|
Post by MTD on Mar 18, 2004 1:07:16 GMT -6
I threatened (see campechesteel.proboards15.com/index.cgi?board=Division&action=display&thread=1079586617) Bylaw change proposals. Here is the second, which (like the third) has to do with swapping out words, not changing meanings. "Proposition 2": "provides" versus "provided"Overview:Either through error in original composition or through transcription error during the life of the Bylaws, the word "provides" appears in a place where "provided" appears to be appropriate. (Actually, in theory the Bylaw may actually say "provided" but the only available copies do not faithfully show the Bylaws. If this is the case, this motion to amend is null and void. But, either way, after passing a motion to amend the Bylaws, we could change the word in good conscience.) Current text:Article VII -- Meetings of the Members, Section 4: "Quorum: a quorum shall consist of not less than seven (7) members of THE DIVISION present in person and a majority vote of those present shall control, except as herein otherwise provides." Motion:In the Gulf Coast Division Bylaws, in Article VII, Section 4, substitute "provided" for "provides".
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Mar 19, 2004 0:28:47 GMT -6
Well, that one is pretty easy. I will go for changing the wording to read "provided." Certainly it reads more naturally.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Mar 23, 2004 23:37:09 GMT -6
Research shows that the word was "provided" in the Bylaws at a time before the AFLA became the USFA. This suggests that the framers of the Bylaws really did want the word "provided".
This also suggests that legally the Bylaw (the theoretical concept of it) really does read "provided" even though all available current copies show "provides". However, without a complete record of all actions of the membership at least back to the AFLA, or to some more recent motion actually specifying "provided" (which I suspect does exist), there is no proof of this. We just run the risk that the motion is null and void because the Bylaw already is "provided"! Valid or void, either way we're entitled to spell it "provided" if the motion passes.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Mar 24, 2004 0:13:55 GMT -6
If suspect "provides" is a typo from a time when a hard copy was first typed online...
|
|