Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby coyote » Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:16 am

Anyone who wants to chime in on the discussion of how we want to deal with disruptive behavior should do it here. There's a group looking into wording but you may want to get your opinion heard here so that the next time it's brought up for a vote it won't have to be tabled again.

I think the group at the last suggestion liked the idea of having something that will allow us to eject members through a club vote, where the party involved has the right to address the club. There was more mentioned that I cannot remember. Jeff Black had a good point I think. Say it hear to make sure it's remembered.
Tyler "Coyote" Provick
http://tyler.provick.ca
coyote
Site Admin
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:02 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby coyote » Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:18 am

Wanted to add a new suggestion in a separate post:

We don't want people voting someone out because they're just going along with the group. I say that there should be a point where the club is gathered for the vote and something should be read. One of the things it should say is to remind people that abstaining is valid, especially if they're really not sure whether the individual did anything worth being expelled for.
Tyler "Coyote" Provick
http://tyler.provick.ca
coyote
Site Admin
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:02 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby TodCreasey » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:09 am

coyote wrote:Wanted to add a new suggestion in a separate post:

We don't want people voting someone out because they're just going along with the group. I say that there should be a point where the club is gathered for the vote and something should be read. One of the things it should say is to remind people that abstaining is valid, especially if they're really not sure whether the individual did anything worth being expelled for.


Kent hit it on the head. The clause is there to prevent is disbanding the club and starting a new one to get rid of a troublesome member. I would just change the wording to include the right to address.

Tod
TodCreasey
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby WuZhuiQiu » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:47 pm

TodCreasey wrote:
coyote wrote:Wanted to add a new suggestion in a separate post:

We don't want people voting someone out because they're just going along with the group. I say that there should be a point where the club is gathered for the vote and something should be read. One of the things it should say is to remind people that abstaining is valid, especially if they're really not sure whether the individual did anything worth being expelled for.


Kent hit it on the head. The clause is there to prevent is disbanding the club and starting a new one to get rid of a troublesome member. I would just change the wording to include the right to address.

Tod


Kent noted an objective or purpose, but the issue was about the criteria, i.e. the means, for which the proposed wording was rather one-dimensional and loosely-drafted.

As for the alternative wording, I thought that we had a sub-committee to look into that...

Regardless, another idea besides the right to address included provision for warnings in some circumstances.

Was anybody taking minutes or are we going to repeat the whole discussion online?
WuZhuiQiu
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:59 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby TodCreasey » Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:44 pm

Minutes were posted to the yahoogroup that evening and a message sent to the group, you must have missed that.

We look forward to you alternate wording Peter.

Tod

WuZhuiQiu wrote:
TodCreasey wrote:
coyote wrote:Wanted to add a new suggestion in a separate post:

We don't want people voting someone out because they're just going along with the group. I say that there should be a point where the club is gathered for the vote and something should be read. One of the things it should say is to remind people that abstaining is valid, especially if they're really not sure whether the individual did anything worth being expelled for.


Kent hit it on the head. The clause is there to prevent is disbanding the club and starting a new one to get rid of a troublesome member. I would just change the wording to include the right to address.

Tod


Kent noted an objective or purpose, but the issue was about the criteria, i.e. the means, for which the proposed wording was rather one-dimensional and loosely-drafted.

As for the alternative wording, I thought that we had a sub-committee to look into that...

Regardless, another idea besides the right to address included provision for warnings in some circumstances.

Was anybody taking minutes or are we going to repeat the whole discussion online?
TodCreasey
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby WuZhuiQiu » Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:27 pm

Thanks, Tod. I see that I got the e-mail notice, but must have missed it when a bunch of other messages arrived. The minutes look good!

Actually, it wouldn't be my alternative wording, but the wording that Vince, Tyler (?), and I are supposed to propose.

As for the minutes, I asked because I was wondering why we seemed to be rehashing what had already been said at the meeting all over again...

Aha! They are decision-type minutes, so none of the points that was raised in the discussion, apart from the one about right of address, was recorded. Repeat away, then!
WuZhuiQiu
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:59 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby TodCreasey » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:07 am

WuZhuiQiu wrote:Thanks, Tod. I see that I got the e-mail notice, but must have missed it when a bunch of other messages arrived. The minutes look good!

Actually, it wouldn't be my alternative wording, but the wording that Vince, Tyler (?), and I are supposed to propose.

As for the minutes, I asked because I was wondering why we seemed to be rehashing what had already been said at the meeting all over again...

Aha! They are decision-type minutes, so none of the points that was raised in the discussion, apart from the one about right of address, was recorded. Repeat away, then!


Yeah don't expect word for word recording of the minutes from me, too much room for inaccuracy (and therefore rejection of the minutes) so I only record motions, results and significant points.

Tod
TodCreasey
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby WuZhuiQiu » Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:54 pm

Hi, Vince and Tyler. Following-up on my e-mail message, what's the next step for this? Do we want to begin by reviewing how other clubs handle such issues in their constitutions and/or by-laws?
WuZhuiQiu
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:59 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby Duncan » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:28 pm

What exactly is the issue we are discussing here? I was late for the meeting that day and missed the AGM.

Duncan
Duncan
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:00 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby WuZhuiQiu » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:36 pm

Hi, Duncan. Below is an extract from the minutes. Unfortunately, some of the key points that were made during the discussion did not get recorded in the minutes, which were written following a sparse motion-vote-decision model.

This is the clause that led to its tabling:

...and any consistent pattern of behaviour that tends to diminish the participation of other members in club
events.


Objections included its vague and one-dimensional nature.

5. Make clear by a revision to s. 9(1) that behaviour that consistently reduces
other members' enjoyment of our events is cause for loss of membership.

proposed language:

9(1) Cause according to subsection 3(3) of the OMG Constitution includes theft
or wilful destruction of Club or another member's property, abusive or
threatening behaviour at club meetings or towards another member at any time,
any activities (e.g. vandalism of meeting areas) detrimental to the good name of
the club, any misrepresentation of the club, and any consistent pattern of
behaviour that tends to diminish the participation of other members in club
events.

Tabled until the April 18 meeting. Vince [redacted], Tyler [redacted] and Peter [redacted] to come up with some alternate wording for that meeting. That wording is to include the right of the person facing loss of membership to address the club prior to a public vote.
WuZhuiQiu
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:59 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron