LPSF Bylaws Committee Report [1 Attachment]

Hello,
We had a very productive meeting. This is the report. Our first report covers minor changes. If you would like to see any major changes please submit them in writing. I can send you the suggestion form.
I will not make a motion to adopt any of the changes at the meeting today. It still needs work.
Rebecca

LPSF Bylaws Report.pdf (86.3 KB)

I do not see any attachments when I click on" See attachments on the web" at the bottom
Françoise Fielding, Esq., 820 Stanyan St. #5, San Francisco, CA 94117, 415-386-8643

Try this Francoise…

Mike

LPSF Bylaws Report.pdf (86.3 KB)

I attached it again to this email.
Rebecca

LPSF Bylaws Report.pdf (86.3 KB)

Thank you.Françoise
Françoise Fielding, Esq., 820 Stanyan St. #5, San Francisco, CA 94117, 415-386-8643

Thanks, Mike.F
Françoise Fielding, Esq., 820 Stanyan St. #5, San Francisco, CA 94117, 415-386-8643

Thanks to the committee….

Mike

LPSF Bylaws Report.pdf (86.3 KB)

Rebecca:

I have read these proposed amendments and would have no problem with them except for number IV regarding the authority of Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO).

I would have voted against adopting this because:

Let’s face it; no one in the LPSF has the faintest idea about what is in RRO. Does anyone even have a copy of it?
It is senseless to include such a clause in the bylaws. I presume this issue is coming up because Starchild wants to dispense with rules and conduct votes outside of monthly meetings over the telephone. I would not approve of such a impromptu voting procedure, but I can find nothing in the RRO or the State Bylaws that would prohibit it.
I would vote against this amendment on the grounds that no one will have any idea exactly what it means. What does it require and what does it prohibit?

One book that I have on parliamentary procedures says that “any board that is not part of a larger organization can establish its own rules, but these rules cannot be in conflict with state laws or any rules that created the board”. If those who are “active activists” wish to allows motions to be adopted by such informal procedures, then I see nothing in this amendment that would stop them. Do you know of some provision in RRO or the State Bylaws that would prohibit a telephone vote?

A rule like Amendment VI just reflects the preferences of a number of people who voted on it at a certain point in time. Why should they be allowed to tie the hands of those who wish to be activist in the future?

Les Mangus

F108468B24DC4901B2E6E93312F63A7C.png