Monday, 13 June 2005
|1022 - A day of writiing|
I'm in the middle of a raging war in a Texas amateur radio organization. The details are arcane to non-hams, but the war is being waged through mail, in the courts, and on the net.
The other side put up a web site early last week, http://www.texasvotebymail.info . When I looked at it, my question was "how many lies can you pack into one page?". I decided I had to respond. The result can be seen at http://www.gangofthree.info .
One irritation came out if that: I got the animated .GIF done, but it won't display on the top of the page in Safari. Grumble. Safari apparently has issues with animated ,GIFs; another one on kinkyturtle's icon page crashes Safari whenever it tries to display it.
current mood: accomplished
So, let me get this straight.
You've got a group of directors in the Society that tried to get across a vote-by-mail amendment to the Society's bylaws.
The vote "succeeded", but in the process the bylaws were violated, and therefore the amendment did not take effect. Even if it did take effect, it would only do so after this summer's meeting. There have been court cases etc to get the amended bylaw to go into effect.
If I got all this right: How did the original meeting proceed, and what bylaws were violated?
Also, the image works fine in my Safari (v1.3) on my computer (10.3.9 on a dual G4), as do all of Kinkyturtle's icons.
You've got it right.
The bylaw that was violated says that any bylaws amendment (or some other questions) that would have a negative impact on one group of members must go to those members by mail for a poll, and the results of that poll must be made known to the voting members before the final vote is taken. The vote-by-mail amendment deleted that provision, thus removing a right of those members. Any reasonable person would see that as a negative impact, although the Gang of Three is claiming that it is not.
Since the poll must be taken by mail, it is not possible to adhere to that rule and pass a proposal that falls under it at the same meeting in which it is proposed. It's called the 6-month rule because the Society meets twice a year; thus, the rule delays action on the proposals it covers for 6 months.
The January meeting overruled the President's ruling that the amendment proposal fell under that rule and, basically, was at the point of riot. The President went ahead and held the vote. I believe he should not have, and were I present, I would have advised him not to.
Hm. Wonder why Safari on my dual G5 under Tiger, and on my iMac G4 under 10.3.9, both refuse to display the image as part of the page...strange.
So, let me see.
Would the Vote By Mail amendment make ALL bylaws amendments (and the mentioned "other questions") happen by mail?
If so, I think I sorta see where the Gang Of Three is coming from: since all such questions would now go by mail to all members, the "negative impact" bylaw actually gets superceded by this one, since the affected parties are getting mail about the bylaw anyway.
Except for one detail: the class of members protected by the 6-month rule includes more than just the voting members of the Society. The protected class includes people who receive services from the Society but are not regular, dues-paying members. Thus, the vote-by-mail amendment removes rights from that class. They would not be getting mail about further issues, nor would they have the right to be heard before a vote is taken.
Then asskicking must occur.
Kudos, Jay. I've forwarded these URL's to bunches of folks.
Thanks! I can't spend $300 to send a mailing to every member of the Society, so I have to depend on folks to spread the word by word of mouth.
One small question.
Why the hell does anyone use Safari? It's based on Konqueror, for fuck's sake!
(Full disclosure: Is a KDE user, and thus fully aware of how much Konqueror sucks ass)
The rendering engine is based on KHTML, the one used in Konqueror. The rest of it is Apple's work.
I use it because it's fast and good, and one less thing for me to have to manage.
I didn't understand a word.
but I do get a Gateway Timeout when trying to go to gangofthree
It should be fixed now. The backup name server was having problems, and the primary one's new address hasn't propagated yet.