>
>You seem to be the person as of late that knows how PAMPA is
>supposed to be run. Tell me this. Are we to undestand that
>PAMPA is in what one would call a constant open meeting? I
>ask this becuase it seems as though people are taking any
>motion and second as if it were during a called session.
Doug,
Let me refer you to Article VII of our CURRENT bylaws:
"The Trustees shall determine official business to be considered at meetings or voted on by mail."
Now, let's back up to Article VI:
"Additional meetings shall be held as determined by the Trustees."
The operative word here is "Trustees." Not "president."
Here's what the CURRENT bylaws say about the president: "The President shall preside at all meetings and shall execute the policies established by the Trustees." The president's sole responsibility under the current bylaws is to preside at meetings and execute the policies of the Trustees. He's the guy with the gavel. He's NOT the guy with a whip and chair.
Now these articles, I'm sure, were written on the assumption that when a Trustee had official business the president would call a meeting. I've lost count of the motions presented by Trustees that were simply ignored.
>Like at the Nats PAMPA meeting for instance. In that
>situation a motion would go to the floor and then a second.
> Pres would call for discussion possibly table for longer
>discussion later and or a vote. We are not, as far as I can
>tell, in a meeting session right now.
You want to confine all official business to the Nats PAMPA meeting. Fine. That instantly invalidates Mr. Brodak's bylaws rewrite, since it wasn't proposed at an "official meeting." If you accept that a meeting can be called outside the Nats by the president, you have no choice but to accept that it can also be called by the Trustees. Reread those bylaws above.
>So it would only seem
>appropriate that motions be delivered to the president and
>CC'd to everyone else. Then the president will call for an
>electronic meeting or phone confrence or whatever to bring
>it into a session and then a second would be made at that
>point and then discussion and then vote. Isnt that more
>logical than just having any EC member, or regular member in
>your husband's case, throwing out motions and seconds and
>votes at every corner?
Doug, are you in here? What part of "refused to accept delivery" don't you understand? That motion WAS addressed to the president, with copies to each EC member. Quite frankly, we expected Russ's motion to die a quick death once it was in Mr. Brodak's hands. What we did NOT expect was for him to refuse to even accept delivery. Since I don't seem to be able to convey this situation with words, please see the attached picture of said envelope and note the attempts made by the Post Office to get Mr. Brodak to take delivery.
>Ted agreed with me on this one. It
>just deosnt seem logical that when the EC is not in meeting
>that they can just motion second and vote any old time they
>want. It should go to the president first when they are not
>in meeting/session. Now that means he HAS to acknowledge it
>and call a session for sure cant just throw it aside.
How on earth can he acknowledge a motion which he has refused to accept. I grant you one thing...he didn't just throw it aside. He couldn't possibly have done that, since he never accepted the letter.
>I dont think in the case of your husband motion it was
>something he had to do. That should have come from the your
>elected representative. He would be the one to send a
>motion to the president then the president gets the second
>from another EC member.
Make up your mind, Doug. In one breath you say "it would only seem appropriate that motions be delivered to the president and CC'd to everyone else." In the next breath you say, "That should have come from the your elected representative." Which is it? Tell me, please...where do we go to get a motion considered?
>Otherwise the whole membership
>could send motions and seconds in everyday and nothing would
>get done.
God forbid we should have members participating in this process!
>That is why we have elected officials. I wouldnt
>just go straight to the CEO of my company. I go to my boss
>he goes to his VP and then the VP goes to CEO. Granted it
>is something they deem valuable enough to go that far. Not
>EVERY idea gets the light of day. Just like we dont send
>our stuff straight to Bush and expcet anything in return.
>We go to our Reps and they go forward for us or they just
>take it under advisment and move on. Am I making any sense
>at all here?
No, Doug. You're not. But then none of this has made sense, starting with a wholesale rewrite of bylaws that have worked fine for over thirty years.
Radi (nee Randi)