Save Our Society? Not their way!
They haven't given up yet!
The results of the August 2005 meeting
The Big Lie
What's happened so far
texasvotebymail.info, line by line
The 19 June 2005 update, line by line
The 30 July 2005 campaign letter, line by line
The Board's actual powers under Texas law
What's wrong with voting by mail?
Disenfranchising the trustees
What I think you should do
Documents
Who are the Gang of Three?
Who am I?
Legalities
Home

Disenfranchising the trustees

There's another part of all this that's important if you hold a coordination issued by the Society. This applies mainly to repeater trustees (and other coordinations, such as links), but the average member needs to know about it too.

The rule that was ignored by the Gang of Three in January, and the rule that makes the "adoption" of the vote-by-mail amendment invalid, is contained in section 6.6.3 of the Society's bylaws:

6.6.3 Any proposed change or amendment which will affect existing Society Band Plans, Standards for Coordination, or have an adverse affect on repeater trustees shall automatically be tabled. The determination to table a motion or bring it to a vote shall be made by the society president. This tabled motion shall not be brought before the membership for a vote until the Vested Membership is polled in writing for agreement or non-agreement and the results of the poll are made known to the membership prior to a vote.

This rule is important because it grants a special right to anyone who holds a coordination from the Society (that's what "Vested Membership" means): the right to be asked what they think of a question that affects them adversely before a vote is taken on the question. This means the voting members get to hear what repeater trustees think and use that to help them reach a decision.

The Gang of Three argues that their amendment proposal does not trample on this right because it grants everyone the right to vote by mail. There are only two things wrong with this argument:

  1. Only dues-paying members get to vote. The current rule asks every coordinated trustee, member or not, for their opinion.
  2. The current rule asks for their opinion before a vote is taken. Their proposal gets their opinion as part of the vote, with no special consideration.

It's obvious to everyone that I've explained this to - except the Gang of Three and their cronies - that removing this rule, as their proposal does, removes a right of that group of people. It's amazing that anyone could claim that they're not adversely affecting them with a straight face, but that's exactly what the Gang of Three has done, in public and in court.

Don't let them fool you into disenfranchising the trustees. Their proposal should be soundly defeated.