Amended Resolution

[John Goerzen]

Good plan.

Another thing that just occured to me is that the bylaws amendment currently
proposes an election for officers this year and an election for other
members next year (2003 and 2004 are hard-coded into it, with language that
says how this starts the pattern and it should be continued.)  Since
officers are not involved in the current problem, we'd need to address this
by one of these methods:

a. Amending these dates to be 2004 and 2005, then hold a special
   election for vacant positions as already contemplated in the new
   bylaws;

b. Flip-flopping the dates and hold the election for non-officer members
   this year, and officers next;

c. Hold the election for officers this year as scheduled, as well as the
   special election for vacant seats.

I think option C is rather unwieldy, considering the newness of things, so I
would support either A or B, though I would still prefer option C over doing
nothing to fix the bylaws.

-- John

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:24:56PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> The board should appoint an interim board member (the DPL would be a good
> candidate) on a mandate that he shall serve until and only until the
> by-law referendum and/or an election is complete, or until January 1st,
> which ever comes first.
> 
> ---
> David "cdlu" Graham
> Guelph, Ontario
> cdlu at railfan.ca
> 
> 
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 03:33:23PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> > > I would support a by-law referendum instead of a board election now,
> > > following which the board would hold an election under either the current
> > > by-laws or the new ones, depending on the outcome of the referendum.
> >
> > That makes very good sense.
> >
> > My only concern is how quickly we could make that happen.  In the mean
> > time, the board is in a questionable status as it doesn't have the amount of
> > members mandated by the current bylaws.
> >
> > -- John
> >