Betsy Delaney (SiW), as Co-Chair of Guidelines Revision Committee, forwarded a letter from Andrew Trembley, Co-Chair of the committee. Letter stated the following recommendations: 1) the existing Guidelines should be replaced with those developed by the Committee. (Draft posted at <http://www.costume.org/guidelines-committee/draft3.html>; 2) requested ICG members review document and contact their BOD representatives to indicate support or opposition; and, 3) stated a motion was being prepared to replace the previous guidelines, which would be submitted to the BOD.
Carl Mami (President) announced the following 5 Chapters had
not checked in during recess (
Recess extended for 10 days.
Check-ins received from Northern Lights (Ann Catelli), Greater Delaware Valley Costumers Guild (Sandy Swank), Beyond Reality (Vicki Glover on behalf of Kate McClure) and Chicagoland Costumer's Guild (Valerie Roberts).
November 13
Dora Buck (Treasurer) submitted Treasurers Report for the
newsletter as follows:
Checking account - $7,957.89
General funds - $5,867.73
Archives - $151.56
Newsletter - $1,938.60
Chapter - Number of members - when last reported
Beyond Reality - 0 - Jul 05 - (all members lapsed on Sept 28, 05)
CGW - 340 - Oct 05
Chicagoland - 17 - Oct 05
Greater Delaware - 11 - Oct 05
Greater Bay - 225 - Nov 05
Greater Columbia - 12 - Apr 05
Northern Lights - 35 - Nov 05
NJ/NY Chapter - 28 - Sept 05
Silicon Web - 36 - Nov 05
St Louis - 36 - Nov 05
Southwest - 15 - Oct 05
Utah - 7 - July 05
November 15
Carl Mami (President) declared that motion 09-05-01 failed for lack of votes.
Yes: 7; No: 1; Not voted: 8
Voting summary: http://www.costume.org/bod/m090501.html
Carl Mami (President) assigned number 10-05-01 to motion made by Dana MacDermott (Recording Secretary), seconded by Betsy Delaney (SiW), as follows:
The Online ICG BOD mailing list:
1) Any ICG member in good standing may subscribe to the ICG-BOD Yahoo Group
list. Members of the list must provide their real names to the list maintainers
to be verified as members in good standing with the ICG.
2) Any ICG member in good standing may address the ICG BOD through the ICG-BOD
Yahoo Group list if he or she is sponsored by a current ICG BOD member.
3) Any member of the ICG-BOD Yahoo Group who is not identified as an official
Chapter Representative or Officer of the Corporation may not vote on any
business brought before the BOD on the ICG-BOD Yahoo Group list.
4) Any member of the ICG-BOD Yahoo Group list may be removed from that
list, with appropriate warning, as outlined in the rules of access published on
the list in the file "mailing-lists.txt" (sent automatically every
month to all members of the list)."
Carl Mami (President)
assigned number 11-05-02 to the motion made by Byron Connell (NJ/NY), seconded
by Dora Buck (Treasurer), as follows:
(1) that the Board direct the officers to
take all necessary steps to prepare and submit to the Internal Revenue Service
a "Group Exemption Letter," as provided in IRS publication 557,
"Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization," (2) that said letter
include the New Jersey-New York Chapter, and (3) that said letter include any
and all other chapters that desire to be included.
Discussion opened Nov. 16 at 12.01 AM EST
for both motions and voting
was set to begin on Dec 01 2005 at 12.01 AM
EST and continue until Dec 15 2005 at 11.59 PM EST.
Carl Mami (President)
announced the Guidelines would be on the Annual Meeting agenda and refused
further discussion on the BOD list.
Betsy Delaney (SiW) addressed conflicts in the Standing Rules and By-Laws and requested that the Parliamentarian create the wording for a motion to resolve the conflicts and provide for return receipt requirement as per the parliamentarian’s email dated October 24, 2005.
Betsy Delaney (SiW) commented on Motion 10-05-01 and Motion 11-05-02, and also addressed the Guidelines question: “… whether we bring the Guidelines vote before the general membership or not, we still need to tell the members that it will be coming up for discussion and possibly voting prior to that meeting. In my opinion, we still should move to replace the existing Guidelines document with the new version, and simply include in the motion that the vote shall take place at the Annual Meeting.”
Byron Connell (NJ/NY) recommended the BOD discuss the proposed
Guidelines replacement and decide whether to recommend them to the membership,
to be considered at the Annual Meeting in 2006 and suggested making a motion to
that effect.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
moved:
That the ICG
consider the draft submitted by the Guidelines Committee as
a replacement for the existing ICG Masquerade Guidelines and that /The
ICG Newsletter/ should include the text of the proposed replacement and
prominently notify all members that this matter will be on the agenda of
the annual meeting in May 2006, so that members may review the proposal
and decide their positions.
Carl Mami
(President) declared the motion out of order, stating that he had set the
matter of the Guidelines to the General meeting and that the BOD reps were
responsible for discussing the issue with their chapters.
Discussion on
motion 11-05-02:
Byron Connell (NJ/NY) responded to requests for clarification of motion 11-05-02:
“The IRS has a
procedure by which a central organization that represents subordinate
organizations may request a determination recognizing on a group basis the
exemption of the subordinates under section 501(c). The procedure is detailed
in IRS Publication 557, "Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization,"
which can be downloaded as a PDF file from the IRS' Web site, <http://www.irs.gov/>. Relevant portion: pages
6 through 8 in the March 2005 revision. For ICG chapters that wish to participate,
this procedure should provide tax exempt recognition. Extensive further details
on the procedure and requirements according to IRS Publication 557 were also
presented.
Byron stated his
belief that although this action would require some additional work by the ICG
officers on a yearly basis, it was not burdensome and would be a way for the
ICG to offer a service to the chapters.
Kendra Van Cleave
(GBACG) asked in reference to motion 11-05-02: 1) How does this tax exempt
status letter differ from the regulations Darla referenced? Would chapters
covered under this letter still need to modify our by-laws, and access to our
treasury, as mentioned in Darla's memo? And 2) Am I interpreting the
"uniform governing instrument" to mean that all of the chapters would
have to have the same by-laws?
Darla Kruger (CGW)
stated that she believed that Byron’s motion would not suffice for the
Federal Government or the Internal Revenue Service.
Discussion on
motion 10-05-01:
Byron Connell
(NJ/NY) supported the resolution, adding that the board will need to address
the issue of how a non-board member can address the board.
Dana MacDermott
(Recording Secretary): “I think the motion for open meetings is needed.
It concerns me that we have currently shut out the Treasurers and the
Newsletter editor from the meetings even though there are issues being
discussed that will affect them and would benefit from their input.”
“We have
recently realized we have had a significant problem with BOD members not
actually being in contact with the BOD. This is why we have had so many delays
and recesses. If the BOD members are not paying attention, they cannot be
reporting to their chapters. The members should also be able to see how we are
representing them.”
“The ICG
BOD's concern should be to encourage member participation, rather than to limit
it.”
Jeff Morris (list
coordinator, member of St Louis Guild) addressed the list, strongly objecting
to the motion by suggesting that the BOD reps were supposed to be informing the
members, and asking if this was not being done so that the list would have to
be open for the members to know what was going on. He called the motion
“a waste of time and energy….Motions and votes are put up on the
ICG website and are visible to anyone who cares to go look.”
Darla Kruger (CGW)
objected to the motion saying she keeps her chapter informed and it would add
more complications to an already complicated system.
Regarding the Newsletter:
Betsy Delaney (SiW) requested clarification and resolution of issues regarding disposition of Newsletter materials still in her possession, and the responsibility for maintenance of the mailing list for the Newsletter, suggesting mailing list changes coming from the Post Office (costing the ICG $0.70 apiece) should not be disregarded.
Carl Mami (President) reported that he, the Newsletter editor and Treasurer were working out the details of the problem.
Continuation of the
discussion on motion 10-05-01:
Betsy Delaney
(SiW): Although Jeff maintains the list technically he has no right to address
it; we need to work out rules for accessing and addressing the members of the
list.
Jeff Morris
apologized to the BOD for speaking without authority.
Betsy Delaney
(SiW): An apology shouldn’t be necessary if we work out appropriate rules
for access. The motion could be amended to make the processes workable.
Carl Mami
(President) gave Jeff Morris “permission to address the board on any tech
issue or web site issue as needed.”
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
asked if the permission for Jeff to address the BOD should come from the board
rather than from the President alone.
Carl Mami
(President) responded to Betsy, “No”, Jeff holds an advisory
position.
Darla Kruger (CGW)
supported Jeff’s ability to give input on motion 10-05-01.
Betsy Delaney (SiW): Any interested observer should have a way to address the board. There is no reason why other individuals should not observe anything the board says. Her chapter does not care about the 501(c)(3) umbrella, but does care ”about the appearance of a closed, elitist organization that will not brook investigation or observation by anyone who is not ‘in a position of power’.” Friendly amendments could lighten the load on the Treasurer and list managers.
Carl Mami
(President): Argued vehemently against opening the list by citing research
pertaining to the boards of Fortune 100 publicly held companies and the
policies of Congress. Stated that as long
as the Recording Secretary maintained reports of the content of the meeting
online, and the motions and voting results were posted on the web site, then
the Annual Meeting should be sufficient to give members an opportunity to voice
their opinions on the matters coming before the BOD on list. Furthermore, he
questioned the “price” of any benefit we might receive from the
input of the membership outside of the current BOD and reminded the Board that
a member with anything to put before us need only contact their or any board
member and the comments will be forwarded to the BOD. He concluded by saying
“If our government feels that public input at their meetings is wrong
maybe we should take note I know they have only been doing this for over 200
years but maybe just maybe they are right”
Dana MacDermott (Recording Secretary): Educational non-profits are different than corporations, citing another 501(c)(3) organization which advertises and holds Board meetings that are open to all members to attend and contribute, and which frequently gains future board members from the members who attend. She pointed out that Yahoo has a “receive only” option for subscribers. If used for members referred by their chapter rep, such a setting could make the motion work without extra effort on the part of the list moderators. She expressed concern that it should not be possible for a single person in the top ICG office to allow or disallow access, dependant on the opinions of that individual.
Jeff Morris (List
Moderator): Declared that the BOD list is presently unmoderated, suggesting
that if this measure passes, the moderator could get clearance with someone any
time a non-board member wished to speak and could then forward moderated
comments to the BOD. He stated that in most corporate gatherings the
chairperson determines who can and cannot speak. He also inquired as to whether
this measure was intended for specific people (eg. moderators or Newsletter
editor) or any ICG member.
Dana MacDermott
(Recording Secretary): Specific people are intended as examples. If ICG members
address the BOD through a member, the moderators would have no need for further
communication.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
asked if “sponsored” meant that a BOD member would forward messages
to the list or that a “sponsored” member would be vouched for and
then have the right to address the list directly without further filtering.
Dana MacDermott
(Recording Secretary) said she could see there were worries about the looser
definition and would agree to forwarding of messages by a BOD member.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
suggested a possible rewrite of the first two sections of the motion to solve
the workload issue.
1) Any individual
may subscribe to the ICG-BOD Yahoo Group list. Members of the list must provide
their real names to the list maintainers to be
accepted as members of the list. List members who are not identified as
official Chapter Representatives or Officers of the Corporation shall have
their membership accounts set to Read-Only by the list moderator(s).
2) Any member of the ICG-BOD Yahoo Group list may address the other members of
the list by submitting a request to forward his/her comments to any official
Chapter Representative or Officer of the Corporation. Only official Chapter
Representatives and Officers of the Corporation are exempt from the sponsorship
requirement.
Byron Connell (NJ/NY): Non-representation is a long-standing
issue, and one of the reasons CGUK seceded. As President, Byron included the
archivist, Quarterly editor and chairs of standing committees to the BOD with
speaking but no voting rights. He also added an alternate member from each
chapter. He cited three
non-profits including the New York State Board of Regents and the City
University of New York’s Board of Trustees. All three have public
meetings and regularly permit non-members to address the board and he cautioned
that comparisons other organizations may not be directly pertinent in our case.
Continuation of the
discussion on motion 11-05-02:
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
pointed out that the motion requires details about the actions and financial
sources of the subordinates, and a sample of uniform governing instruments
adopted by the subordinates (chapters); and that without information and
discussion, the chapters do not know what changes are necessary to make this
happen.
Carl Mami
(President) called Betsy’s comments out of order, stating the Guidelines
did not affect the issue at all.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
explained that her comments had nothing to do with the Guidelines issue and
that she neglected to remove the reference from the message header.
Byron Connell
(NJ/NY) suggested the BOD members review <http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/index.html>
(Click on Publication Number, then scroll down to 0305 Publ 557 Tax-Exempt
status for Your Organization).
Continuation of the
discussion on motion 11-05-02:
Kendra Van Cleave
(GBACG) sees both Darla’s and Byron’s points as based on fact and
contradictory. She wants more expert legal advice. Failing that, she will have
to recommend that her chapter pursue its own non-profit status.
Byron Connell
(NJ/NY): Proceeding with the letter would allow the possibility the IRS might
accept. If the IRS asks for more info, we will get an idea of what they want.
Continuation of the
discussion on motion 10-05-01:
Jeff Morris (List
Moderator) proposed the list archives be made public, and suggested allowing
interested members to apply for temporary list status. Discussed the
difficulties in verifying membership and identity for list inclusion. Requested
clarification of public access, commented on difficulties of contact via BOD
rep given the absentee rate of BOD members.
Kendra Van Cleave
(GBACG) liked Jeff’s idea; suggested BOD reps should forward messages.
Carl Mami
(President) asked if the makers of the motion would accept Jeff’s
suggestions as a friendly amendment.
Dana MacDermott
(Recording Secretary): Manually adding non-BOD members to the list would be
more work than simply setting the default to read only status for all
subscribers. She stated a willingness to be convinced of the open archives as
an alternative approach.
Dora Buck
(Treasurer) indicated the Treasurer may be unable to verify identities and
email addresses because reporting of email addresses is not a requirement.
Betsy Delaney
(SiW): There must be codification of access to the list; suggested chapter reps
provide verification of membership, rather than Treasurer. She commented that
Yahoo groups interface is difficult to use and recommended using Yahoo settings
for list as public with restrictions as to who can post.
Discussion on 10-05-01
Diane Harris (SWGC)
commented that her constituency has never once asked her “if anyone on
the board is doing their job,” and questioned if anyone needs information
about what happens on the BOD. Mentioned her members would like to have access
to videos from past conventions, and cited comments from her chapter’s
alternate rep. disapproving of the entire topic of opening up the BOD online
meetings.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
pointed out that the SWGC alternate rep seemed to have access to the BOD list,
and created no problem. She expects
no “privacy” with email messages, and reminded everyone that access
would be controlled for any required executive session. She discussed the inconvenience of
wading through the archived messages as opposed to getting emails.
Carl Mami
(President) Alternate Board reps are allowed on list.
Diane Harris (SWGC)
wants the communication line to stay simple, and claims it is working as
is. If a rep is not discussing the
issues with the chapter, maybe the chapter is OK with that.
Carl Mami
(President) claims Betsy wants it her way no matter what problems it creates.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
Doesn’t understand why it is such a big deal to let the few interested
members read only access to the list. …. If we do not decide this issue,
it will come up again. We need to
get to the important issue of chapter status.
Carl Mami
(President) let people look at the archives and figure out how to get the
information.
Dana MacDermott
(recording Secretary) describes a “no effort” method for implementing
the motion. BOD members give Jeff
the information on the member who wishes to get the list; he puts them on read
only. Messages to the BOD are
forwarded by a BOD member. Some
people may need to see the discussions because they may have implications for
their responsibilities. Summaries
may miss unrecognized significant details.
Open meetings are also important to combat the ICG’s reputation
for being elitist.
Diane Harris (SWGC)
implied that if the SiW wants open access, it must be because they are not
getting informed.
Bruce Mai
(SLCG) is absolutely opposed to
opening the list. “I really don't like the idea of people not even in the
Guild reading our comments.”
Carl Mami
(President) considers open meetings to be only a concern or benefit for a
minority, and he must work in behalf of the majority. An open list would not help the image;
it would just give an opportunity for people to twist words.
Discussion on
11-05-02
Kendra Van Cleave
(GBACG) “just saying "it's a chapter issue" and then offering
chapters no further information or suggestions is basically akin to telling
those chapters for whom non-profit status is important that they either need to
vote to pursue their own non-profit status, or to just hope that we as the ICG
board will somehow, mysteriously, with no timeline or plan in sight, figure it
out.”
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
agrees with Kendra, and mentions that the SiW authorized her to request the ICG
to vote monies to get direct legal advice.
November 20
Discussion on
10-05-01
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
checked her Robert’s rules and will limit her emails to a lesser number
and made formal complaint to the Parliamentarian on personal comments by
another list member.
Carl Mami
(President) apologized to the BOD for his lack of understanding of the rules
that led to his making what seemed to be a personal attack.
Diane Harris (SWGC)
moved to amend motion 10-05-01
1) Any ICG member
in good standing may subscribe to the ICG-BOD Archives list after they have
received a sponsorship from the parliamentarian. Members of the list must
provide their real names to the list maintainers to be verified as members in
good standing with the ICG. This permission may be for a time of thirty
calendar days and then must be renewed. Any member may request permission only
twice in each calendar year
2) Any ICG member in good standing may submit to their Chapter Representative
any suggestions in writing the member feels may be of importance to the ICG
BOD.
3) Any member of the ICG-BOD Yahoo Group who is not identified as an official
Chapter Representative or Officer of the Corporation may not address unless
requested by the board. This action must be cleared by any two Executive Board
members plus the
President The person addressing the board may read a statement and answer any
question put forth by the board. The member may not address any other subject.
4) Any member given permission to view the archive may be removed from that
list, with appropriate warning. The viewing of the list is not permission to
remove or copy in any way either in whole or part of the archives. The member
be held liable for any reproduction of any information found in these archives.
Seconded by Dora
Buck (Treasurer)
Carl Mami
(President) asked if this was acceptable as a friendly amendment. He suspends
discussion for 3 days to allow makers of motion to respond.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
as seconder to 10-05-01 said it was not acceptable as a friendly amendment.
Dana MacDermott
(Recording secretary) also rejected this as a friendly amendment to her motion
10-05-01, “as it completely changes the intent and form of the
motion.”
Carl Mami
(President) opens discussion on amendment 10-01-01a for 15 days starting Nov.
21 and opens voting on Dec 6 for 15 days.
Sandy Swank (DVCG)
Is angry that one of her members might be allowed to choose to “go over
her head” and communicate with the BOD directly. If they do, she asks why
is she “wasting my time being a rep in the first place?” She forwards a message from DVCG
Treasurer Robert Himmelsbach, who supports opening the archived messages, and
states that a chapter rep has the right to forward or not communications from
their members.
November 21
Discussion on
10-05-01
Darla Kruger (CGW)
If our reps are not informing their members about the BOD activities, what is
the Newsletter doing? ... She has been president of CGW since 1998, and no one
has ever been interested in the activity of the BOD….The ICG is a
republic and the CGW and GBACG have the lion’s share of the membership. These chapters are active on the list,
so the majority of the ICG members are being served.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
What I am attempting to explain here is that by loading the newsletter with
extra pages containing summaries of our business, we may drive out all other
content. “ She refutes
characterization of the ICG as a republic.
Discussion on
10-05-01a
Diane Harris (SWCG)
explains her concerns as to the (financial) cost of the original motion, and
does not want to spoil the volunteer nature by putting a burden on the
volunteers.
Discussion on
11-05-02
Darla Kruger (CGW)
The letter could put us on the IRS radar.
CGW may pursue its own non-profit status.
Byron Connell
(NJ/NY) does not believe legal advice is needed. The ICG’s tax exempt status
can only be revoked for cause, and with a hearing. We can always withdraw the letter if
hidden conditions show up. He
volunteers to draft the letter if the motion passes.
November 28
Discussion on
10-05-01a
Dana MacDermott
(Recording secretary) sees little if any work impact or any cost on the
original motion, but suggests the work load would be affected by the amendment.
Jeff Morris (list
moderator) claims work load would be affected by original motion, but there
were no costs implications.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
disagrees with Jeff’s workload analysis. The original motion required a one time
change of setting for the Yahoo list, but the amendment requires much more.
“By setting a time limit for
subscriptions, and by limiting the number of days in which a subscription may
continue, one requires the active management of each member of the
list”. She cannot support the
amendment.
Jeff Morris (list moderator) wants to know how executive sessions could be handled with an open list archive.
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
By-Laws specify how a special meeting can be called. This involves advance notification and
arrangements.
November 29
Discussion on
10-05-01a
Carl Mami
(President) characterizes the original motion as being for the reason that the
reps are not giving their members information. He considers that anyone could
disrupt the meeting unless closely monitored. He asserts that if the reps are doing
their job, there is no reason anyone should want to see what the BOD is doing.
Dana MacDermott
(Recording Secretary) expressed strongly that she felt the President’s
characterization of the reasons for the motion were a misrepresentation and
were deliberately misleading.
.Betsy Delaney
(SiW) did a number by number examination of the amendment asking: how the Parliamentarian
will verify membership to sponsor “archives list” applicants; for
clarification on the various terms and processes described (implying that
changes to the wording would be required, some to make it apply only to the on
line meeting proceedures). By the
existing language which forbids any use of the archived emails, the summaries
for the ICG members, voting reports, and the official minutes required of the
recording secretary would be prohibited.
Other issues
Jeff Morris (list
moderator) warned about heated exchanges and that they were inappropriate
behavior for the list
November 30
Discussion on
10-05-01a
Darla Kruger (CGW)
does not believe summaries would clog the newsletter, just give it more
substance. She does not believe
keeping the list closed implies we are hiding anything from anybody. It allows us to speak more freely.
Other issues
Carl Mami
(President) claims to have been flamed.
December 1
The voting on
motion 11-05-02 commenced
Sandy Swank (GDVCG)
Considers that an open list will make it necessary to argue with other ICG
members when it is already takes a lot of time and effort to get things done
with the BOD.
Other issues
Pierre Pettinger
(Parliamentarian) “I have received an official complaint against the
actions of the president regarding this motion. The specific complaint is, in
the
words of the complainant:
The President's comments are inappropriate and are out of order.
First, he is addressing the specific content of an amendment and motion on the
floor without first acting to remove himself from the position of chair of the
meeting. Secondly, he is acting without a clear understanding of his role in
meetings. Third, he is acting in a partisan way, which he may not do without
stepping down as President for the purpose of debating the question.
Examining the history of posts on this motion, I must agree with the complaint.
I remind the president that in the role as presiding officer and moderator of
the discussion the president is to refrain from commenting on pending motions either
in the affirmative or negative.
The president is only allowed to address specific technical questions from the
members of the board. These comments can include any perceived repercussions of
the motion, but only in a neutral manner. If the president wishes to partake
and contribute to the discussion, he may do so only if he passes the gavel to
another officer, generally the vice-president, before he does so. Once passed,
the gavel, for the specific motion or topic only, cannot be taken back until the
issue is resolved; i.e. the item goes into a vote and the vote is completed.
Again, due to the nature of the on-line meeting, specifically the ability to
discuss more than one topic of a time, he may retain the gavel of other,
unrelated, topics.
I would ask the president to apologize and refrain from further comment on this
amendment, or to pass the gavel to the vice-president.
Pierre E. Pettinger, Jr.
Parliamentarian
December 2
Discussion on
10-05-01a
Kendra Van Cleave
(GBACG) is concerned that members reading individual messages would be
unwieldy. Responses from her
members showed they supported the principle of open access to the list, but
would not probably take advantage of it.
She prefers communication by the chapter rep, and Newsletter minutes.
December 3
Voting on 10-05-01a commences
December 6
Betsy Delaney (SiW)
asked if the amendment (10-05-01a) fails how many days remain on the discussion
of 10-05-01.
Carl Mami
(President) “There were 12 days left in the original motion
discussion.”
December 13
Pierre Pettinger
(Parliamentarian) as requested submitted the writing of a motion regarding
quorums.
Moved:
Add new section ( c ) to Standing Rule 15
The listing of automatic notifications of receipt required in section (b) above
will constitute the members present for that debate and vote. This number must
constitute a majority of the Board members for the debate to proceed as
required by the By-Laws, Article V, Section 10. Under no circumstance may any
member of the Board of Directors be prevented from debating or voting on any
issue regardless of the result of the automatic notification required herein.
Renumber existing sections ( c) and ( d) as sections ( d) and ( e).
December 14
The motion written
by the Parliamentarian was moved by Sandy Swank(DVCG), and seconded by Betsy
Delaney (SiW) Numbered 01-06-01 (by
Carl Mami on Dec. 16)
December 16
Carl Mami
(President) “ Effective with the vote for motion 11-05-02 any chapter not
voting will be listed as not present.”
Vote on 11-05-02
final
Yes=9, No= 2, Abstain
=3, Not present= 2: Motion
passes
Discussion on
01-06-01 will begin on January 3, 2006 for 15 days; Voting will begin January
19, and continue until 11:59 PM EST Feb. 2, 2006
Note: on January 6,
2006 Motion 10-05-01a
Yes=4, No=8,
Abstain=1, Not Present =4:
Motion failed