• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 - amending bylaws

Should a special meeting be called?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

Preface: The complete bylaws are here: http://miopencarry.org/Attachments/MOCBY-LAWS-REVA.PDF

I'm considering a formal request for a special meeting, something that requires 10% of the voting membership to do. I'm nearly certain I can get the 10%.

My reason for calling a special meeting is because I believe the bylaws to be flawed.

The portions I believe to be flawed:

5.6 Vacancies.
The Board will fill any vacancy in the Board and any Governor position to be filled due to an increase in the number of Governors. A vacancy is filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining Governors, even if it is less than a quorum of the Board, or if it is a sole remaining Governor. A Governor selected to fill a vacancy will serve for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor in office. Any tie will be decided by the Sgt. at Arms.

Basically, this states that a new board position may be created by the board itself, and then the position filled by the board itself.

6.7 Vacancies.
(1) The Board may select a person to fill a vacancy in any office for the unexpired portion of the director’s term. (2) The Board may authorize the President to appoint a person to fill a vacancy in any office for which the President is authorized to make an appointment under Section 5.3(2).

This basically states that if a vacancy of any existing board position occurs, that the board may simply fill that vacancy with whomever they choose.

I believe that, since the board makes virtually ALL decisions for MOC, that the membership should *ALWAYS* be entitled to elect members of the board, should a vacancy occur.

Am I off base here?
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

With complete respect and approval for Jeff Sayers having the VP position, I still say yes, you're right. I think it would be better to have something like60 days or less that a specially appointedinterim VP can serve, with a special election held within that time frame.

I am not opposed to the system in place now, but I think this would probably be better.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

Michigander, you idea would prevent the perception of late night backroom deals.

ETA:

No, this is not about Jeff.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

CV67PAT wrote:
Michigander, you idea would prevent the perception of late night backroom deals.

ETA:

No, this is not about Jeff.

No, I agree, this is not about who was appointed.

This is about someone being appointed without a vote.

I have no qualms with Jeff or anyone else. I just think that we need to amend the bylaws so that we don't deal with this again.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

Interim appointment followed by a special election allows for at least some discussion about and consideration of those seeking election.

It also gives me time to get a campaign started for anyone that doesn't want one.:celebrate
 

wardog6d

Banned
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
306
Location
Romulus/Wayne County, Michigan, USA
imported post

If such were the case the presidency would have had to have a election do to its vacancy. To be considered is that with so many quiters within the .INC are you planning on holding an election every time it gets hot in the kitchen and someone quits? Seriously people are quiting the running for a positions.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

wardog6d wrote:
If such were the case the presidency would have had to have a election do to its vacancy.



The members voted in Generaldet, and it is rather customary for a VP to take over after a president leaves or dies. It would be different if theVP remained the same and the board then voteda new president in to place.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

wardog6d wrote:
If such were the case the presidency would have had to have a election do to its vacancy. To be considered is that with so many quiters within the .INC are you planning on holding an election every time it gets hot in the kitchen and someone quits?
Interim appointment followed by special election.

Yes every time.

But with a period of consideration, maybe we could prevent the election of quitters and hence elect winners instead.

Winners don't quit.
Quitters don't win.
 

wardog6d

Banned
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
306
Location
Romulus/Wayne County, Michigan, USA
imported post

Michigander wrote:
wardog6d wrote:
If such were the case the presidency would have had to have a election do to its vacancy.



The members voted in Generaldet, and it is rather customary for a VP to take over after a president leaves or dies. It would be different if theVP remained the same and the board then voteda new president in to place.
Customary in the United States of American and our own consitition. According to the MOC.INC bi-laws it has nothing in common with the constitution.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

A follow up special election could also be view as a vote of confidence too.
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
imported post

What happens when we get bigger?

Nearly ALL Corporations work this way and for good reason.

Besides, it's only temporary until the regular vote takes place.

We elect members of the board because we feel they will do a good job and because we trust them. Now you're saying they may not be able to be trusted?

ZZZ, It's my opinion that you're being short sighted.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

The US constitution is one of the most successful governing structures in the history of our planet. So, I am not opposed to MOC's rules mirroring aspects of it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

dougwg wrote:
What happens when we get bigger?

Nearly ALL Corporations work this way and for good reason.

Besides, it's only temporary until the regular vote takes place.

We elect members of the board because we feel they will do a good job and because we trust them. Now you're saying they may not be able to be trusted?

ZZZ, It's my opinion that you're being short sighted.
Well that's true too. It is a "representative" form of governing.

Now I'm vacillating.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

wardog6d wrote:
MOC does in fact have a governing body. Lets look at it from this stand point. If a company CEO quits what happens within the company. They Hire another! Do the share holders elect another?
A CEO is outside the governing body, that'd be like appointing a state coordinator that is a position held over the regional coordinators.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

CV67PAT wrote:
dougwg wrote:
What happens when we get bigger?

Nearly ALL Corporations work this way and for good reason.

Besides, it's only temporary until the regular vote takes place.

We elect members of the board because we feel they will do a good job and because we trust them.  Now you're saying they may not be able to be trusted?

ZZZ, It's my opinion that you're being short sighted.
Well that's true too. It is a "representative" form of governing.

Now I'm vacillating.

It's only a representative form of government if we get to elect the representatives. If they're appointed, it's not the same. It's bastardizing the process.
 

wardog6d

Banned
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
306
Location
Romulus/Wayne County, Michigan, USA
imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:
wardog6d wrote:
MOC does in fact have a governing body. Lets look at it from this stand point. If a company CEO quits what happens within the company. They Hire another! Do the share holders elect another?
A CEO is outside the governing body, that'd be like appointing a state coordinator that is a position held over the regional coordinators.
Your missing the point. You the members have elected all of the board. You elected each individual based on your opinion they will do whats right for the cause. Now your questioning there ability to do what you have elected them to do in accordance with the bi-laws they are governed by.
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
imported post

wardog6d wrote:
zigziggityzoo wrote:
wardog6d wrote:
MOC does in fact have a governing body. Lets look at it from this stand point. If a company CEO quits what happens within the company. They Hire another! Do the share holders elect another?
A CEO is outside the governing body, that'd be like appointing a state coordinator that is a position held over the regional coordinators.
Your missing the point. You the members have elected all of the board. You elected each individual based on your opinion they will do whats right for the cause. Now your questioning there ability to do what you have elected them to do in accordance with the bi-laws they are governed by.
Ding ding ding...we have a winner...
 
Top