Recent CLSA Ballot

[E_Page]

I got this in the mail the other day.

Can somebody explain the need for the changes in Section 7.04? I don't understand the need and am currently of the opinion that it is better as is than as proposed.

But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

[E_Page]

Greg,

Since this is a public forum, I'm not sure that it's appropriate to post the CLSA's bylaws and any proposed changes. As a CLSA member, you should have received a ballot, or soon will, regarding proposed changes to four sections of the Bylaws. Also as a member, I think that you can get to the Bylaws through the main CLSA website.

I was hoping that someone could email an explanation to me.

Sorry, I should have stated that.

evan@homesteadsurveying.com

[Ian Wilson]

When this was first brought to the attention of the Board, it was noted that the Standing Committees are of such import that the creation and dissolution of any of the Standing Committees should be by popular vote of the entire member ship rather than just the Board. (First change to 7.04)

It was also noted that the Nominating Committee faced certain difficulties. These are addressed by the second proposed change to 7.04. The change sets the upper and lower limits for the size of the committee and establishes that the Immediate Past President be a member and function as the Chair of the committee, as well. This provides for Board input and continuity, <humor> albeit from a “has-been, washed-out, tired, poor B******* whose just put in four years on the Board” </humor>.

The third change officially creates the Past President’s Advisory Committee. This provides the in-coming President with access to the experience and collective knowledge of those who have gone before him (or her).

The final change to 7.04 abolishes the right of the Board to create Standing Committees at nauseum. This is in keeping with the intent of the idea that the creation or dissolution of the Standing Committees be up to the Membership and not the Board.

In short, the changes take the responsibility and authority for Standing Committees out of the hands of the Board and place it in the hands of the Membership. The changes also memorialize the President’s access to the collective minds of those who have gone before. And, finally, the changes more specifically define the Nominating Committee.

In my opinion, the changes are practical, prudent and wise.

Evan, you were at the meetings in which these items were discussed. I admit that they were among the first items for discussion after lunch.

[E_Page]

Thanks, Ian. I recall the discussion regarding student membership, but I guess that I must have slept through the discussion about standing committees. Either that or it happened at a later Board meeting.

Unless there is some substantial costs iassociated with the creation and/or existence of a committee, I don't necessarily see the benefit of having it put to a vote of the entire membership. We have Board Representatives just for this sort of thing. I have no problems with the other changes, but this seems like a potential stumbling block to getting things accomplished.

Can you explain the benefits of this particular change, or the drawbacks to not implementing that change?

Thanks.

[Ian Wilson]

Any changes to the list of standing committees is extremely important and should be up to the general membership, not just the Board or its officers.

In my opinion, this change is a valid and neccessary change and reflects very well onthe Board members who sponsored it (not me, BTW).

What "stumbling blocks" would this modification create?

[E_Page]

I agree that changes to the standing committees is an important issue. I just don't see why I and the rest of the general membership needs to be directly involved in the decision to make changes when each chapter has representation at the Board.

I commend those Directors who are willing to share this responsibility/authority, but I think that bringing it ti the general membership is one step too far. Open it to a vote among the Board Representatives. We, as the general membership have elected them to represent us at the State level. Let them do it with this. Perhaps that is the intent and it's just not clear to me.

In taking these decisions to the general membership, it will likely add 3 to 9 months to the time to create a committee. It would add the step of creating a ballot proposal, then creating the ballot, mailing it, waiting an appropriate amount of time for the ballots to come back, counting them, bringing the results back to the board (probably 2 meetings after the ballot proposal was introduced), and then Board action to create the committee.

As it is now, a proposal could be made at one Board meeting, the Board Reps take it back to their chapters and it gets discussed among active members at the next monthly meeting, the Reps go back to the next quarterly Board meeting and offer comment based upon input from their chapter and vote according to the wishes of the chapter's active members. A 3 to 6 month process as opposed to a 9 to 15 month process.

The cost of administering the votes may be as much or more than the cost of operating some committees.


If we trust our Board Representatives to keep us informed of important developments, and to properly represent our chapters at the State level, I just don't see the need to have the general membership do what we should be able to trust our reps to do.

[Ian Wilson]

Evan:

The committees referred to are the Standing Committees, not any ad hoc committees that might be needed. The list of ther Standing Committees is relatively short and should be so.

These sepcific committees are charged with on going, long-term specific functions, not the short term needs. Short lived committees can still be appointed by the Executive Committee and the Board.

The budgets for these Standing Committees are already set and relatively large.

Since the list of Standing Committees does not change very much through time, the cost of administering ballots to make changes inthe Standing Committee list would be minimal at worst.

[E_Page]

I see your point (although PPC has a very small budget), but still think it better handled through Chapter Board Reps.