388
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 270:
Line 270: − − == 5/12/15 meeting == − − Wikis, and text in general, are a miserable way to have a discussion. They foster pedantry and emotion. I'll be at the meeting if anyone gives a shit what I think. Judging by the emails, I think a few people do. Perhaps people posting here will attend so we can have a discussion. I frankly don't understand everything that's going on here and I'm grateful to people who do for explaining some things to me. I'll have to read all the threads here. I am (thankfully) not a member of the Google list, so I'll be happy to learn about positions expressed there that aren't expressed on this page.<br> − To state my understanding and position:<br> − This situation began because people believe (I think without the least possible bit of merit) that the board exceeded its authority to conform PS1 policy to the corporation's legal obligation under the lease and fiduciary obligation to the corporation to ensure coverage for pets and liquor consumption before 2am. These are no-brainers and I have not heard any complaint that this was not a prudent decision. If I'm wrong about that, please point out who took that position! As far as I am aware, the only complaints are that the board acted unilaterally where it purportedly had some obligation to put the issue to the membership.<br> − Indeed, the insurance policy is held by and applies solely to PS1 as a corporation. What cuts to the heart of this notion that members might somehow be bound by ''any'' contract between PS1 and anyone else is that ... the insurance policy doesn't cover any individuals here ... the lease doesn't provide any individuals here with the legal right to occupy 1319 N. Elston. If I'm misunderstanding anyone's position on that, let me know tomorrow.<br> − As a practical matter, I cannot comprehend how prudence does not require that the board of directors of a corporation should not be expected to make certain kinds of decisions on behalf of the corporation. This goes for a shareholder corporation as well as a state law not-for-profit with a voting membership. I question whether anyone here honestly believes there aren't ''some'' things the PS1 board ought to be able to handle by fiat that aren't comfortably set out in the poorly drafted grant of authority in the present bylaws.<br> − What we're talking about here is constraining the authority of the board. That's fine. I don't think it's a problem right now, but some people do. So let's do it right. The bylaws say what they say. The issue here is a disagreement on the scope of authority granted to the board. That goes to a disagreement on what the words in the bylaws say. The way to solve that problem is not by introducing additional provisions, but by redrafting what's already there to say what it needs to say.<br> − I'd ask that no votes be proposed until a rough consensus among the loudmouths can be worked out on the proper course of action. My suggestion is that a vote be proposed to amend the bylaws to define the board's authority exactly as we wish. That would entail engaging counsel, which PS1 can definitely afford, to do this right.
Undo revision 23966 by Jason (talk) Eh. I just want to have a place to work and hang out with my friends at. Don't fuck it up.
:: My intention is that the the language is not meant to binding outside the context of the organization. If it caries that implication, I am going to change the language. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: My intention is that the the language is not meant to binding outside the context of the organization. If it caries that implication, I am going to change the language. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: During the previous meeting with the directors, several member's maintained that writing policies to comply with insurance was required for the health of the organization because members were not under any obligation to comply with with insurance. I don't agree with that idea, and feel that members do need to comply with insurance rules. Because this disagreement affects issues appropriate for a vote of the board of directors, I'd like one interpretation to become the clear interpretation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: During the previous meeting with the directors, several member's maintained that writing policies to comply with insurance was required for the health of the organization because members were not under any obligation to comply with with insurance. I don't agree with that idea, and feel that members do need to comply with insurance rules. Because this disagreement affects issues appropriate for a vote of the board of directors, I'd like one interpretation to become the clear interpretation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)