Born Free Leap'n Lions RV Club Info & Discussion Forum

This forum is for Born Free Owners and those interested in owning a Born Free.
It is currently Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:06 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Article 7
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 36
Location: Shawnee, OK
The committee debated this section extensively. The reason that an attempt was made to address the issue was that the existing bylaws has no provision for dealing with disciplinary matters. In reviewing other club bylaws we found that their bylaws covered these matters. In case needed, the Executive Board has at least the proposed Article 7 to refer to. I will be the first to admit that at this stage of my life I do not want to deal with disciplinary issues of a bunch of grandmas and grandpas like Mary and I. But, if I were an officer of the club and needed some guidance I would be appreciative of Article 7. I personally can't understand why this is such an issue to a few folks, however, I do appreciate the expression of concerns.

_________________
Bill Lyon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 5
Location: Pagosa Springs, CO
I think it is only fair to point out that if we pass the proposed bylaws that restrict our officers or members that work in the RV related business from hosting rallies, and allow Policy Statement 6 to remain in force, that we will doing harm to one of our fellow Leap’n Lions couples. They currently have a RV related business that they have worked very hard to make successful and one of them is an officer in the Leap’n Lions RV Club. They have provided numerous rallies to, in my estimate, over 75 member couples of our club. We have attended three of their rallies over four years. We would not have continued to go if we did not feel we got value from their services.
We other Leap’n Lions members will be forcing them to not offer their services to our Club or give up the representation of over 76 club member couples in their region. I for one do not think this is either fair or necessary. I do not know why we even care. One of the purposes of the club is to encourage rallies and these restrictions and new disciplinary actions will make it even harder to find rally hosts or Club officers.
We are loosing the spirit of comradely and friendship in our club. Is that what WE want?
Fortunately we will be one of the lucky couples that will be attending the National Rally and you can be sure we will be casting our vote against passing of these unnecessary changes.

Jack and Katy Maxcy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 617
Location: North Scituate, RI
I would ask everyone to carefully read the proposed bylaws. They do not restrict regular members that work in a RV related business from hosting a rally. Connie and I have been to many of the rallies hosted by the couples referred to in the above post and each and every one of them has been super. I would like them to host as many rallies per year as their time allows.

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and thankfully we live in a country where we can express them but we need the correct facts to base them on.

_________________
Mel & Connie


Last edited by Mel Wilbur on Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Bylaw Changes
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:03 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Retired
It seems very clear to me that it would be in the best interests of all club members that a vote on the proposed New Bylaws be postponed until a process is developed for each and every club member to cast a ballot supporting or not supporting these changes. In this age of electronic media and social networking, it is difficult to comprehend a process that excludes the majority of club members from participating in the future direction of their club. There is nothing in the proposed bylaws that cannot be placed on the back burner until the more important issue of how each member can fully participate in such matters.
I am willing to work with any club member who is interested in studying and recommending a procedure to ensure that each club member has the opportunity to express their opinion in the form of a vote on such important issues as bylaw changes or other issues that may surface in years to come.
Bob Markarian
Former Secretary/Treasurer
Born Free Leap'n Lions RV Club


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 1:38 pm
Posts: 591
Location: Monroe, NJ
Mel;

I carefully read the proposed bylaws, and under the Regional VP section, it says "An appointed rally host must meet the same eligibility requirements as a Vice President."

A Regional VP must reside in the region they represent. Therefore, a rally host can only host a rally in the region they live in. Correct?

If that is correct, that puts too much restrictions on someone willing to run rallies in different parts of the Country.

John

_________________
John and Maureen O'Brien
and our 2 German Shepherds
2006 RSB - sold
2008 Jeep Wrangler X


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:58 am
Posts: 65
Location: Whitefield Maine
Mel, I have reread the proposed bylaws and reread your post.
It states under Article 5, Club Administration that:
Officers – Any member in good standing, other than a member who is employed by or holds a management
interest in an RV related association or company, is eligible for election as an Officer.
This seems clear to me that you cannot be an officer based on occupation. Do I misunderstand this? It a very big deal to Born Free owners in the Northeast and I think the rationale as to why this proposed change was deemed necessary would be helpful.
Thanks.
Jennifer

_________________
2004 RSB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 36
Location: Shawnee, OK
I am sorry folks, I don't understand wanting to postpone a vote on the proposed Bylaws. Refer to existing Bylaws Article 8 - Amendment of the Bylaws which state, "These Bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the members present and voting at a duly-called meeting, provided that a prior notice of at least thirty days has been given of the proposition(s) to amend. By the way, this procedure has been in effect for many years, possibly since the original Bylaws.

All of the requirements for a vote have been met. The meeting is scheduled, proper notice has been given. It is time to vote!!!

Now if you want the proposed Article 9 of the Bylaws to be modified requiring full membership vote, state your opinion and lets work on that possibility.

It is time to move on!

_________________
Bill Lyon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 617
Location: North Scituate, RI
Jennifer, my mistake for not properly proofreading my posting. You will note I have corrected it to refer just to regular members being able to host a rally in the conditions stated. Based on my own research I do believe that the clause in Article 5 pertaining to officers is normally found in the bylaws of most businesses and organizations such as ours.

_________________
Mel & Connie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 617
Location: North Scituate, RI
I carefully read the proposed bylaws, and under the Regional VP section, it says "An appointed rally host must meet the same eligibility requirements as a Vice President."

A Regional VP must reside in the region they represent. Therefore, a rally host can only host a rally in the region they live in. Correct?

If that is correct, that puts too much restrictions on someone willing to run rallies in different parts of the Country.

John, I don't think it was the intent that an appointed host be required to live in the VP's region, only a member in good standing as stated in Article 5-officers (re: eligibility}. Removing that sentence can be addressed at the meeting

_________________
Mel & Connie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:41 pm 
IMHO and in this age of computers influencing every part of our lives, I think a 'vote' on issues governing our club should be based on the entire membership voting. It is not possible for many of us to attend the meeting, so why should our opinion (vote) be less important than those that can attend...?? Many of us own stock & when there's a meeting being held for elections (usually in some state on the other side of the U.S., for me anyway) or whatever, we can vote 'by proxy'...whether by mail or on the internet. So why should our club members not be allowed to do the same......

I understand that everyone doesn't have an e-mail address so a mailing could be done for them...and yes...it will take some organizing & volunteers to put this idea in place....but if rules are made to be followed by the membership, then ALL the members should have a vote...

My other point is...yes, this club has been around for quite a while, and the internet wasn't the communication device then as it is now, so the club wasn't set up with the internet in mind. However, it's time we moved into this new mode of technology....after all, we use this website to share our BF experiences, opinions, etc. & club info.....

I think once the task of setting up a 'How to Vote' program is in place, it will be an easy method to maintain.

Sorry if some of you don't agree, but I think this is the route we ought to take & am willing to volunteer my time to help it along....It is only fair and reasonable that every member should be included in voting....


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:51 pm
Posts: 295
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Hi Shar -- Since I didn't get the Newsletter it is hard for me to know what everyone is talking about -- but I agree that any major vote on Club matters should be by ALL of the Club members --


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:46 pm
Posts: 271
Location: Grand Junction, CO
Blyon wrote:
I am sorry folks, I don't understand wanting to postpone a vote on the proposed Bylaws. Refer to existing Bylaws Article 8 - Amendment of the Bylaws which state, "These Bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the members present and voting at a duly-called meeting, provided that a prior notice of at least thirty days has been given of the proposition(s) to amend. By the way, this procedure has been in effect for many years, possibly since the original Bylaws.

All of the requirements for a vote have been met. The meeting is scheduled, proper notice has been given. It is time to vote!!!

Now if you want the proposed Article 9 of the Bylaws to be modified requiring full membership vote, state your opinion and lets work on that possibility.

It is time to move on!



Bill

Vox popolu, vox Dei

MoveOn sounds very political, bureaucratic and somehow dictatorial. I am sure you want a good, healthy and happy club members. So postponing the vote and letting everybody to participate is more democratic and friendlier process. Or you could not care less?

_________________
Oliver P Smile
2005 26ft RSB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 36
Location: Shawnee, OK
The Club is operating under existing Bylaws. Please read Article 8, Amendment of Bylaws in the existing Bylaws. We are all bound by the terms which were established years ago. We can amend the terms in the proposed Bylaws, Article 9, to require voting to be by the entire membership. The Committee and I would think the Officers of the Club would all be in agreement to do so. Would this be acceptable to everyone?

_________________
Bill Lyon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:58 am
Posts: 428
Location: South Salem, NY
Bill Lyon,

In the existing by-laws, how about Article 6, item 1: Authority: This Club shall be democratically self- governed, deriving its existence and authority from the consent of its membership assembled in meeting or, in certain circumstances, by mail or email or telephonic vote on stated propositions.

and Article 6, item 3F: Balloting by electronic, telephonic, or any other means may be undertaken when a proposed matter is voted to be of such importance or urgency that a total membership vote is advisable.

It seems that many members think this matter is of such importance that a total membership vote is advisable, and the circumstances just might warrant voting by mail or e-mail.

Joe

_________________
Joe and Lucinda
Tonto, Meadow and Shadow, the papillons
Shiloh and Morpho at Rainbow Bridge
2017 Spirit
Formerly 2006 24RB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 617
Location: North Scituate, RI
Joe,

It would appear we have a conundrum which according to my dictionary is "a confusing and difficult problem or question".

On one hand we have in our current bylaws Article 6, item 1 and Article 6, item 3F stating in certain circumstances, by mail or email or telephonic vote on stated propositions or by any other means when a proposed matter is voted to be of such importance or urgency that a total membership vote is advisable.

On the other hand we have Article 8 which states the bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the members present and voting at a duly-called meeting, provided that a prior notice of at least thirty days has been given of the propositions(s) to amend. Which hand to choose is without a doubt, a conundrum.

The proposed Article 9 does in fact remove the possibility that 14 votes could pass an amendment (ref: Article 6 3A in current bylaws). As conditions change amendments will always be needed and when a system is constructed for electronic/us mail ballots that should be the path to take. It is with that thought my belief is that with a few minor changes as mentioned by Bill Lyon the proposed bylaws are a step in the right direction.

I agree that this is most certainly an important issue that needs addressing, yet the responses to Johns original post at this time represents just 2.3% of our membership. This could be taken that 97.7% do not feel the matter is of such importance or urgency.

_________________
Mel & Connie


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group