization when we're sitting here promoting civil rights and the US Constitution?
CV67PAT wrote:
I understand how it works. What I'm saying is this:
This needs to change. It can be done the easy way (board agrees to submit those previously open positions before the membership for a special election) or it can be done the hard way (I call a special meeting for the recall of the previously open positions, we then, by threat of pulling the remaining board members, too, humbly request that a vote take place).
Somewhere in the intermix, we need to amend the bylaws so that this doesn't happen again. Since when does it make sense to have a OLIGARCHY for an organization when we're sitting here promoting civil rights and the US Constitution?
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
T Vance wrote:
T Vance wrote:
Like in a city council meeting where comments are heard and considered prior to the council, vote. This does provide for a means by which to not only express concerns, but also hold the board accountable for its votes.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Additionally, when Mikestilly posted his intention to be considered for appointment to fill the vacated VP position, it did provide for a period of membership comment.
I can see where this late night announcement has raised the ire of some.
It does create the perception, albeit I'm certain unintentional, of some backroom deal making.
Edit to add:
Speaking of Mikestilly...
I am still the Chairman of the Committee to Elect Mikestilly.
Irrespective of Mikestilly's wishes to no longer be considered for election, the campaign to elect him is still moving forward.
There was a Playgirl photo-shoot on Saturday, and though Mikestilly wasn't there we went forward with it. Some photoshop cropping is going to have to be done, but other than that it was a hugh success.
Keep posted for other Mikestilly election campaign events that are to be scheduled in the near future. It is going to be an uphill battle to get him elected, especially in light of Jeff's appointment, but I have no doubt that I can get it done for him as his campaign manager.
"If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve"
VOTE FOR MIKESTILLY 2010
[line]This announcement was paid for by the Political Action Committee to Elect Mikestilly 2010.
"Hi, I'm Mikestilly and I approve this message."
("Well not really but I do want to get elected.")
Additionally, when Mikestilly posted his intention to be considered for appointment to fill the vacated VP position, it did provide for a period of membership comment.
I can see where this late night announcement has raised the ire of some.
It does create the perception, albeit I'm certain unintentional, of some backroom deal making.
Edit to add:
Speaking of Mikestilly...
I am still the Chairman of the Committee to Elect Mikestilly.
Irrespective of Mikestilly's wishes to no longer be considered for election, the campaign to elect him is still moving forward.
There was a Playgirl photo-shoot on Saturday, and though Mikestilly wasn't there we went forward with it. Some photoshop cropping is going to have to be done, but other than that it was a hugh success.
Keep posted for other Mikestilly election campaign events that are to be scheduled in the near future. It is going to be an uphill battle to get him elected, especially in light of Jeff's appointment, but I have no doubt that I can get it done for him as his campaign manager.
"If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve"
VOTE FOR MIKESTILLY 2010
[line]This announcement was paid for by the Political Action Committee to Elect Mikestilly 2010.
"Hi, I'm Mikestilly and I approve this message."
("Well not really but I do want to get elected.")
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Zig first of all the website was up and the bylaws were posted before memberships were taken. I know BC I was one of the first to pay for a charter membership.
TVance as these are volunteer positions and an opportunity was given for people to submit applications to the board.... and from what I understand there were not an overabundance of volunteers.... what this means is likely you would have had the same people to choose from even if an election had been held.
You cannot very well have a vote that means anything without people running for the positions. In the situation that just happened it was imperative that the positions be filled and the organization get back to work promoting the RTKBA through OC.
Finally in regards to why positions are filled by appointment. This is fairly standard in this type of organization. When an officer moves up due to a resignation then the person who moved up works with the board to appoint a replacement for his or her vacated position for the duration of his or her term. This allows for a quick transition and gets things back on an even keel. When the person's position comes up for election they will have the opportunity to either run for the position or not.
This is all spelled out in the bylaws.
NOTE this is my personal opinion and NOT an official position of MOC.
Zig first of all the website was up and the bylaws were posted before memberships were taken. I know BC I was one of the first to pay for a charter membership.
TVance as these are volunteer positions and an opportunity was given for people to submit applications to the board.... and from what I understand there were not an overabundance of volunteers.... what this means is likely you would have had the same people to choose from even if an election had been held.
You cannot very well have a vote that means anything without people running for the positions. In the situation that just happened it was imperative that the positions be filled and the organization get back to work promoting the RTKBA through OC.
Finally in regards to why positions are filled by appointment. This is fairly standard in this type of organization. When an officer moves up due to a resignation then the person who moved up works with the board to appoint a replacement for his or her vacated position for the duration of his or her term. This allows for a quick transition and gets things back on an even keel. When the person's position comes up for election they will have the opportunity to either run for the position or not.
This is all spelled out in the bylaws.
NOTE this is my personal opinion and NOT an official position of MOC.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Does MOC advocate the open carry of firearms or only HOCIAH (Handgun Open Carry In A Holster)?
Does MOC advocate the open carry of firearms or only HOCIAH (Handgun Open Carry In A Holster)?
wardog6d
Banned
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Ouch!