2/3 vote ?

Jim

http://www.control-line.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=29

Here's what you were seeking:

Article XII – Amendments to Bylaws:

Any active member or any Trustee may submit a proposed bylaw amendment to the Trustees at any time. Upon such a submission, the Trustees shall determine if the proposed amendment should be presented to the membership, and if so, the exact wording thereof and the time of presentation. All proposed amendments and action taken thereon shall be reported to the membership in the next issue of the newsletter following receipt of the proposal. Presentation of a proposed amendment to the membership shall be made in the newsletter, and adoption thereof shall occur only on a favorable vote of a two thirds majority of those members responding.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Because our goals are not lofty but illusory, our problems are not difficult, but nonsensical." -Ludwig Wittgenstein

SK.

I think there is a very good point to be made about the need for updating PAMPA's bylaws to lay out very explicit procedures for almost everything it does.

In spite of presumptions that any effort to update the bylaws are an attempt to hijack PAMPA or demean its personnel, it is in the organization's best interest. Tightening up our business practices will keep us out of trouble - it's particularly important to properly maintain tax exempt status.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Creative minds have always been known to survive any kind of bad training." -Anna Freud

Exactly. And if things are still being done as they were when I was on the EC, I say let's either force Peabody to begin keeping records on advertising monies going to PAMPA, or get a different ad rep.

Could end up being a two-fer: RSM ads might actually be processed and published in Stunt News. I simply *cannot* be the only who has noticed Brodak's closest competitor somehow is so very rarely represented in Stunt News.

>In spite of presumptions that any effort to update the
>bylaws are an attempt to hijack PAMPA or demean its
>personnel, it is in the organization's best interest.

Could be bad, or good, depending on the content. I have seen the proposed changes (first draft and elements of the second) and I don't think they significantly improve anything procedurally, and contain some aspects that I find highly dubious, if not completely unacceptable. Just my opinion, of course. And I'm NOT referring to the change of purpose of the organization (which I'm guessing WILL NOT be in the final proposal).

>Tightening up our business practices will keep us out of
>trouble - it's particularly important to properly maintain
>tax exempt status.

This is just erroneous. Our business practices are BEYOND reproach, and it's all well documented. There is NO problem with the business practices that could reasonably be addressed in a bylaws change.

And, I might add, our budget is in very sound shape, for the last 2-3 years we have not depended on early renewals to finance the last SN of the year. It was not like that until recently (after the dues increase, as a matter of fact).

And I am not aware of ANY QUESTION about our tax-exempt status. As far as I know it's completely sound. If there are business practices that you beleive are not consistent with tax-exempt status, please note them in an email to a trustee (myself, or Shareen, would do), and we can address them, or refer them to Tom Hampshire. We need to know about this, and it's a VERY SERIOUS issue.

When I originally spoke to John I was under the impression that was the intention, to address ambiguities, not change the format.

I felt that fixing some of the wording for who constitutes a majority in the EC mail votes was a good idea. Just to be clear in that case.

I truly am not sure where he is going now. Maybe he has gotten a little over anxious and wants to do too much too fast. I plan on trying to get in touch with him.