As it is well known that--I'm guessing here!--probably 90% of PAMPA members have received what has come to be known as the "Gang of 105" mailing, nearly all of us have the language of this proposal and so can easily refer to same.
As Len has written a really nice piece on this, I will not even attempt to improve upon his effort, instead including it here.
Now remember, a lot of us have expressed displeasure with this proposed change. But I cannot recall anyone expressing agreement with it. Time for y'all to step forward and convince us that not only is this a good idea for 2005 and the remainder of Mr. Brodak's term in office, but that it will be an even better idea for 2006 to 2007 and whomever is PAMPA President at that time.
And now from Len:
"Article IV is a total rewrite. Instead of "Trustees" which implies a trust given to you by those who voted for you, they are now called a Board of Directors which is a term used in larger for profit corporations. The inclusion of Robert's Rules of Order specifying the parliamentary procedure under which the Trustees and membership meetings would be operating is refreshing as there needs to be some overriding rule to govern how business is handled.
However--and this is a MAJOR DEPARTURE--added to this article are the words "The Board…shall have the control and management of the affairs and business of the corporation." This takes the place of the wording from the present Article VIII which states "The Trustees are responsible for establishing the policy and objectives of the corporation" which has been stripped out of the by-laws. The responsibility of the Trustees is further limited in the rewrite of this article by the wording "The Board…shall only act in the name of the organization when it shall be regularly convened…by its chairman (later defined as the President). Thus, although the Trustees under the present By-laws have the responsibility of the ultimate authority, in the new proposals, it would appear they can only operate if the President calls them, and the wording limits them more to the conduction of business rather than that of establishing policy which "power" is later granted to the President. The rewording of this article needs to be rejected."
Yes, rejected indeed. Horrible idea with a great many consequences, some of the unintentional variety. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Dan