Draft of my proposed ammendment to the by-laws. Text in italics is to be added. Struck out text is to be removed.

• by_laws.pdf

-- EmiliePhillips - 26 Oct 2004

Draft after O&C meeting:

• by_laws2.pdf

-- EmiliePhillips - 28 Oct 2004

Draft as of 2 Nov

• by_laws3.pdf

-- EmiliePhillips - 02 Nov 2004

Draft as of 9 Nov

• by_laws4.pdf

-- EmiliePhillips - 09 Nov 2004

Comments

• In response to Leslie's comment about decision of the exec, the constitution says "decsions ... shall be subject to approval by the general membership in accordance with procedures in the by-laws." Which I took to mean that a procedure needed to be established in the by-laws.

Leslie's wording changes I will agree with all but Section D on the hearings. I think a decision should be made promptly so that we don't have of the advisory board's decision and enforcement thereof come as a complete surprise to the people involved. -- EmiliePhillips - 02 Nov 2004 22:42:45

• I'm confused about a fundamental aspect of By-Laws Article 2 (forgive me if this was discussed at last week's O/C meeting): Article 3 of the Constitution explicitly states that all decisions of the EC are subject to membership approval, yet Article 2 of the By-Laws explicitly gives the Exec Committee the right to make policy decisions, with no requirement that members approve (and no promise of action if a member or member specifically disapproves, via a complaint).

In Article 4, minor wording changes and or other minutiae: Section A: "within a month of the trip's completion" is more precise and less awkward than "within a month of when the trip occured" Section C: At least half the Exec Board... "including the Chairperson OR ACTING CHAIRPERSON of the relevant activity." Seems important to add that alternative, given that last year that two chairs were absent for significant periods of time. Section D: "A final decision shall be made... FOLLOWING the hearing." "...at the end of the meeting" sounds like the decision will be made and announced then and there, which is not consistent with what the last sentence states (decision announcement at the next general meeting).

Article 5, sec. 2: "Each activity chair may RESTRICT the use of equipment..." is more precisely what we mean. There should also be another sentence added to the effect that criteria for approved users of any restricted equipment will be posted by each activity chair.

-- LeslieAckerman - 02 Nov 2004

• Looks good. I can see both Jeff's and Emilie's arguments above and don't (yet) feel very strongly either way. Perhaps on balance I would side with Jeff in that simplicity is best unless there is a real need to make things more complex. Probably worthy of some debate at the meeting.

-- SimeonWarner - 02 Nov 2004

• The way Article 4, Section B is currently written, the Advisory Board could implement it as always defaulting to a hearing, thus giving the implmentation Jeff would prefer. I think it is useful to have the dismissal clause to allow the Advisory Board a little more leaway should the club encounter more complaints in the future.

-- EmiliePhillips - 01 Nov 2004

• Article 4, Section B: I'd strike the whole part about a preliminary judgement. There is no mechanism for doing this in a week (other than email). We get so few safety complaints that it seems reasonable to hold a hearing for all of them and not dismiss any out of hand.

Article 4, Section C: "complaint-ant" should not be hyphenated.

-- JeffDeutsch - 31 Oct 2004