Forum Replies Created
Per Article V (Board of Directors) “Board Appointed Positions” are enumerated in section 2 (and defined in a later section), and declared voting members of the Board of Directors in Section 1. Is it still the desired intent that all “Board Appointed Positions” carry a vote at BoD business meetings?
As the current appointed dealership liason for Co’s BMW in Loveland, should I be attending the business meetings?
Article VIII Section I — Business Meetings
I don’t recall seeing the business meetings time and place being published in our current newsletter. With the newsletter being quarterly instead of monthly, this requires multiple meeting dates to be published at a time. I recommend changing this item to require that business meeting announcements are sent to members via club email (constant contact) or the club website, which can be done (and corrected) as needed, as opposed to tying it to newsletter publication.
Article V, Section 3. Item 6: wording: “The Board of Directors may direct an audit (of) the Chapter’s finances” (sic)
This is wrong in the 2008 version as well.
I disagree with Article V, Section 2 – Board Appointed Positions in that is calls out a fixed list of appointed positions that may or may not be needed in the future. The current 2008 wording gives the EC the flexibility to add/remove roles as they are needed. Such rigid lists require a Bylaw change and vote any time you want that kind of change — and is explicitly why the 2008 wording was left without such a fixed list.
Changing those in appointed positions has been a long challenge for the chapter however, with most of the roles really being “life positions” — and voting positions at that, which brings good and bad.
I think it important that these important voting positions are evaluated annually by the EC to ensure the role and those filling them are in the best interests of the Chapter and its membership, and not continued just out of momentum. Long service to the Chapter and the perspective it brings is a valuable asset. It’s also an effective means to lock out new perspective and volunteers. Ensure that this section of the bylaws gives EC the latitude and motivation to find the right balance.
Article V – Board of Directors, fourth paragraph regarding voting. This section was changed in 2008 as a reaction to a vote regarding RMC BMW CCA’s participation in the CAMA HPR project — specifically, dealing with EC or board members that weren’t present at the vote. “Present” has been added back to the 2015 bylaws update, reverting back to the pre-2008 wording.
I bring this up, because this was a huge point of contention for some on the Board of Directors that disagreed with how the CAMA/HPR vote went. To be clear, I AGREE with the change that votes should be counted by those present at the meeting, and not proxied or challenged after the vote.
Treasurer deleted items (j) through (n) — are these actions no longer required, or are they being handled by a different role? Invoices for our newsletter advertisers seems like an important activity to continue.
Treasurer item (f):
1) Aren’t IRS tax forms due April 15th, not May 15th?
2) Wording: “… for filing with the IRS on or before May 15th of each following calendar year” (sic)
3) “Such forms” — which forms? All the forms filed with the IRS?
The modification to the treasurer roles, item (c), is a good one requiring a second signature, but the amended bylaws refers to the co-signer being “any other members of the elected committee”. That should read “the Executive Committee”; there is no “elected committee” defined in the bylaws.
Section 2, item (c) is duplicated (editing error)
The first change I see is Article IV (Officers and Duties) regarding term limits, with the change being that for an elected officer who has reached their term limit, “the board” can approve for that officer to continue their term. Questions:
1) Who is “the board” ? Is this the “Board of Directors” defined in Article V?
2) What is the limit on the number of times “the board” can approve to extend the term? I think there should be a definite limit to this, as the spirit of term limits includes working to ensure new voices are brought into those roles. It shouldn’t be open-ended, and I suggest a limit of 1 term extension.
What is a summary of the difference between the two documents?
Thanks for pulling this together Arnie — looking forward to the training tomorrow night!