I WROTE IT.
Perhaps I should have copyrighted it. They are my words, as written on June 19, 2010, and no change was made to them by staff or Board during the period of review before they were published. I have every right to explain the original intent so that it is not misinterpreted.
For any organization, the issue of changing by-laws has to be addressed in the initial by-laws or else the organization is stuck with the same ones forever. Article X was written to be enabling, not restricting. It states one way in which they MAY be changed. It does not say they can't be changed in any other way. If I, the staff, or the Board intended that to be the only way, we could have added "only" or "exclusively". None of us did so.
The Board has every right to choose not to change by-laws until next year, but that is THEIR choice, not the requirement of Article X. A "no" vote on the proposed new by-laws does not mean they HAVE to wait to make changes until next year. They have every right to do so, but to tell members it is Article X that requires that, is incorrect. How members vote, and what the Board does after that vote, is none of my business, but misinterpreting my words and their intent IS my business.
J.K. Rowling is finished writing the Harry Potter series, but if someone changed the ending, and said that was what she really intended to write, do you think she might object?
Thank you, Dyebat. I don't know what the staff at EW are afraid of and why they are trying to push those bylaws through.
ReplyDeleteThe Staff/Admins/Board are now using scare tactics. If you don't vote yes, they will sell the site, is the latest meme. Anyone opposing the new bylaws is a malcontent. Never mind that they presented them to you without separating the changes as per STANDARD practice. The bylaws can be changed at any time..with a process..there is no reason to tell you otherwise. Just who served on the Bylaws committee? Will they disclose that? Why are non-members of the Bylaws committee answering sincere member questions about the actual changes proposed and diverting/distracting from the questions? The discussion is not about trust - it is about a series of proposed bylaw changes. Some oppose it and/or have questions.
ReplyDeleteSurely this must go against the moral conscience of Board members! What is wrong with these people? Is the cost of a visit to Susan so high that they have all become the hand puppets of the administration?
ReplyDeleteI want it on record that I consider the silence of Board members a very serious sin of omission. They are failing in their duty to the membership and in their legal obligations. Shame on them! And shame on me for ever trusting that they would take on the responsibility with open eyes and true hearts.
Is there anyone here who could express what Dyebat and Chris have said here in an easily-understandable post or on a new thread on the OF--so that members can know the truth?
ReplyDeleteI think many members of SBFII are actually peeking in at posts made in the Guest Forum at Susahumor (which is one site in particular that SBFII board member probably meant when he referred to "rival" websites). That is one way in which the truth is getting out in spite of SBFII's best efforts to sweep it under the carpet. Yes, it would be really good if someone who is an active member of SBFII could post there what the reality of this situation is.....but to be blunt, more than likely, such a revelation of the truth and such an attempt to open people's eyes would be promptly removed by mods at SBFII because they would claim it is "off-topic" Apparently that has been happening a lot there.
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems very suspicious that there seems to be such a push from certain members of SBFII to urge members to vote "yes" on the bylaws revision piece. Why? What is it that they are so anxious to have members approve? Is there some particular piece of this that they want to push through so that they can implement it? Something which is ambiguously worded so that members wouldn't realize that by voting "yes" to the entire package that they'd be allowing something which in fact to which many might have strenuous objections? I do not see why the people in control there at SBFII are so adamant that if the revisions are not approved right now that this means that they cannot change anything for another year. Doesn't make much sense to me. The way I am seeing this, the current bylaws do not preclude members being able to discuss and recommend changes and they also do not preclude the calling of a special meeting at any time in order to vote on proposed changes. Why the insistence that if members vote "no" to the recommended revisions that this means that nothing can be changed for an entire year?
I agree with CL that the silence of the current Board members with regard to some very key issues which have been brought up is very disturbing and it certainly makes me question their integrity.
Circlette could. I am sure she reads the blogs.
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I have this straight - if the rules they're proposing don't pass, they're threatening to sell the site? How can their proposed rules NOT pass? Who's to really know the true outcome of the vote? Would you trust some sort of so-called 'objective' re-count process - which no doubt would occur after they deleted or edited the vote to their liking?
ReplyDeleteWorst (??) case scenario - so they sell the site. So what??? It could only be an improvement, as the place has nowhere to go but up. Eye roll.
LEM, The two vote-counters have never given any of us a reason to distrust them. The issue, as I see it - is that the new version of the Bylaws gives Kalua a voice in the Appeals process. Ironic, as he (along with PT and Mirrim) created the Appeals process. I am uncomfortable with ANYONE in a management position (a position of authority) that is permitted to remain anonymous. It is a ridiculous situation. Has anyone disclosed the Bylaws committee members or is that a secret as well?
ReplyDeleteOne thing about the new by-laws that really ticks me off is that the administration will not be pinned down and answer once and for all what a reimbused expense entails. The only thing that has been confirmed is that some emergency expense reimbursements will be approved beforehand. Some say that reimbursements should all be itemized in the by-laws. However, this never happened. The thread is now closed with no concrete answer. Most people say that being a volunteer is being a volunteer and of course Ponylady comes on and says that some expenses should be covered, such as stamps - shows her mentality. I am sure that what people are getting at is that they don't want people like PT reimbursed for trips to see Susan to deliver gifts, etc., or to set up meets and greets and such.
ReplyDeleteThe people who drafted the new bylaws were wasforgas, AnnieV and Truus. It came out during the meeting.
ReplyDelete