TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ggauger wrote: For the past two plus years I have been making efforts to acquire current contact information for the purposes of updating the LSF database. (The ESAP was only one, and not the primary, of many motivations for this.) Gleaning from event registrations, merchandise and raffle ticket sales, personal contact, Toledo Expo, etc. along with the website, a very significant update has been possible. I currently have on my desk the info for the three living members of my local club who have had no direct contact with LSF in about twenty years. They are eligible to vote and I have urged them to use the member update link on this website, and I am watching to see if they do so. If they haven't by the time ballots are to be sent I will offer to do it for them. I urge every member who is interested in this issue, pro or con, to do something similar. I have no hand in the mass email process except for this effort to get as many valid addresses as possible and as an officer I view that goal as an extremely high priority. Please understand that the goal is 100% contact. But even judging by own experience of moving, 911 readdressing, dropping the landline, changing phone companies, multiple bank accounts.......and ...... after ten+ years I still find someone or some institution I have not notified. Notice the "that is my responsibility" part of that fact. Spread the word....

Gil Gauger
LSF Treasurer

Thank you, Gil. Kudos.

Preston

dHarban wrote: Frankly, I think making up the rules as we go along is very wrong. Ignoring our own bylaws may come under the category of "get a life" for some of us. It is not the way to run an organization that expects to remain relevant for any period of time.

Hopefully, the LSF has a significant number of email addresses that it can rely on as being current and accurate. If it does not, it brings into doubt the validity of planning to use email as the sole source of communication in the first place. Using our base of email addresses will reduce the total number of snail mail contacts that will be required. It might be useful for us to be informed as to how many members our leadership is expecting to contact by email. If that number does not represent a significant part of the total membership, it would strongly suggest that additional measures should be undertaken to communicate with the members as required by the bylaws.

Ignoring or overlooking any substantial part of the existing membership is disrespectful to the efforts they made by following the rules to join in the first place. No one expects perfect compliance. But cavalierly tossing off the spirit and letter of the bylaws without making a good faith effort to contact as many members as possible regarding the implementation of THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in the organization's history is simply disrespectful and wrong. And it will seriously undermine the credibility and integrity of the organization and its leaders in the future.

It is clear that those who are seeking approval of this change have a "special" interest in its implementation and perhaps they should consider bearing the cost of additional measures necessary to ensure that it is done in the spirit of the bylaws. While I am not inclined to support the proposal, I will pledge $200 to fund an organized effort to see that it is done right if others who feel strongly about the importance of this will also step up and fully fund that effort.

Happy Landings,

Don

The amendment is contra to the bylaws so even if the vote is compliant the underlying amendment is vulnerable to annulment which means all that postage and effort could be a waste.

Most learned LSF scholars that I know have said all along this kind of change is impossible, I think they are correct. As Don says, this is "THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE" in LSF history, expect scrutiny.

[/quote]
Most learned LSF scholars that I know have said all along this kind of change is impossible, I think they are correct. As Don says, this is "THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE" in LSF history, expect scrutiny.[/quote]

How did DLG get added? Seriously? What was the vote or procedure that was accomplished? I need to know this so I can vote in a similar fashion. I get the drift it was done the same way but with less fanfare.

Curtis Suter wrote:

Most learned LSF scholars that I know have said all along this kind of change is impossible, I think they are correct. As Don says, this is "THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE" in LSF history, expect scrutiny.[/quote]

How did DLG get added? Seriously? What was the vote or procedure that was accomplished? I need to know this so I can vote in a similar fashion. I get the drift it was done the same way but with less fanfare.[/quote]

It's "Hand Launch" not DLG but that was added incorrectly and should be removed, a view that I have shared with LSF board members previously. However hand launching arguably makes the tasks more challenging compared to motor launch which make the tasks less challenging.

tMcCann wrote: The amendment is contra to the bylaws so even if the vote is compliant the underlying amendment is vulnerable to annulment which means all that postage and effort could be a waste.

Most learned LSF scholars that I know have said all along this kind of change is impossible, I think they are correct. As Don says, this is "THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE" in LSF history, expect scrutiny.

Who is gong to annul it? It is not as though the LSF is regulated by some government agency, it is basically a club. Are you and Larry going to go out and hire lawyers and come after LSF on what amounts to nothing more than a club decision? Seriously.

Wayne

"Most learned LSF scholars" ???

Just who are these "scholars"?

Who is gong to annul it? It is not as though the LSF is regulated by some government agency, it is basically a club. Are you and Larry going to go out and hire lawyers and come after LSF on what amounts to nothing more than a club decision? Seriously.

Wayne[/quote]

Larry already has...

Thanks Timm. Exactly the information I was needing to know.

Happy Holidays!
Curtis Suter
Montana

waynen wrote:

tMcCann wrote: The amendment is contra to the bylaws so even if the vote is compliant the underlying amendment is vulnerable to annulment which means all that postage and effort could be a waste.

Most learned LSF scholars that I know have said all along this kind of change is impossible, I think they are correct. As Don says, this is "THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE" in LSF history, expect scrutiny.

Who is gong to annul it? It is not as though the LSF is regulated by some government agency, it is basically a club. Are you and Larry going to go out and hire lawyers and come after LSF on what amounts to nothing more than a club decision? Seriously.

Wayne

A subsequent executive board could simply set it aside and roll back to last valid set of bylaws or it could be by order of a civil court (see Larry's post 462), nobody wants that, certainly not me, but there will never be an "asterisk of diminished achievement" next to my number. However, out of 8200ish members, someone will feel damaged and that vulnerability will be there.
Tim McCann
Level V 2725 no asterisk
"asterisk of diminished achievement" is catchy, I claim copyright :-)

gogilvie wrote: Who is gong to annul it? It is not as though the LSF is regulated by some government agency, it is basically a club. Are you and Larry going to go out and hire lawyers and come after LSF on what amounts to nothing more than a club decision? Seriously.

Wayne

Larry already has...[/quote]

Sorry, Wayne, but no one has hired anyone to do anything about anything. He said he "talked" to his sister to get her opinion. Is anyone really ready to throw money at this? I don't think so. But.... I'm guessing both sides have some deep pockets in their lineups. hahahaha Now let's all take a deep breath, count to ten, and let it out slowly.

Preston