[DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
fastgrandma
fastgrandma at aol.com
Sun Mar 8 17:19:28 EDT 2015
You better check with your postman; perhaps he's doing some reading!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Detrich <jjdetrich at gmail.com>
To: fastgrandma <fastgrandma at aol.com>
Cc: bill <bill at incendium.com>; ccampman <ccampman at cox.net>; detomaso <detomaso at poca.com>; sdpanteras <sdpanteras at googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
We still haven't gotten ours here in Texas!
Jeff
6559
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:37 PM, fastgrandma via DeTomaso <detomaso at poca.com> wrote:
Yep, our ballot was mailed out right away!'
Judy
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Moore <bill at incendium.com>
To: fastgrandma <fastgrandma at aol.com>; ccampman <ccampman at cox.net>;
detomaso <detomaso at poca.com>; sdpanteras <sdpanteras at googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
Thanks Judy, have "you" mailed your ballot yet.
I'm not saying how to vote, I'm saying "vote" !
If you don't vote you will not be able to bitch.
Cheers,
Bill Moore
Incendium Supply
Calgary
-------- Original message --------
From: fastgrandma via DeTomaso
Date:2015-03-08 2:09 PM (GMT-07:00)
To:
[1] ccampman at cox.net,[2] detomaso at poca.com,[3] sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
Craig,
Just to clarify. While the POCA Board has for many years been
attempting to update the Bylaws it finally came to a head after the
last election. To hopefully not have that happen again the Board has
been working hard on making the critical change to allow electronic
voting after the last very offensive election and while doing that it
was realized the wording on the 'majority of POCA members' would never,
ever happen so therefore the change was needed say to majority of
'votes cast'.
As you are a relative newbie to POCA (we're coming up fast on our 35th
year), you have to realize as has been mentioned more than once that in
a normal election there are just not that many members voting. This was
proven especially the year that in hopes of a better turn-out, a
pre-stamped and addressed envelope was included with the ballot. Even
then the number of votes cast was abysmal which just proved that too
many members figured their vote wasn't needed.
That is basically the reason the membership needs to vote YES on this
amendment, plain and simple.
Judy
Past VP and long-time owner/member of POCA
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Campman <[4] ccampman at cox.net>
To: detomaso <[5] detomaso at poca.com>; San Diego Panteras
<[6] sdpanteras at googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 12:28 pm
Subject: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
All,
Since I have not yet read the exact wording being proposed for the new
Bylaw Amendment for Article X, I am basing my comments below on what I
have read
on this forum regarding the proposed Amendment. I have copied Larry
Finchas
recent message below, as it seems to discuss the proposed Amendment in
detail.
I appreciate the debate on the new Bylaws Amendment but seem to feel
the most important issue (to me at least) is either not discussed or
glossed
over in most debate I have read. This issue I am concerned about is the
combination of allowing a majority of avotes casta to decide passage of
an
amendment, along with the definition of only "25 votes to declare an
election
valid". To me, this amendment in its current wording smacks of the same
BS that
most of our current government lawmakers try to do by having a great
change
(electronic voting) at the top of the agenda, in effect hiding fine
print that
in the long run puts power to make future changes into the hands of a
select few
(the constant 25 voters).
Considering that to change the Bylaws at the
current time requires five-hundred-plus (500+) votes, out of maybe
eight-hundred-plus (800+) members, it seems absurd to modify the system
to only
require twenty-five (25) votes to change the Bylaws in the future.
I am not
entirely against defining a number of votes to have a valid election,
but at
least make it a reasonably sized number backed up by statistics on the
number of
votes typically received in past elections. If past elections have only
received
25 votes, then we have a bigger problem that will not be solved with a
new
amendment.
In the end I urge all of you to vote NO on the new Bylaw Amendment
in its current wording. If the Board and Membership wants to initiate
electronic
voting, then it should be done by proposing a single Amendment that
changes the
one issue. Additional issues worthy of change to the Bylaws (such as
number of
votes for validity, simple majority of votes cast, etc) should be
proposed in
similar single issue fashion, and not buried in a comprehensive package
that
forces us to accept the changes "all or nothing".
My
2-cents!
Regards,
Craig Campman
Red #5303
On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:00 AM,
[7]detomaso-request at poca.com wrote:
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
Message: 21
> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:10:46 -0800
> From: Larry Finch
<[8] fresnofinches at aol.com>
> To: [9] detomaso at poca.com
> Subject: [DeTomaso] Article
X amendment - my opinion
> Message-ID:
<[10] 49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
>
> All,
>
> I would like to offer some insight as to why I
believe the proposed changes to Article X of the POCA By-Laws should
meet with
the approval of all POCA members desiring to help our club move into
the
21st-century.
>
> While retaining the paper ballot for those who prefer or
need it, the amendment will allow for electronic, internet-based
voting. While
email voting is illegal in California and quite subject to hacking,
there are
acceptable online voting services available for POCA to utilize.
>
> The
amendment also provides a method for members to propose By-Laws
amendments, a
process that previously only the Board of Directors could initiate.
>
> It
further clarifies voting tabulation will be conducted on the basis of
the votes
received, and specifies at least 25 votes must be submitted in order
for an
election to be valid.
>
> If passed, this Article X amendment will thus set
the stage for greater membership participation in future POCA business,
while
all upcoming elections, such as those we can expect to see later this
year as
our Board of Directors continues to update and revise the rest of the
POCA
By-Laws, will not become snail-mail disasters.
>
> Please realize that with
the passage of this Article X amendment, this election will be the very
last
POCA election that requires the exclusive use of mailed, paper ballots.
>
>
That improvement alone should make passage of this amendment a slam
dunk worthy
of every member?s affirmative vote.
>
> Should you have any troubling
concerns with some other aspect of this Article X amendment, I would
urge you to
put such concerns aside for the time being.
>
> Let?s first pass this
amendment and permanently retire the troublesome, inefficient
snail-mail
election process.
>
> Then, if you are still troubled by some portion of this
amendment, once it is passed you can gather the necessary fellow
members and
submit your own By-Laws amendment proposal to correct anything you feel
is in
need of correcting.
>
> Please join with me in voting YES on the proposed
amendment to Article X.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Detomaso
Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso
mailing
list
[11] DeTomaso at poca.com
[12] http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
To
manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.) use
the links
above.
Craig,
Just to clarify. While the POCA Board has for many years been
attempting to update the Bylaws it finally came to a head after the
last election. To hopefully not have that happen again the Board has
been working hard on making the critical change to allow electronic
voting after the last very offensive election and while doing that
it
was realized the wording on the 'majority of POCA members' would
never,
ever happen so therefore the change was needed say to majority of
'votes cast'.
As you are a relative newbie to POCA (we're coming up fast on our
35th
year), you have to realize as has been mentioned more than once that
in
a normal election there are just not that many members voting. This
was
proven especially the year that in hopes of a better turn-out, a
pre-stamped and addressed envelope was included with the ballot.
Even
then the number of votes cast was abysmal which just proved that too
many members figured their vote wasn't needed.
That is basically the reason the membership needs to vote YES on
this
amendment, plain and simple.
Judy
Past VP and long-time owner/member of POCA
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Campman <[13] ccampman at cox.net>
To: detomaso <[14] detomaso at poca.com>; San Diego Panteras
<[15] sdpanteras at googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 12:28 pm
Subject: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
All,
Since I have not yet read the exact wording being proposed for the new
Bylaw Amendment for Article X, I am basing my comments below on what I
have read
on this forum regarding the proposed Amendment. I have copied Larry
Finchas
recent message below, as it seems to discuss the proposed Amendment in
detail.
I appreciate the debate on the new Bylaws Amendment but seem to feel
the most important issue (to me at least) is either not discussed or
glossed
over in most debate I have read. This issue I am concerned about is the
combination of allowing a majority of avotes casta to decide passage of
an
amendment, along with the definition of only "25 votes to declare an
election
valid". To me, this amendment in its current wording smacks of the same
BS that
most of our current government lawmakers try to do by having a great
change
(electronic voting) at the top of the agenda, in effect hiding fine
print that
in the long run puts power to make future changes into the hands of a
select few
(the constant 25 voters).
Considering that to change the Bylaws at the
current time requires five-hundred-plus (500+) votes, out of maybe
eight-hundred-plus (800+) members, it seems absurd to modify the system
to only
require twenty-five (25) votes to change the Bylaws in the future.
I am not
entirely against defining a number of votes to have a valid election,
but at
least make it a reasonably sized number backed up by statistics on the
number of
votes typically received in past elections. If past elections have only
received
25 votes, then we have a bigger problem that will not be solved with a
new
amendment.
In the end I urge all of you to vote NO on the new Bylaw Amendment
in its current wording. If the Board and Membership wants to initiate
electronic
voting, then it should be done by proposing a single Amendment that
changes the
one issue. Additional issues worthy of change to the Bylaws (such as
number of
votes for validity, simple majority of votes cast, etc) should be
proposed in
similar single issue fashion, and not buried in a comprehensive package
that
forces us to accept the changes "all or nothing".
My
2-cents!
Regards,
Craig Campman
Red #5303
On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:00 AM,
[16]detomaso-request at poca.com wrote:
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
Message: 21
> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:10:46 -0800
> From: Larry Finch
<[17] fresnofinches at aol.com>
> To: [18] detomaso at poca.com
> Subject: [DeTomaso] Article
X amendment - my opinion
> Message-ID:
<[19] 49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
>
> All,
>
> I would like to offer some insight as to why I
believe the proposed changes to Article X of the POCA By-Laws should
meet with
the approval of all POCA members desiring to help our club move into
the
21st-century.
>
> While retaining the paper ballot for those who prefer or
need it, the amendment will allow for electronic, internet-based
voting. While
email voting is illegal in California and quite subject to hacking,
there are
acceptable online voting services available for POCA to utilize.
>
> The
amendment also provides a method for members to propose By-Laws
amendments, a
process that previously only the Board of Directors could initiate.
>
> It
further clarifies voting tabulation will be conducted on the basis of
the votes
received, and specifies at least 25 votes must be submitted in order
for an
election to be valid.
>
> If passed, this Article X amendment will thus set
the stage for greater membership participation in future POCA business,
while
all upcoming elections, such as those we can expect to see later this
year as
our Board of Directors continues to update and revise the rest of the
POCA
By-Laws, will not become snail-mail disasters.
>
> Please realize that with
the passage of this Article X amendment, this election will be the very
last
POCA election that requires the exclusive use of mailed, paper ballots.
>
>
That improvement alone should make passage of this amendment a slam
dunk worthy
of every member?s affirmative vote.
>
> Should you have any troubling
concerns with some other aspect of this Article X amendment, I would
urge you to
put such concerns aside for the time being.
>
> Let?s first pass this
amendment and permanently retire the troublesome, inefficient
snail-mail
election process.
>
> Then, if you are still troubled by some portion of this
amendment, once it is passed you can gather the necessary fellow
members and
submit your own By-Laws amendment proposal to correct anything you feel
is in
need of correcting.
>
> Please join with me in voting YES on the proposed
amendment to Article X.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Detomaso
Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso
mailing
list
[20] DeTomaso at poca.com
[21] http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
To
manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.) use
the links
above.
_______________________________________________
Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso mailing list
[22] DeTomaso at poca.com
[23] http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.)
use the links above.
References
1. mailto: ccampman at cox.net
2. mailto: detomaso at poca.com
3. mailto: sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
4. mailto: ccampman at cox.net
5. mailto: detomaso at poca.com
6. mailto: sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
7. mailto: detomaso-request at poca.com
8. mailto: fresnofinches at aol.com
9. mailto: detomaso at poca.com
10. mailto: 49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com
11. mailto: DeTomaso at poca.com
12. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
13. mailto: ccampman at cox.net
14. mailto: detomaso at poca.com
15. mailto: sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
16. mailto: detomaso-request at poca.com
17. mailto: fresnofinches at aol.com
18. mailto: detomaso at poca.com
19. mailto: 49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com
20. mailto: DeTomaso at poca.com
21. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
22. mailto: DeTomaso at poca.com
23. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
_______________________________________________
Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at poca.com
http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.) use the links above.
-------------- next part --------------
You better check with your postman; perhaps he's doing some reading!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Detrich <jjdetrich at gmail.com>
To: fastgrandma <fastgrandma at aol.com>
Cc: bill <bill at incendium.com>; ccampman <ccampman at cox.net>; detomaso
<detomaso at poca.com>; sdpanteras <sdpanteras at googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
We still haven't gotten ours here in Texas!
Jeff
6559
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:37 PM, fastgrandma via DeTomaso
<[1]detomaso at poca.com> wrote:
Yep, our ballot was mailed out right away!'
Judy
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Moore <[2]bill at incendium.com>
To: fastgrandma <[3]fastgrandma at aol.com>; ccampman
<[4]ccampman at cox.net>;
detomaso <[5]detomaso at poca.com>; sdpanteras
<[6]sdpanteras at googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
Thanks Judy, have "you" mailed your ballot yet.
I'm not saying how to vote, I'm saying "vote" !
If you don't vote you will not be able to bitch.
Cheers,
Bill Moore
Incendium Supply
Calgary
-------- Original message --------
From: fastgrandma via DeTomaso
Date:2015-03-08 2:09 PM (GMT-07:00)
To:
[1] [7]ccampman at cox.net,[2] [8]detomaso at poca.com,[3]
[9]sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
Craig,
Just to clarify. While the POCA Board has for many years been
attempting to update the Bylaws it finally came to a head after the
last election. To hopefully not have that happen again the Board has
been working hard on making the critical change to allow electronic
voting after the last very offensive election and while doing that
it
was realized the wording on the 'majority of POCA members' would
never,
ever happen so therefore the change was needed say to majority of
'votes cast'.
As you are a relative newbie to POCA (we're coming up fast on our
35th
year), you have to realize as has been mentioned more than once that
in
a normal election there are just not that many members voting. This
was
proven especially the year that in hopes of a better turn-out, a
pre-stamped and addressed envelope was included with the ballot.
Even
then the number of votes cast was abysmal which just proved that too
many members figured their vote wasn't needed.
That is basically the reason the membership needs to vote YES on
this
amendment, plain and simple.
Judy
Past VP and long-time owner/member of POCA
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Campman <[4] [10]ccampman at cox.net>
To: detomaso <[5] [11]detomaso at poca.com>; San Diego Panteras
<[6] [12]sdpanteras at googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 12:28 pm
Subject: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
All,
Since I have not yet read the exact wording being proposed for the
new
Bylaw Amendment for Article X, I am basing my comments below on what
I
have read
on this forum regarding the proposed Amendment. I have copied Larry
Finchas
recent message below, as it seems to discuss the proposed Amendment
in
detail.
I appreciate the debate on the new Bylaws Amendment but seem to feel
the most important issue (to me at least) is either not discussed or
glossed
over in most debate I have read. This issue I am concerned about is
the
combination of allowing a majority of avotes casta to decide passage
of
an
amendment, along with the definition of only "25 votes to declare an
election
valid". To me, this amendment in its current wording smacks of the
same
BS that
most of our current government lawmakers try to do by having a great
change
(electronic voting) at the top of the agenda, in effect hiding fine
print that
in the long run puts power to make future changes into the hands of
a
select few
(the constant 25 voters).
Considering that to change the Bylaws at the
current time requires five-hundred-plus (500+) votes, out of maybe
eight-hundred-plus (800+) members, it seems absurd to modify the
system
to only
require twenty-five (25) votes to change the Bylaws in the future.
I am not
entirely against defining a number of votes to have a valid
election,
but at
least make it a reasonably sized number backed up by statistics on
the
number of
votes typically received in past elections. If past elections have
only
received
25 votes, then we have a bigger problem that will not be solved with
a
new
amendment.
In the end I urge all of you to vote NO on the new Bylaw Amendment
in its current wording. If the Board and Membership wants to
initiate
electronic
voting, then it should be done by proposing a single Amendment that
changes the
one issue. Additional issues worthy of change to the Bylaws (such as
number of
votes for validity, simple majority of votes cast, etc) should be
proposed in
similar single issue fashion, and not buried in a comprehensive
package
that
forces us to accept the changes "all or nothing".
My
2-cents!
Regards,
Craig Campman
Red #5303
On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:00 AM,
[7][13]detomaso-request at poca.com wrote:
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
Message: 21
> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:10:46 -0800
> From: Larry Finch
<[8] [14]fresnofinches at aol.com>
> To: [9] [15]detomaso at poca.com
> Subject: [DeTomaso] Article
X amendment - my opinion
> Message-ID:
<[10] [16]49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
>
> All,
>
> I would like to offer some insight as to why I
believe the proposed changes to Article X of the POCA By-Laws should
meet with
the approval of all POCA members desiring to help our club move into
the
21st-century.
>
> While retaining the paper ballot for those who prefer or
need it, the amendment will allow for electronic, internet-based
voting. While
email voting is illegal in California and quite subject to hacking,
there are
acceptable online voting services available for POCA to utilize.
>
> The
amendment also provides a method for members to propose By-Laws
amendments, a
process that previously only the Board of Directors could initiate.
>
> It
further clarifies voting tabulation will be conducted on the basis
of
the votes
received, and specifies at least 25 votes must be submitted in order
for an
election to be valid.
>
> If passed, this Article X amendment will thus set
the stage for greater membership participation in future POCA
business,
while
all upcoming elections, such as those we can expect to see later
this
year as
our Board of Directors continues to update and revise the rest of
the
POCA
By-Laws, will not become snail-mail disasters.
>
> Please realize that with
the passage of this Article X amendment, this election will be the
very
last
POCA election that requires the exclusive use of mailed, paper
ballots.
>
>
That improvement alone should make passage of this amendment a slam
dunk worthy
of every member?s affirmative vote.
>
> Should you have any troubling
concerns with some other aspect of this Article X amendment, I would
urge you to
put such concerns aside for the time being.
>
> Let?s first pass this
amendment and permanently retire the troublesome, inefficient
snail-mail
election process.
>
> Then, if you are still troubled by some portion of this
amendment, once it is passed you can gather the necessary fellow
members and
submit your own By-Laws amendment proposal to correct anything you
feel
is in
need of correcting.
>
> Please join with me in voting YES on the proposed
amendment to Article X.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Detomaso
Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso
mailing
list
[11] [17]DeTomaso at poca.com
[12] [18]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
To
manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.)
use
the links
above.
Craig,
Just to clarify. While the POCA Board has for many years been
attempting to update the Bylaws it finally came to a head after
the
last election. To hopefully not have that happen again the Board
has
been working hard on making the critical change to allow
electronic
voting after the last very offensive election and while doing
that
it
was realized the wording on the 'majority of POCA members' would
never,
ever happen so therefore the change was needed say to majority of
'votes cast'.
As you are a relative newbie to POCA (we're coming up fast on our
35th
year), you have to realize as has been mentioned more than once
that
in
a normal election there are just not that many members voting.
This
was
proven especially the year that in hopes of a better turn-out, a
pre-stamped and addressed envelope was included with the ballot.
Even
then the number of votes cast was abysmal which just proved that
too
many members figured their vote wasn't needed.
That is basically the reason the membership needs to vote YES on
this
amendment, plain and simple.
Judy
Past VP and long-time owner/member of POCA
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Campman <[13] [19]ccampman at cox.net>
To: detomaso <[14] [20]detomaso at poca.com>; San Diego Panteras
<[15] [21]sdpanteras at googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 12:28 pm
Subject: [DeTomaso] Proposed Amendment Issues
All,
Since I have not yet read the exact wording being proposed for the
new
Bylaw Amendment for Article X, I am basing my comments below on what
I
have read
on this forum regarding the proposed Amendment. I have copied Larry
Finchas
recent message below, as it seems to discuss the proposed Amendment
in
detail.
I appreciate the debate on the new Bylaws Amendment but seem to feel
the most important issue (to me at least) is either not discussed or
glossed
over in most debate I have read. This issue I am concerned about is
the
combination of allowing a majority of avotes casta to decide passage
of
an
amendment, along with the definition of only "25 votes to declare an
election
valid". To me, this amendment in its current wording smacks of the
same
BS that
most of our current government lawmakers try to do by having a great
change
(electronic voting) at the top of the agenda, in effect hiding fine
print that
in the long run puts power to make future changes into the hands of
a
select few
(the constant 25 voters).
Considering that to change the Bylaws at the
current time requires five-hundred-plus (500+) votes, out of maybe
eight-hundred-plus (800+) members, it seems absurd to modify the
system
to only
require twenty-five (25) votes to change the Bylaws in the future.
I am not
entirely against defining a number of votes to have a valid
election,
but at
least make it a reasonably sized number backed up by statistics on
the
number of
votes typically received in past elections. If past elections have
only
received
25 votes, then we have a bigger problem that will not be solved with
a
new
amendment.
In the end I urge all of you to vote NO on the new Bylaw Amendment
in its current wording. If the Board and Membership wants to
initiate
electronic
voting, then it should be done by proposing a single Amendment that
changes the
one issue. Additional issues worthy of change to the Bylaws (such as
number of
votes for validity, simple majority of votes cast, etc) should be
proposed in
similar single issue fashion, and not buried in a comprehensive
package
that
forces us to accept the changes "all or nothing".
My
2-cents!
Regards,
Craig Campman
Red #5303
On Mar 7, 2015, at 11:00 AM,
[16][22]detomaso-request at poca.com wrote:
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
Message: 21
> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:10:46 -0800
> From: Larry Finch
<[17] [23]fresnofinches at aol.com>
> To: [18] [24]detomaso at poca.com
> Subject: [DeTomaso] Article
X amendment - my opinion
> Message-ID:
<[19] [25]49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
>
> All,
>
> I would like to offer some insight as to why I
believe the proposed changes to Article X of the POCA By-Laws should
meet with
the approval of all POCA members desiring to help our club move into
the
21st-century.
>
> While retaining the paper ballot for those who prefer or
need it, the amendment will allow for electronic, internet-based
voting. While
email voting is illegal in California and quite subject to hacking,
there are
acceptable online voting services available for POCA to utilize.
>
> The
amendment also provides a method for members to propose By-Laws
amendments, a
process that previously only the Board of Directors could initiate.
>
> It
further clarifies voting tabulation will be conducted on the basis
of
the votes
received, and specifies at least 25 votes must be submitted in order
for an
election to be valid.
>
> If passed, this Article X amendment will thus set
the stage for greater membership participation in future POCA
business,
while
all upcoming elections, such as those we can expect to see later
this
year as
our Board of Directors continues to update and revise the rest of
the
POCA
By-Laws, will not become snail-mail disasters.
>
> Please realize that with
the passage of this Article X amendment, this election will be the
very
last
POCA election that requires the exclusive use of mailed, paper
ballots.
>
>
That improvement alone should make passage of this amendment a slam
dunk worthy
of every member?s affirmative vote.
>
> Should you have any troubling
concerns with some other aspect of this Article X amendment, I would
urge you to
put such concerns aside for the time being.
>
> Let?s first pass this
amendment and permanently retire the troublesome, inefficient
snail-mail
election process.
>
> Then, if you are still troubled by some portion of this
amendment, once it is passed you can gather the necessary fellow
members and
submit your own By-Laws amendment proposal to correct anything you
feel
is in
need of correcting.
>
> Please join with me in voting YES on the proposed
amendment to Article X.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Detomaso
Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso
mailing
list
[20] [26]DeTomaso at poca.com
[21] [27]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
To
manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
etc.) use
the links
above.
_______________________________________________
Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso mailing list
[22] [28]DeTomaso at poca.com
[23] [29]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
etc.)
use the links above.
References
1. mailto: [30]ccampman at cox.net
2. mailto: [31]detomaso at poca.com
3. mailto: [32]sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
4. mailto: [33]ccampman at cox.net
5. mailto: [34]detomaso at poca.com
6. mailto: [35]sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
7. mailto: [36]detomaso-request at poca.com
8. mailto: [37]fresnofinches at aol.com
9. mailto: [38]detomaso at poca.com
10. mailto: [39]49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com
11. mailto: [40]DeTomaso at poca.com
12. [41]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
13. mailto: [42]ccampman at cox.net
14. mailto: [43]detomaso at poca.com
15. mailto: [44]sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
16. mailto: [45]detomaso-request at poca.com
17. mailto: [46]fresnofinches at aol.com
18. mailto: [47]detomaso at poca.com
19. mailto: [48]49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com
20. mailto: [49]DeTomaso at poca.com
21. [50]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
22. mailto: [51]DeTomaso at poca.com
23. [52]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
_______________________________________________
Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
Posted emails must not exceed 1.5 Megabytes
DeTomaso mailing list
[53]DeTomaso at poca.com
[54]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
etc.) use the links above.
References
1. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
2. mailto:bill at incendium.com
3. mailto:fastgrandma at aol.com
4. mailto:ccampman at cox.net
5. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
6. mailto:sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
7. mailto:ccampman at cox.net
8. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
9. mailto:sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
10. mailto:ccampman at cox.net
11. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
12. mailto:sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
13. mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com
14. mailto:fresnofinches at aol.com
15. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
16. mailto:49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com
17. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
18. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
19. mailto:ccampman at cox.net
20. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
21. mailto:sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
22. mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com
23. mailto:fresnofinches at aol.com
24. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
25. mailto:49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com
26. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
27. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
28. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
29. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
30. mailto:ccampman at cox.net
31. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
32. mailto:sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
33. mailto:ccampman at cox.net
34. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
35. mailto:sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
36. mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com
37. mailto:fresnofinches at aol.com
38. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
39. mailto:49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com
40. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
41. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
42. mailto:ccampman at cox.net
43. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
44. mailto:sdpanteras at googlegroups.com
45. mailto:detomaso-request at poca.com
46. mailto:fresnofinches at aol.com
47. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
48. mailto:49EAEBB2-1702-4D0C-834B-54463EEE62A8 at aol.com
49. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
50. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
51. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
52. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
53. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
54. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
More information about the DeTomaso
mailing list