|
Post by MTD on Mar 18, 2004 1:14:12 GMT -6
I threatened (see campechesteel.proboards15.com/index.cgi?board=Division&action=display&thread=1079586617) Bylaw change proposals. Here is the fourth, which, like the fifth, has to do with the USFA changes having run ahead of the Bylaws and left them wrong. "Proposition 4": Changes to the names and number of classes of USFA membership.Overview:The Bylaws were written describing six classes of membership in the Division, taken directly from the six classes of membership defined by the USFA (indeed probably as defined earlier by the AFLA). Since that was written, the USFA has changed the classes of membership. Further, even the USFA itself does not list the classes of membership in the current Bylaws. Current text:Article III -- Membership, Section 2: "Classes of Membership: membership shall be of six (6) classes: honorary, active, collegiate, student, associate, and life. The requirements for membership in each class shall be as set forth in the By-Laws of USFA, INC" Motion:In the Gulf Coast Division Bylaws, in Article III, replace the text of Section 2 with: "Classes of Membership: The membership of the Division, being composed of members of USFA, INC, shall be divided into classes as established from time to time by the Board of Directors of USFA, INC. The requirements for membership in each class shall be subject to such regulations as the Board of Directors of USFA, INC may determine."
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Mar 19, 2004 0:32:57 GMT -6
Very nice. We peg our "classes" to whatever the USFA has at the time. We will at least have a system that is in agreement with the USFA.
|
|
|
Post by Diego de la Vega on Mar 22, 2004 10:56:42 GMT -6
If you go with MTD's (are you Matt?) motion, you can probably spare us having to re-visit this issue in the future. We can parallel the USFA without committing ourself to titles for eachmembership class.
The ball is in their court.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Mar 22, 2004 12:52:48 GMT -6
Yes, "MTD" is Matthew T. Delevoryas. You will find that the e-mail address known to the forum is my e-mail address. However, that does not mean that this, or any other proposal not specifically described otherwise, has any sort of official support from Division administration.
Diego de la Vega, I note that you regularly post as a guest, not a member. Does it ever concern you that someone might hijack your monicker and use it to make a post which gains your creidibility (or diminishes your existing credibility) but isn't your own writing? I believe the forum requres registrants to divulge their e-mail addresses but allows them to conceal them from all viewers of the forum. (As you can determine, I did not exercise the option.) And, if you fear that the moderator, who is already refusing to pursue identifying people through IP address, will breach the confidence, then create a throw-away e-mail address (at Yahoo, for example) for this purpose only. Note that for a long time I did not take my own advice, but I figured that I had a good chance of convincing readers through my writing style who was and was not the genuine "MTD".
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Mar 23, 2004 23:41:18 GMT -6
Research shows that the wording listing the classes dates back at least to when the USFA was the AFLA.
|
|
|
Post by S Simpson on Mar 27, 2004 11:48:41 GMT -6
Only Matt can write like Matt. At least about fencing (& probably about astronomy, electronics & other like subjects).
|
|