Thu Jan 27 21:21:30 UTC 2005
The second paragraph of Article 7 shall be removed. In its place, insert
The directors to be chosen for the ensuing year shall be chosen at the
annual meeting of this organization in the same manner and style as
the officers of this organization and they shall serve for a term of
Each seat on the Board of Directors, including those for officers, shall
have a term of two years. Seats for officers, excluding the secretary,
shall be up for election once every two years starting in 2003. Seats
for the other members of the board shall be up for election once every
two years starting in 2004. Elections shall be held at the same time
each year and are open to all contributing members. Membership in the
Organization is not a prerequisite for holding a seat on the Board.
In years when an officer election is held, two questions shall appear on
the ballot: a selection for president and a selection for treasurer. The
second-place candidate in the selection for president shall be vice
In years when an election for non-officer Board seats is held, one
question shall appear on the ballot: selection of board members. If x
seats are up for election, then the top x candidates in the election
will be appointed to the Board.
After each annual election, the entire Board, including new members,
shall pass a resolution appointing a secretary. The Board may also pass
a new resolution at any time selecting a new secretary. The secretary
selected must already be a non-officer member of the Board.
No single person may run for more than one seat in any given election.
While I continue to disagree with the separation of the terms for members
and officers, it is not a show-stopping problem in my opinion and I will
vote for this amendment if it is put up for a vote. This amendment does
work but does pose a risk of stale blood tainting fresh blood. Hopefully
an activist membership can minimise this risk, and our other amendments
should contribute toward an activist membership.
That said, let's vote on this and carry on.
David "cdlu" Graham cdlu at pkl.net
Guelph, Ontario SMS: +1 519 760 1409
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> On this one, we have the following proposal:
> There seems to have been lukewarm support for it. I think we should quickly
> do one of these:
> 1. Call it "good enough" and vote on it
> 2. Make changes to make it good enough to vote on
> 3. Propose a new solution
> What do people think? I'd like to get this one out of the way ASAP so we
> can move on to other matters.
> -- John
> Spi-bylaws mailing list
> Spi-bylaws at lists.spi-inc.org
More information about the Spi-bylaws