<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: Re: [RC] [RC] Proposed Bylaws

[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]
Current to Wed Jul 23 17:36:48 GMT 2003
  • Next by Date: [RC] Alum Creek Colorific Fundraiser meal
  • - Deanna German
  • Prev by Date: Re: [RC] [RC] Proposed Bylaws
  • - Heidi Smith

    Re: [RC] [RC] Proposed Bylaws - Heidi Smith

    I don't view this as complaining, but rather as the appropriate stage in the process.  Several of us did voice some general concerns about the membership section prior to the midyear, but apparently our input was not sufficient for the BoD to consider going back over that section and "vetting" it more thoroughly.  Too bad--it may get pulled at the next vet check.  If it does, I hope the board will treat the problem and run the horse again when it is healthy.  As I stated in my reply to Truman's post, I'm grateful to the BoD for having done the job they've done on this matter, and it's just a shame that a few members of the BoD seem to view a NO vote as a complaint or an insult.  Far from it--we are just using the process as it was designed to work.
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:53 PM
    Subject: Re: [RC] [RC] Proposed Bylaws

    In a message dated 10/8/2002 11:07:24 PM Central Daylight Time, jlong@xxxxxxxx writes:

    Exactly.  In fact, this is why Bylaws changes must be voted on by the
    full Membership, and the Bylaws cannot be changed by the Board alone.
    On an issue of such importance the Membership has the final say.

    I did not mean it was too late, bad choice of words.  Maybe I just should have said it was a little late to start complaining about something that has been publicized to death......

    Re: [RC] [RC] Proposed Bylaws, Merryben