Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby TodCreasey » Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:18 am

Peter why don't you let me know what you think is missing and I can update the minutes accordingly so that people can know what you are talking about.

I'm not sure how you do it in other organizations you are involved with but Cangames posts minutes so as to give an opportunity for those attending to comment on them, they are then submitted for approval by the members at the next meeting so no minutes are official until voted on. I think this is pretty standard so I am happy to update if I hear from you as to what you think should have been recorded.

Tod


WuZhuiQiu wrote: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.
TodCreasey
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby WuZhuiQiu » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:19 pm

Hi, Tod. Sure, I could do that, but there's no need to change the OMG's minute-taking style to suit me. That being said, and with hindsight, perhaps a bit more detail about why an issue is tabled could be worth recording. Anyway, I'll pass along what else I can remember, although I think that most of the key points have been posted here in this thread. Maybe, I'll just summarize them in an edited version of this post.

Yes, minutes are usually posted for comments and subject to approval, although I have rarely seen changes made in practice.

Cheers,


Peter

TodCreasey wrote:Peter why don't you let me know what you think is missing and I can update the minutes accordingly so that people can know what you are talking about.

I'm not sure how you do it in other organizations you are involved with but Cangames posts minutes so as to give an opportunity for those attending to comment on them, they are then submitted for approval by the members at the next meeting so no minutes are official until voted on. I think this is pretty standard so I am happy to update if I hear from you as to what you think should have been recorded.

Tod
WuZhuiQiu
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:59 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby TodCreasey » Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:19 am

Anything you think needs to be referred back to should be recorded and I wasn't planning to change how I did minutes so not to worry. Cangames amends quite frequently although admittedly for minor details most of the time but it is best that we don't rely on memories.

Tod


WuZhuiQiu wrote:Hi, Tod. Sure, I could do that, but there's no need to change the OMG's minute-taking style to suit me. That being said, and with hindsight, perhaps a bit more detail about why an issue is tabled could be worth recording. Anyway, I'll pass along what else I can remember, although I think that most of the key points have been posted here in this thread. Maybe, I'll just summarize them in an edited version of this post.

Yes, minutes are usually posted for comments and subject to approval, although I have rarely seen changes made in practice.

Cheers,


Peter

TodCreasey wrote:Peter why don't you let me know what you think is missing and I can update the minutes accordingly so that people can know what you are talking about.

I'm not sure how you do it in other organizations you are involved with but Cangames posts minutes so as to give an opportunity for those attending to comment on them, they are then submitted for approval by the members at the next meeting so no minutes are official until voted on. I think this is pretty standard so I am happy to update if I hear from you as to what you think should have been recorded.

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

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby WuZhuiQiu » Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:10 pm

Coyote: Do you have any comments on the draft changes that we were e-mailing back and forth? The meeting to discuss them is going to be this Sunday, April 18th...
WuZhuiQiu
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:59 pm

Re: Bylaw Discussion - Disruptive behavior

Postby coyote » Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:14 pm

I've looked at them, but not in enough detail to render much feedback. Will have more time tonight, Sens aren't playing.
Tyler "Coyote" Provick
http://tyler.provick.ca
coyote
Site Admin
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:02 pm

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron