Page 2 of 2 First 12
  • Jump to page:
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Proposed Bylaw and P&P Changes

  1. #21

    Reply to VE6AWS request for marked up document

    Sorry about the delay. I do have a marked up Bylaws draft showing the changes that were made -strikeouts for deletions and italics for additions. I hope that we can put this on the forum but it you want me to send you the file ahead of time, let me know ([email protected]). Pand P manual will be coming in the near future. I'll remove it from my "Things I can safely do tomorrow without the world imploding" list!
    Mike VE6XUK
  2. #22
    Club Member
    Join Date Mar 2014
    Posts 219
    Mike you have been more then accommodating and very forthright take your time don't over work yourself your efforts are very much appreciated and most certainly have not gone unnoticed thank you very much and I hope as members we can all work together in trying to find something that is mutually agreeable to all


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. #23
    Club Member
    Join Date Jan 2014
    Posts 65
    Thank you for taking the time to put together the marked up content. I think it will help in getting the changes approved by the membership in the long run. It's a daunting task that's for sure. I know I went through the two documents just to try and find the discrepancies between the two that needed to be addressed, not even proposing changes and writing them out.

    I'll await your post here on the forums. If you can't post to the forums maybe a google drive document would work?
  4. #24

    Marked up copies of Bylaws and P and P

    Because of the resignation of our President, I am stepping up to fill the void as required in the Bylaws. I am planning to Email the membership over the next few weeks prior to our AGM. That meeting is going to suggest a change in direction for the Club greater than any we have seen in the last couple of decades. Whether you agree or disagree with the proposals, please come. Your voice will be heard and your vote is vital

    There will be marked up copies of the Bylaws and P and P manual posted on the forum by the weekend. There are discrepancies in them such as in titles. For example Facilities Director was renamed Operations Facilitator in later versions and things like that. These discrepancies are not deliberate, they have no sinister motive and I take full responsibility and blame for them. The was a time when I was regarded as perfect but then my kids had their 5th birthday and it was all over, so now I do the best I can.

    I hope to be able to answer more of the questions posed here after our next exec meeting.
  5. #25
    Club Member
    Join Date Mar 2014
    Posts 219

    Proposed Bylaw and P&P Changes

    Mike I look forward to it ! Greatly I truly do and I think the club is truly headed in a fantastic direction I look forward to documents as well and hope you are open to discuss them so far you have been the most forth rite leader of the board today and frankly having spoken with a number of individuals even some of the salty old crew nothing but positive things where said so yeah ! Cool


    The club needs to come back as a friendship and partnership where everyone feels welcome and we have a bunch of good stuff constantly on the go

    I think it's going to be fun times ahead I don't think it's going to change as fast as we may think but I think in the next 3-5 months we shall be golden


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. #26
    VE6RHS's Avatar
    Operations Director
    Join Date Jan 2014
    Location Edmonton, AB
    Posts 34
    In place on the main Web site!

    See: http://narc.net/component/content/ar...roposed-bylaws
    -- Ray --
  7. #27
    Club Member
    Join Date May 2015
    Posts 4
    As a new member I don't have any background on the history of the original bylaws or what the issues of the past were ,and my perspective on the bylaws is formed only by what I understand the goals (mission) of the club to be and what I see as reasonable for a club.

    My comments are in no way a criticism of the persons who prepared the proposed bylaws or the effort that went into creating them. It is an enormous undertaking and the those involved are to be commended and thanked for their efforts.

    However, the bylaws as proposed do not reflect an organizations framework that I can support. They appear to have been developed from the position of what we don't want instead of what we do want (primarily based on the discussion around them). Following are the elements I think would make for a good set of bylaws. FYI, a basic version of bylaws is available from Service Alberta here: https://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/Fo...ntered_(2).pdf.

    Membership
    If the goal is to encourage membership and participation then membership requirements should be pretty simple – anyone with an interest in amateur radio and who pays the membership fee. If should not matter whether you have a call sign or not. Not having a call sign would limit your ability to take advantage of some club benefits, but it should not be a membership differentiator. So, one and only one type of member (you're either one or you're not). As for fees (which are not part of the bylaws I would suggest only two different fees – the regular membership fee and a reduced fee for students. No family fee, no seniors fee, no lifetime memberships, no honorary memberships, no associate memberships. Memberships would be terminated at the end of the membership year unless the fee for the next year is paid. A membership can never be in arrears. If the next membership year starts and you have not paid, your membership is canceled (possibly after a grace period).

    The board structure is where I had the biggest concern. Primarily in two areas: the board structure and the use of SIGs. I like the inclusion of SIGs, but they are not for core club functions, but instead are … a group of users interested in a particular subject who discuss the subject at meetings … (defined by http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/SIG.html). Yes, that perhaps could be a core function, but core club functions should be addressed at the board level. Having core functions represented at the board level is important to ensure good and balanced decision making.

    So, I would propose an eight member board (aka executive) consisting of:
    President
    - runs meetings, etc.
    Secretary
    - maintains club records
    Treasurer
    - manages club finances
    Director – Facilities and Operations
    - care and operation of club equipment and facilities
    Director - Members and Development (Membership, Training)
    - engages membership, encourages membership, new and existing member development/training
    Director - Communications (Newsletter, Website, etc.)
    - coordinates internal and external communications
    Director - Community Engagement and Public Safety
    - supports club interaction with the community and public safety groups
    Director - SIGs and SPGs (SPG = Special Program/Project Group)
    - board liaison to SIGs and SPGs
    - SIGs are generally of a technical nature initiated by any two or more members and facilitated by the SIG members.
    - SPGs are of a general nature and are more likely initiated by the board to facilitate some type of special project or event. Examples could be establishment of a new repeater, a celebration event, a radio event, etc.

    You will notice the number of member focused roles outweighs the administration oriented ones. Ans, one role missing from this list is vice-president. Personally I don't see a need. I'd rather see an advisory (or full member) role of past president if there is a desire for that type of role. The term for all positions should be the same.

    The holders of any of the board positions should not be expected to be the sole person responsible for all related work. They are “simply” the leader to facilitate the activities.

    When I first heard about the club bylaw review and reasons for the revisions (as also noted in the summary sheet) the rational was a need for the club to be member driven instead of board driven. The process, as I've seen it, to this point, has been top-down. To get a set of bylaws that reflect the interests of the club membership and that is driven from the membership up I would propose the establishment of a bylaws group consisting of a number of general members (nominated by the membership) and one delegate from the board (selected by the board). This group would accept member feedback on the club mission statement and members views on bylaw content. They would then, over a period of time, provide the membership with proposed mission/bylaws for comment and refinement culminating in a vote on a final version of the proposed items. I would begin by finalizing the club mission statement (independent of the bylaws) as the bylaws really are in support of the club mission.

    73,
    VA6CLR
  8. #28

    Cost of Trademark application

    Thanks for your patience. The cost of the Trademark application was $500.00. ($250.00x2)
  9. #29
    Club Member
    Join Date Mar 2014
    Posts 219
    And that's the initial filing few correct ? If im not mistaken it's 250 rac for filling followed by a additional 250 each upon completion ?

    Also im very curious to know is it Bruce who brought forth the recommendation for trademark ? Who did the trademark filing (that is who filled out the application) and lastly who paid for the trademark fees was it the club or a executive member and if a member whom and will they be reimbursed by the club and lastly knowing that it would cost about 1000 dollars total for the trademarking who authorized that purchase ? And why was it not brought forth to the membership


    Thank you for your time and honesty mike it is very much appreciated


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. #30
    VE6SOH's Avatar
    Club Member
    Join Date Jan 2015
    Location Sherwood Park
    Posts 10
    This actually makes a whole lot of sense and is an structure I could get behind and support! There are certainly flaws in the current structure and I agree the club needs to change as the times have changed. When I was on the board (for the short amount of time that I was) I did want to see a better engagement with membership and had actually started planning a proposal for new ways to engage existing and potential new members. Sadly it was a short stint on the board and my work was quickly met with a short drop and a sudden stop when the exec walked away (myself included).

    As a new member I don't have any background on the history of the original bylaws or what the issues of the past were ,and my perspective on the bylaws is formed only by what I understand the goals (mission) of the club to be and what I see as reasonable for a club.

    My comments are in no way a criticism of the persons who prepared the proposed bylaws or the effort that went into creating them. It is an enormous undertaking and the those involved are to be commended and thanked for their efforts.

    However, the bylaws as proposed do not reflect an organizations framework that I can support. They appear to have been developed from the position of what we don't want instead of what we do want (primarily based on the discussion around them). Following are the elements I think would make for a good set of bylaws. FYI, a basic version of bylaws is available from Service Alberta here: https://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/Fo...ntered_(2).pdf.

    Membership
    If the goal is to encourage membership and participation then membership requirements should be pretty simple ? anyone with an interest in amateur radio and who pays the membership fee. If should not matter whether you have a call sign or not. Not having a call sign would limit your ability to take advantage of some club benefits, but it should not be a membership differentiator. So, one and only one type of member (you're either one or you're not). As for fees (which are not part of the bylaws I would suggest only two different fees ? the regular membership fee and a reduced fee for students. No family fee, no seniors fee, no lifetime memberships, no honorary memberships, no associate memberships. Memberships would be terminated at the end of the membership year unless the fee for the next year is paid. A membership can never be in arrears. If the next membership year starts and you have not paid, your membership is canceled (possibly after a grace period).

    The board structure is where I had the biggest concern. Primarily in two areas: the board structure and the use of SIGs. I like the inclusion of SIGs, but they are not for core club functions, but instead are ? a group of users interested in a particular subject who discuss the subject at meetings ? (defined by http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/SIG.html). Yes, that perhaps could be a core function, but core club functions should be addressed at the board level. Having core functions represented at the board level is important to ensure good and balanced decision making.

    So, I would propose an eight member board (aka executive) consisting of:
    President
    - runs meetings, etc.
    Secretary
    - maintains club records
    Treasurer
    - manages club finances
    Director ? Facilities and Operations
    - care and operation of club equipment and facilities
    Director - Members and Development (Membership, Training)
    - engages membership, encourages membership, new and existing member development/training
    Director - Communications (Newsletter, Website, etc.)
    - coordinates internal and external communications
    Director - Community Engagement and Public Safety
    - supports club interaction with the community and public safety groups
    Director - SIGs and SPGs (SPG = Special Program/Project Group)
    - board liaison to SIGs and SPGs
    - SIGs are generally of a technical nature initiated by any two or more members and facilitated by the SIG members.
    - SPGs are of a general nature and are more likely initiated by the board to facilitate some type of special project or event. Examples could be establishment of a new repeater, a celebration event, a radio event, etc.

    You will notice the number of member focused roles outweighs the administration oriented ones. Ans, one role missing from this list is vice-president. Personally I don't see a need. I'd rather see an advisory (or full member) role of past president if there is a desire for that type of role. The term for all positions should be the same.

    The holders of any of the board positions should not be expected to be the sole person responsible for all related work. They are ?simply? the leader to facilitate the activities.

    When I first heard about the club bylaw review and reasons for the revisions (as also noted in the summary sheet) the rational was a need for the club to be member driven instead of board driven. The process, as I've seen it, to this point, has been top-down. To get a set of bylaws that reflect the interests of the club membership and that is driven from the membership up I would propose the establishment of a bylaws group consisting of a number of general members (nominated by the membership) and one delegate from the board (selected by the board). This group would accept member feedback on the club mission statement and members views on bylaw content. They would then, over a period of time, provide the membership with proposed mission/bylaws for comment and refinement culminating in a vote on a final version of the proposed items. I would begin by finalizing the club mission statement (independent of the bylaws) as the bylaws really are in support of the club mission.

    73,
    VA6CLR
    Michael Stants VE6SOH
  11. #31
    The filing was done on-line by me. It was paid for with my credit card and I was reimbursed by the Club. Since it will only cost more if the application is approved, the membership will be consulted before any additional cost.
  12. #32
    Club Member
    Join Date Mar 2014
    Posts 219
    Good to know
    Btw there are some mistakes on your application I may suggest you re review it or if you like send me a email to James at ve6btc dot com




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. #33

    Comments on Bylaws

    Let me preface this by saying that this is my personal opinion rather than one endorsed by the Board.

    I was pleased to see CLRs comments because his suggestion tally rather closely with the proposed Bylaws. I will see if I can spot the differences - my comments in italics bold.

    As a new member I don't have any background on the history of the original bylaws or what the issues of the past were ,and my perspective on the bylaws is formed only by what I understand the goals (mission) of the club to be and what I see as reasonable for a club.

    My comments are in no way a criticism of the persons who prepared the proposed bylaws or the effort that went into creating them. It is an enormous undertaking and the those involved are to be commended and thanked for their efforts.

    However, the bylaws as proposed do not reflect an organizations framework that I can support. They appear to have been developed from the position of what we don't want instead of what we do want (primarily based on the discussion around them). Following are the elements I think would make for a good set of bylaws. FYI, a basic version of bylaws is available from Service Alberta here: https://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/Fo...ntered_(2).pdf.

    Membership
    If the goal is to encourage membership and participation then membership requirements should be pretty simple ? anyone with an interest in amateur radio and who pays the membership fee. If should not matter whether you have a call sign or not. Not having a call sign would limit your ability to take advantage of some club benefits, but it should not be a membership differentiator. So, one and only one type of member (you're either one or you're not). As for fees (which are not part of the bylaws I would suggest only two different fees ? the regular membership fee and a reduced fee for students. No family fee, no seniors fee, no lifetime memberships, no honorary memberships, no associate memberships. Memberships would be terminated at the end of the membership year unless the fee for the next year is paid. A membership can never be in arrears. If the next membership year starts and you have not paid, your membership is canceled (possibly after a grace period).

    This is not a big difference. A number of members have commented that we should be all inclusive and the proposed bylaws could easily be changed to reflect this.

    The board structure is where I had the biggest concern. Primarily in two areas: the board structure and the use of SIGs. I like the inclusion of SIGs, but they are not for core club functions, but instead are ? a group of users interested in a particular subject who discuss the subject at meetings ? (defined by http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/SIG.html). Yes, that perhaps could be a core function, but core club functions should be addressed at the board level. Having core functions represented at the board level is important to ensure good and balanced decision making.

    The Special Interest Groups were at the core of Ray's presentation in the general meeting in April and seemed to get an enthusiastic reception. The idea behind them is to encourage members to become active in their own particular area of interest with funding from the Club if necessary. As you say, they are not for the day to day running of the Club which would be done by the officers. The groups were proposed because many members were losing interest in the Club, in part, because there was little tailored to their interests. SIGs are a means to allow these interests to flourish. The difference between the proposal and your suggestion is that general and social activities as well as technical would be included. Your suggested SPGs would be SIGs.

    So, I would propose an eight member board (aka executive) consisting of:
    President
    - runs meetings, etc.
    Secretary
    - maintains club records
    Treasurer
    - manages club finances
    Director ? Facilities and Operations
    - care and operation of club equipment and facilities

    Absolutely. Identical to what is being suggested.

    Director - Members and Development (Membership, Training)
    - engages membership, encourages membership, new and existing member development/training
    Director - Communications (Newsletter, Website, etc.)
    - coordinates internal and external communications
    Director - Community Engagement and Public Safety
    - supports club interaction with the community and public safety groups
    Director - SIGs and SPGs (SPG = Special Program/Project Group)
    - board liaison to SIGs and SPGs
    - SIGs are generally of a technical nature initiated by any two or more members and facilitated by the SIG members.
    - SPGs are of a general nature and are more likely initiated by the board to facilitate some type of special project or event. Examples could be establishment of a new repeater, a celebration event, a radio event, etc.

    This is also identical to what is being suggested. The Activities Director, it is suggested, should have a more or less permanent position on the Board because of the importance of coordinating Club activities. One difference is that the proposed Bylaws and Pand P suggest that the SIG drives the appointment of a Director. For example, a group interested in developing all the aspects of membership would be represented by a membership Director on the Board ( not appointed BY the Board). This, of course, presupposes hat there are enough members interested in forming a membership SIG. Again, the idea was to get more members to participate in their Club's activities.

    You will notice the number of member focused roles outweighs the administration oriented ones. Ans, one role missing from this list is vice-president. Personally I don't see a need. I'd rather see an advisory (or full member) role of past president if there is a desire for that type of role. The term for all positions should be the same.

    Also agreed. We propose to abolish the role of VP. Since I am VP, I can only be in favour of this!

    The holders of any of the board positions should not be expected to be the sole person responsible for all related work. They are ?simply? the leader to facilitate the activities.

    EXACTLY! That is why we are trying to develop SIGs whose activities can be facilitated by the Director.

    When I first heard about the club bylaw review and reasons for the revisions (as also noted in the summary sheet) the rational was a need for the club to be member driven instead of board driven. The process, as I've seen it, to this point, has been top-down. To get a set of bylaws that reflect the interests of the club membership and that is driven from the membership up I would propose the establishment of a bylaws group consisting of a number of general members (nominated by the membership) and one delegate from the board (selected by the board). This group would accept member feedback on the club mission statement and members views on bylaw content. They would then, over a period of time, provide the membership with proposed mission/bylaws for comment and refinement culminating in a vote on a final version of the proposed items. I would begin by finalizing the club mission statement (independent of the bylaws) as the bylaws really are in support of the club mission.

    This is also worth a comment. The Mission Statement was also discussed at a general meeting before any work on the Bylaws was started. Much of the mission statement came from a syntactical rearrangement of the previous Bylaws "Duties and Responsibilities". The membership has been encouraged to discuss this (viz. this forum and this reply) but I agree that we need a more detailed discussion with ALL members not just a committee. I have a novel proposal that I will introduce at the AGM which will either result in a complete shambles or an informed discussion. I hope you will be there!!
  14. #34
    Club Member
    Join Date Mar 2014
    Posts 219
    One thing I will say is this mike im impressed with your level of dedication time and transparency it is a very welcome change to times past


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. #35
    Club Member
    Join Date May 2015
    Posts 4
    One fundamental difference between the proposed bylaws and my comments is the proposed bylaws have a small board with what I'll call directors on demand (initiated by SIGs). The directors I suggested are permanent board members and there are no directors on demand. If a new director is deemed necessary it should be proposed to the membership and appropriate adjustments made (if approved).

    As you pointed out SPGs (as I called them) are really a variation os SIGs. I differentiated between them because SIG has a relative specific meaning and referring to SPG as SIG really confuses what SIGs are. I really liked the idea/structure of a SIG for special projects and hence I mutated it to SPG.

    Let me preface this by saying that this is my personal opinion rather than one endorsed by the Board.

    I was pleased to see CLRs comments because his suggestion tally rather closely with the proposed Bylaws. I will see if I can spot the differences - my comments in italics bold.

    As a new member I don't have any background on the history of the original bylaws or what the issues of the past were ,and my perspective on the bylaws is formed only by what I understand the goals (mission) of the club to be and what I see as reasonable for a club.

    My comments are in no way a criticism of the persons who prepared the proposed bylaws or the effort that went into creating them. It is an enormous undertaking and the those involved are to be commended and thanked for their efforts.

    However, the bylaws as proposed do not reflect an organizations framework that I can support. They appear to have been developed from the position of what we don't want instead of what we do want (primarily based on the discussion around them). Following are the elements I think would make for a good set of bylaws. FYI, a basic version of bylaws is available from Service Alberta here: https://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/Fo...ntered_(2).pdf.

    Membership
    If the goal is to encourage membership and participation then membership requirements should be pretty simple ? anyone with an interest in amateur radio and who pays the membership fee. If should not matter whether you have a call sign or not. Not having a call sign would limit your ability to take advantage of some club benefits, but it should not be a membership differentiator. So, one and only one type of member (you're either one or you're not). As for fees (which are not part of the bylaws I would suggest only two different fees ? the regular membership fee and a reduced fee for students. No family fee, no seniors fee, no lifetime memberships, no honorary memberships, no associate memberships. Memberships would be terminated at the end of the membership year unless the fee for the next year is paid. A membership can never be in arrears. If the next membership year starts and you have not paid, your membership is canceled (possibly after a grace period).

    This is not a big difference. A number of members have commented that we should be all inclusive and the proposed bylaws could easily be changed to reflect this.

    The board structure is where I had the biggest concern. Primarily in two areas: the board structure and the use of SIGs. I like the inclusion of SIGs, but they are not for core club functions, but instead are ? a group of users interested in a particular subject who discuss the subject at meetings ? (defined by http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/SIG.html). Yes, that perhaps could be a core function, but core club functions should be addressed at the board level. Having core functions represented at the board level is important to ensure good and balanced decision making.

    The Special Interest Groups were at the core of Ray's presentation in the general meeting in April and seemed to get an enthusiastic reception. The idea behind them is to encourage members to become active in their own particular area of interest with funding from the Club if necessary. As you say, they are not for the day to day running of the Club which would be done by the officers. The groups were proposed because many members were losing interest in the Club, in part, because there was little tailored to their interests. SIGs are a means to allow these interests to flourish. The difference between the proposal and your suggestion is that general and social activities as well as technical would be included. Your suggested SPGs would be SIGs.

    So, I would propose an eight member board (aka executive) consisting of:
    President
    - runs meetings, etc.
    Secretary
    - maintains club records
    Treasurer
    - manages club finances
    Director ? Facilities and Operations
    - care and operation of club equipment and facilities

    Absolutely. Identical to what is being suggested.

    Director - Members and Development (Membership, Training)
    - engages membership, encourages membership, new and existing member development/training
    Director - Communications (Newsletter, Website, etc.)
    - coordinates internal and external communications
    Director - Community Engagement and Public Safety
    - supports club interaction with the community and public safety groups
    Director - SIGs and SPGs (SPG = Special Program/Project Group)
    - board liaison to SIGs and SPGs
    - SIGs are generally of a technical nature initiated by any two or more members and facilitated by the SIG members.
    - SPGs are of a general nature and are more likely initiated by the board to facilitate some type of special project or event. Examples could be establishment of a new repeater, a celebration event, a radio event, etc.

    This is also identical to what is being suggested. The Activities Director, it is suggested, should have a more or less permanent position on the Board because of the importance of coordinating Club activities. One difference is that the proposed Bylaws and Pand P suggest that the SIG drives the appointment of a Director. For example, a group interested in developing all the aspects of membership would be represented by a membership Director on the Board ( not appointed BY the Board). This, of course, presupposes hat there are enough members interested in forming a membership SIG. Again, the idea was to get more members to participate in their Club's activities.

    You will notice the number of member focused roles outweighs the administration oriented ones. Ans, one role missing from this list is vice-president. Personally I don't see a need. I'd rather see an advisory (or full member) role of past president if there is a desire for that type of role. The term for all positions should be the same.

    Also agreed. We propose to abolish the role of VP. Since I am VP, I can only be in favour of this!

    The holders of any of the board positions should not be expected to be the sole person responsible for all related work. They are ?simply? the leader to facilitate the activities.

    EXACTLY! That is why we are trying to develop SIGs whose activities can be facilitated by the Director.

    When I first heard about the club bylaw review and reasons for the revisions (as also noted in the summary sheet) the rational was a need for the club to be member driven instead of board driven. The process, as I've seen it, to this point, has been top-down. To get a set of bylaws that reflect the interests of the club membership and that is driven from the membership up I would propose the establishment of a bylaws group consisting of a number of general members (nominated by the membership) and one delegate from the board (selected by the board). This group would accept member feedback on the club mission statement and members views on bylaw content. They would then, over a period of time, provide the membership with proposed mission/bylaws for comment and refinement culminating in a vote on a final version of the proposed items. I would begin by finalizing the club mission statement (independent of the bylaws) as the bylaws really are in support of the club mission.

    This is also worth a comment. The Mission Statement was also discussed at a general meeting before any work on the Bylaws was started. Much of the mission statement came from a syntactical rearrangement of the previous Bylaws "Duties and Responsibilities". The membership has been encouraged to discuss this (viz. this forum and this reply) but I agree that we need a more detailed discussion with ALL members not just a committee. I have a novel proposal that I will introduce at the AGM which will either result in a complete shambles or an informed discussion. I hope you will be there!!
    Last edited by va6clr; 28th October at 04:23 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts